Is Dave saved?
Millennial Reign
this, we need to find out where he is specifically referred to in
Scripture.
According to his own criteria, I have performed searches for "Dave" and
"Raymond" in his preferred KJV. The results are as follows;
Sorry. No results found for "Dave" in Keyword Search.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Dave&qs_version=9
Sorry. No results found for "Raymond" in Keyword Search.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Raymond&qs_version=9
The shocking discovery is that neither "Dave" nor "Raymond" can be found in
Scripture.
What are we left to conclude? Is Dave saved?
Flowerchild
"Millennium")
duke
>What are we left to conclude? Is Dave saved?
Only God knows.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Saint Zombie
wrote:
> Do a search on "Millennial Reign", tell us what you find. (or
>"Millennium")
Hello God, are you still there. Knock knock... hello, is anybody home?
Yes my dear son, yes I am still here. You can find me on the internet.
Actually my dear son, I don't speak anymore. Except on the internet.
Ananias917
Let us note that once again, after being unable to
respond to the points I made, we now have ANOTHER
FUTURIST starting A THREAD for the SOLE PURPOSE
OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME!
Do you really think this makes you look honest? You
state some nonsense about searching for me in the
KJV and because you don't find my name there,
that means I'm not saved and I'm the one who's
off the wall here???
Dude, you have lost it so bad and you are so upset
because I punched holes in your doctrine, that
you have now obviously gone into the depths of
insanity!
See a psychiatrist and get some meds, dude!
The sad part is, the lunacy of the futurists will be
revealed by other futurists actually jumping on this
bad wagon and actually agreeing with you! <chuckle>
Maybe not now, of course, now that I have pointed
out the lunacy of your post. :)
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17
Millennial Reign
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:36:40 +1300, Millennial Reign
> <bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
> Do you really think this makes you look honest? You
> state some nonsense about searching for me in the
> KJV and because you don't find my name there,
> that means I'm not saved and I'm the one who's
> off the wall here???
Top posting now? Hmmmm... Something must have unsettled him if he does what
he tells other people not to do.
Dave's man-made doctrines have been disproved by Scripture.
He insists that other posters show him where various terms they use to
describe something are used in the Bible, things like millenium which is
1000 years, but because the exact term "millenium" is not found in the
Bible even though the definition is exactly the same, he uses this as a
convenient distraction in an attempt to unsettle other posters in a show of
pedantry.
Using his own illogical theories, we find that Scripture makes *no* mention
of him, so by his own bizarre doctrine (combined with his insistence that
various Scriptures do not apply to people today) he therefore denies any
possibility of his own salvation.
Puffed up with pride, he condemns himself with his own words.
What is going to happen to you when your physical tent passes Dave?
Your focus should be centred on the Lord and His Word, and not on your
campaign of false, disproven, man-made doctrine.
Flowerchild
Just because you don't agree with another regarding the scriptures
means they are not saved?
Disprove that Christ's reign is forever and is not of this world, and
that it is those who died who reign with God and Christ for a thousand
years.
Millennial Reign
> Millennial Reign wrote:
>> Dave's man-made doctrines have been disproved by Scripture.
>>
>> He insists that other posters show him where various terms they use to
>> describe something are used in the Bible, things like millenium which is
>> 1000 years, but because the exact term "millenium" is not found in the
>> Bible even though the definition is exactly the same, he uses this as a
>> convenient distraction in an attempt to unsettle other posters in a show of
>> pedantry.
>>
>> Using his own illogical theories, we find that Scripture makes *no* mention
>> of him, so by his own bizarre doctrine (combined with his insistence that
>> various Scriptures do not apply to people today) he therefore denies any
>> possibility of his own salvation.
>>
>> Puffed up with pride, he condemns himself with his own words.
>>
>> What is going to happen to you when your physical tent passes Dave?
>>
>> Your focus should be centred on the Lord and His Word, and not on your
>> campaign of false, disproven, man-made doctrine.
>
>
> Just because you don't agree with another regarding the scriptures
> means they are not saved?
> Disprove that Christ's reign is forever and is not of this world, and
> that it is those who died who reign with God and Christ for a thousand
> years.
What I am illustrating (and which it appears you have failed to grasp) is
that certain doctrines and logic he uses are so flawed that, taken to their
unnatural conclusion, result in Dave denying himself salvation.
False teachings that lead to destruction have been recorded as a warning in
Scripture. Two examples are listed below;
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift
destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1 NIV
Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the
truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they
destroy the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17b-18 NIV
I have no intention of disproving the duration of Christ's reign as
Scripture is quite clear on this - you have mistakenly been distracted by
periphery. The example using the term "Millenium" has been provided to show
a common practice engaged in by Dave.
Saint Zombie
wrote:
>Do a search on "Millennial Reign"
May as well connect it to PD.
Pulpitfire
wrote:
> Just because you don't agree with another regarding the scriptures
>means they are not saved?
> Disprove that Christ's reign is forever and is not of this world, and
>that it is those who died who reign with God and Christ for a thousand
>years.
He's not really implying Dave is unsaved. What he is doing, is using
sarcasm to show that if Dave applies his own principles of
interpretation (i.e. if a word like millennium isn't in the Bible,
then the doctrine must be false), he would have to conclude he is not
saved, since his name doesn't occur in the Bible.
Christ does reign forever. He reigns 1,000 years on earth, in His
millennial kingdom, then He destroys the present heavens and earth,
creates new ones, and reigns for eternity, from the New Jerusalem
(Revelation 19-22). That's not a false doctrine, that is the plain,
literal statement of Revelation 19-22. There is no conflict between
Christ's millennial and eternal reign.
Christ's kingdom was "not of this world", during His first coming, in
the sense that He had to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world,
and allow Himself to be handled by the likes of Pilot. When He comes
a second time, in glory, He will indeed reign over the world exactly
as it plainly states in Revelation 19.
You don't have to speculate and spiritualize to come to that
conclusion, as that's what the Bible plainly says. You have to ignore
that, and invent a "spiritual" interpretation of it, in order to
conclude anything otherwise. And by the way, the idea something must
be either physical, or spiritual, but not both, is a false dichotomy.
Christ is God in the flesh, and likewise His kingdom will be both
spiritual and physical.
Remove 123 from my e-mail address to contact me directly.
======================================================
Christ died for our sins and God raised Him from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-3).
Rely on this finished work alone for salvation. www.pulpitfire.org
======================================================
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
>On 10 Dec 2005 16:51:16 -0800, Flowerchild wrote:
What you are failing to admit, is that you snipped my
arguments and tried to focus on one statement and then
claimed that was my whole argument.
What you are now failing to admit, is that you are
dancing around his request that you prove your beliefs
Biblically. You know that you can't now, because I
refuted the supposed "1,000 year reign of Christ
from Earth", which you also snipped.
What you are also failing to admit, is that you did
indeed start this thread for the sole purpose of
personally attacking me and I am not even currently
involved in a discussion with you. The other thread
is ended. You are upset that I refuted your false
belief system and you are angry at me, that I won't
stoop down to your level of personally attacking
the other person.
You start a thread with nothing but personal attacks on
me and then argue in that same thread, that you are
the good guy.
You then claim, after doing this, that *I* am the one
who is rattled? Please! <chuckle>
>False teachings that lead to destruction have been recorded as a warning in
>Scripture. Two examples are listed below;
And now you wish to pretend that you want to honestly
discuss the issues and we both know, that if I respond,
you will pull the same tactic you did before, of
ignoring what I say. And nothing you state below was
even brought up in the thread that you and I were in,
so you're LYING when you say they are, "examples". (:
>But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
>false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive
>heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift
>destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1 NIV
>
>Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the
>truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they
>destroy the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17b-18 NIV
>
>I have no intention of disproving the duration of Christ's reign as
>Scripture is quite clear on this - you have mistakenly been distracted by
>periphery. The example using the term "Millenium" has been provided to show
>a common practice engaged in by Dave.
Yea, sure, it's "quite clear".
I.e., you cannot defend your belief Scripturally and
you now know that Revelation 20:4 does not speak
of a 1,000 year reign of Christ, as I proved to you.
You futurists go to great lengths to document and
detail your beliefs on any other subject in the Bible.
Yet, when it comes to this, you can't do it and after
you post your initial message and your view is
refuted, you immediately launch a personal attack
and then go and start threads for that specific purpose
and then claim that it's me who isn't acting like
a Christian. This is very telling and ONCE AGAIN,
you are not able to back up your claims. All you
can do, is make accusations that you cannot prove,
because they aren't true.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On 10 Dec 2005 16:51:16 -0800, "Flowerchild" <sha...@netzero.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Just because you don't agree with another regarding the scriptures
>>means they are not saved?
>> Disprove that Christ's reign is forever and is not of this world, and
>>that it is those who died who reign with God and Christ for a thousand
>>years.
>
>He's not really implying Dave is unsaved. What he is doing, is using
>sarcasm to show that if Dave applies his own principles of
>interpretation (i.e. if a word like millennium isn't in the Bible,
>then the doctrine must be false), he would have to conclude he is not
>saved, since his name doesn't occur in the Bible.
I never based my argument on the word, "millennium",
so that was a false argument to make against me.
>Christ does reign forever. He reigns 1,000 years on earth, in His
>millennial kingdom, then He destroys the present heavens and earth,
>creates new ones, and reigns for eternity, from the New Jerusalem
>(Revelation 19-22). That's not a false doctrine, that is the plain,
>literal statement of Revelation 19-22. There is no conflict between
>Christ's millennial and eternal reign.
He reigns forever, yet keeps switching thrones?
Sounds to me like He'd be evacuating.
The truth is, I proved to you that Rev 20 does not
speak of a thousand year reign of Christ and only
talks about how long the beheaded saints reign
WITH Christ. And they are not on Earth, but in
Heaven, since John says he saw, "the SOULS of
them". you know this and you snipped it when
I showed it to you and then began to attack me
personally. (:
I am not going to argue with you any more. You
showed that you are incapable of defending your
beliefs and that all you were interested in, was
ignoring the facts and then lying about what
you were shown and anyone can read the thread
and see for themselves, how much you ignored.
I kept showing you many different things and
you kept ignoring them and trying to claim that
my argument was based on one passage, just as
he did.
Have a nice day.
>Christ's kingdom was "not of this world", during His first coming, in
>the sense that He had to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world,
>and allow Himself to be handled by the likes of Pilot. When He comes
>a second time, in glory, He will indeed reign over the world exactly
>as it plainly states in Revelation 19.
>
>You don't have to speculate and spiritualize to come to that
>conclusion, as that's what the Bible plainly says. You have to ignore
>that, and invent a "spiritual" interpretation of it, in order to
>conclude anything otherwise. And by the way, the idea something must
>be either physical, or spiritual, but not both, is a false dichotomy.
>Christ is God in the flesh, and likewise His kingdom will be both
>spiritual and physical.
>
>Remove 123 from my e-mail address to contact me directly.
>======================================================
>
>Christ died for our sins and God raised Him from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-3).
>Rely on this finished work alone for salvation. www.pulpitfire.org
>
>======================================================
--
Millennial Reign
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:16:45 +1300, Millennial Reign
> <bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
>>I have no intention of disproving the duration of Christ's reign as
>>Scripture is quite clear on this - you have mistakenly been distracted by
>>periphery. The example using the term "Millenium" has been provided to show
>>a common practice engaged in by Dave.
>
> Yea, sure, it's "quite clear".
>
> I.e., you cannot defend your belief Scripturally and
> you now know that Revelation 20:4 does not speak
> of a 1,000 year reign of Christ, as I proved to you.
You have never proven that Revelation 20:4 does not speak of a thousand
years (1,000 years, a millenium), as this is quite clearly written.
Instead, I note in your discussions with other posters that you set up a
distractionary strawman that you call "a 1,000 year reign of Christ", to
sustain a false argument against those you call "futurists" that they
somehow believe that Christ gets booted off his throne by Satan.
Why do you need to be dishonest?
Flowerchild
The reason I sigh when some say "Millennium" is that everyone who does
believes it is a thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, a 1000 years
of peace on Earth while Christ sits in Jerusalem somewhere. I am yet to
meet someone who says "Millennium", and believes that those who died
reign as priests of God and Christ and with Christ for a thousand years
in Heaven amongst the thrones....just like the Bible says.
Is that the case with you? You have never said.
See, I say "those who reign with Christ for a thousand years", not
"Millennium". The way I see it, if one was not taught by men that
Christ will reign on Earth for a thousand years, they say "Millennium",
but if one grew up with nothing but the Bible they would say "those who
reign with Christ for a thousand years".
If JESUS was going to reign on Earth for a thousand years, he would
have said so as He taught His disciples, but He did not say a single
word about it.
But we both know there are many who might understand it [either way]
who will inherit etrernal life, that im sure of. Above all, love one
another.
I have somewhat against Annanias917 for the way it seems he tries to
make people who do not agree with him feel stupid, but he makes good
sence as he reasons many scriptures too. Of course I don't agree with
everything he teaches, just as not everyone agrees with your
understanding of scripture, or Protestants and Catholics...but his
understanding of "those who reign with Christ for a thousand years" is
right on, 100% Biblical.
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
P.S.: I recognize your cheap attempt to try to bait me
into another discussion in which you will snip
everything I say and again pretend to be honest.
Millennial Reign
> I have somewhat against Annanias917 for the way it seems he tries to
> make people who do not agree with him feel stupid, but he makes good
> sence as he reasons many scriptures too.
This is a point I have raised in another thread. That when tackling issues
where a biblical perspective is required, Dave provides some solid
exposition with Scriptural support (issues regarding origins and
homosexuality come to mind here).
The problems come when he insists on placing his campaign of man-made
doctrine foremost when he should be focussing on expounding Christ.
Dave's man-made doctrines mingled in amongst the Word of the Lord is like
chaff amongst the wheat; a rotting carcass in a fine garden.
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
you snip it all, even in this message and then claim
that I didn't prove anything and *I'm* dishonest?!
<chuckle>
Flowerchild
The reason I sigh when some say "Millennium" is that everyone who does
believes it is a thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, a 1000 years
of peace on Earth while Christ sits in Jerusalem somewhere. I am yet to
meet someone who says "Millennium", and believes that those who died
reign as priests of God and Christ and with Christ for a thousand years
amongst the thrones in heaven....just like the Bible says.
Ananias917
> I have somewhat against Annanias917 for the way it seems he tries to
>make people who do not agree with him feel stupid,
I always start out polite and then, after the first
rebuttal I offer, which is always polite, I am attacked
on a personal level.
>but his
>understanding of "those who reign with Christ for a thousand years" is
>right on, 100% Biblical.
Something the vain futurists will not admit.
Millennial Reign
> Is that the case with you? You have never said.
That is one aspect I find particularly amusing when seeing Dave make so
many comments regarding my supposed beliefs.
This is where the issue of the resurrection comes into it.
Do you believe in the resurrection, in a manner similar to that recorded in
John 11 regarding Lazarus?
What do you make of the following verses? Where and when does this
resurrection take place? What is the significance of the term "first
resurrection"? When does the final judgment take place?
Revelation 20:4-6 KJV
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto
them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of
Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or
in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
finished. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Flowerchild
Millennial Reign wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2005 23:02:22 -0800, Flowerchild wrote:
>
> > Is that the case with you? You have never said.
>
> That is one aspect I find particularly amusing when seeing Dave make so
> many comments regarding my supposed beliefs.
>
> This is where the issue of the resurrection comes into it.
>
> Do you believe in the resurrection, in a manner similar to that recorded in
> John 11 regarding Lazarus?
Lazarus' body rose from the dead, but here we see that John saw "the
souls" of them who were beheaded, and we must consider what Jesus said
to Martha too:
(ESV-a fine translation)
Joh 11:23-27 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection
on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the
life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and
everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe
this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ,
the Son of God, who is coming into the world."
>What is the significance of the term "first resurrection"?
Jesus was saying everyone who believes in Him and dies shall never
die, but will live again. These of the first resurrection were
victorious over the beast, a very special group that were granted a
reign with God and Christ for 1000 years. The dead who don't believe in
Christ pass into the second death, they are not resurrected. (You will
notice it says nothing about a second ressurection, only a second
death.)
>
> What do you make of the following verses? Where and when does this
> resurrection take place?
When they died they were caught up to the thrones which are in heaven.
>When does the final judgment take place?
I believe the judgement of this world began when Jesus said it would,
when He rose from the dead and ascended to the Father :
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of
this world be cast out.
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
>Do you believe in the resurrection, in a manner similar to that recorded in
>John 11 regarding Lazarus?
>
>What do you make of the following verses? Where and when does this
>resurrection take place? What is the significance of the term "first
>resurrection"? When does the final judgment take place?
>
>Revelation 20:4-6 KJV
>And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto
>them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of
>Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
>neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or
>in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
>
>But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
>finished. This is the first resurrection.
You are assuming that your belief about this 1,000 year
reign of Christ on Earth is true and then inserting it
here. Nowhere does this passage say that Christ reigns
for 1,000 years. Rather, it says that the beheaded
reigned WITH Him for a thousand years.
I.e, If King Joey reigned for 20 years and then Betty
marries him and reigns with him (note the same wording)
for 20 years, does that mean that King Joey reigned
for 20 years? No, he reigned for 40 years, but Betty
reigned WITH HIM for 20 years. Look at the wording
of the passage ("WITH CHRIST").
The focus is not Christ. It is ON those who reigned
with Him that the passage focuses on.
To sum it up, here are the facts...
1) This passage does not mention a bodily resurrection,
but notes that John sees THEIR SOULS.
2) Thus, John is seeing this happening in Heaven.
3) This passage does not mention Christ coming
to Earth, nor does Rev 20:1-8 at all. Can you show
me where it says, "and He came down to Earth",
or something to that effect, after John sees THEIR
SOULS in Heaven?
4) It does not say how long Christ reigns at all.
It says how long the souls of the beheaded reign
WITH HIM, before the second resurrection.
These are all facts and so, the Earth bound 1,000 year
\reign of Christ is not taught in Rev 20 and frankly,
that is the only place upon which this doctrine rests.
Thus, if it is not there, it is not anywhere and should
be discarded as unBiblical.
>Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
>the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
>Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
See above.
Ananias917
<sha...@netzero.com> spake thusly:
> I have somewhat against Annanias917 for the way it seems he tries to
>make people who do not agree with him feel stupid,
Ya know, I'm not saying this to knock you, nor to blow
my own horn, but I find this statement by you
interesting, considering that under your old nick, you
were one of the ones who opposed me a great deal and
then, after a bunch of exchanges between us, you
disappear for a short time and then emerge again,
stating that you have discovered (as if it came to you
out of the blue) that the Preterist doctrine is correct
and then, when I posted to you in agreement with
what you were saying, not even mentioning the fact
that you were blowing me off, as if I had no part in
that, because I don't care about credit, I was just
glad to see you finding the truth, you then proceeded
to ignore me completely. (: It was as if you were too
ashamed to face me, knowing that you had argued
against me so hard and had thrown insults my way,
saying I was in the dark. But I wouldn't have rubbed
it in. Apparently, you either thought I would have,
or were too embarrassed.
But my point is, that I stated already, is that when
you came back, you ignored me as if I didn't exist
and now post this? That YOU have something against
ME, when I'm the one who God used to show you
the truth, which you now accept as truth and you
insulted me previously? (:
I would have understood the ignoring me part,
but to say this on top of that?
As I said, I always start out polite, just as I did
with you. And after I post my first response,
the futurists begin their personal attacks. (:
Millennial Reign
> 1) This passage does not mention a bodily resurrection,
> but notes that John sees THEIR SOULS.
1 Corinthians 15:42 (NIV) has the following;
"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is
perishable, it is raised imperishable"
What do you say happens to someone after their physical death?
Do you believe these souls are given a resurrection body?
What form do you claim this resurrection takes place in?
> 2) Thus, John is seeing this happening in Heaven.
He also sees what happens upon the Earth.
> 3) This passage does not mention Christ coming
> to Earth, nor does Rev 20:1-8 at all. Can you show
> me where it says, "and He came down to Earth",
> or something to that effect, after John sees THEIR
> SOULS in Heaven?
At this point in time, I won't seek to reference other Scriptures that are
commonly linked with these events, but instead seek your opinion on the
following;
When Satan is released from his prison, where do the following events take
place?
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison
and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth -
Gog and Magog - to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand
on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and
surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves.
[Revelation 20:7-9 NIV]
Mike Bugal
To deny that there is a second resurrection is to deny the plain
reading of this chapter.
"But the REST of the dead LIVED NOT AGAIN until the thousand years were
finished. This is the first resurrection.Blessed and holy is he that
hath part in the FIRST resurrection: on such the second death hath no
power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign
with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:5-6)
"living again" and "resurrection" are synonymous. Also to refer to an
event being the "first" logically implies that a "second" will
follow... and it does!
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books
were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life:
and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the
books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which
were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in
them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And
death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast
into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:12-15)
And lest any notion of "annihilationism" enter into this notion that
the unrighteous just aren't resurrected, note that when Satan is cast
into this "lake of fire" that the Word says:
"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet ARE, and shall be
tormented day and night forever and ever" (Rev 20:10)
Not "were, but are now destroyed", but "ARE"... continual existence.
These were human characters in the Book of Revelation... and they are
not annihilated. Neither will any of those who are cast into it at the
end of time.
His and Yours,
Mike Bugal
Heartland Christian Ministries
http://www.hcm2.org/
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
Okay, I am about done with you for good. Once again,
you ignored what I posted and snipped it and refused
to deal with what I said, head on. That is completely
dishonest of you. You just cannot admit when what
you have said has been shown to be a misreading. (:
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
>What do you say happens to someone after their physical death?
You ignored what I said about Rev 20. If you want to
hang on to your belief, fine. But you should at least
have the integrity to admit that what you claimed,
is NOT found in THAT passage!
Millennial Reign
Dave doesn't seem to respond well to considered responses. Perhaps they
expose some gaping holes in his man-made doctrine.
It would appear that he prefers inventing distractionary strawmen that he
can easily knock over, than address important Scriptural matters.
I suppose that attempting to claim that Satan's deception of the nations
occurs in heaven would be too obvious a fraud.
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:39:15 GMT, Ananias917 wrote:
>
>> 1) This passage does not mention a bodily resurrection,
>> but notes that John sees THEIR SOULS.
>
>1 Corinthians 15:42 (NIV) has the following;
>"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is
>perishable, it is raised imperishable"
What is raised imperishable?
Let's look at what Paul wrote about this. Paul does
not teach that our bodies come up out of the grave
and are transformed.
Whoever remained until the return of Jesus, would still
be alive here on Earth (when that event took place upon
Jesus' return in 70 A.D.), but now death would be
permanently done away with. At least for believers.
The rest would face the second death. But remember,
Paul said this could not happen, until Jesus returned
and then death would lose its sting.
"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory?" - 1 Corinthians 15:55
That is what he meant and he was referencing the return
of Jesus. Note that we must put v55 above in context.
First we must acknowledge that when referencing death
for believers (OT, or NT), the statement is that they
"slept".
1 Corinthians 15:20-26
20) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become
the firstfruits of them that slept.
Notice here, Christ became the firstfruits of those
that slept (past tense, died before His death and
resurrection). Now reference the statements about
Christ preaching to those in prison. Preaching what?
He rose and so they rose also (they were "sleeping").
Also see where there was a resurrection of the dead
when Christ was crucified. I am not saying that their
physical bodies rose (since it is not our physical
bodies that will rise, as I discuss later in this
message), but they were at least seen. You are
assuming that it was physical bodies, but angels,
for example, can be seen when they want to be
and they were never even born human and yet,
their bodies could be touched and felt, when
they wanted them to be. God here, made them
visible for the purpose of signaling to man, that
a resurrection had taken place. At most, this
is a reference to those who died and had faith,
before Jesus came. God simply used a physical
sign here, to reveal a spiritual event that was
taking place.
21) For since by man came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead.
22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive.
Note, "shall be made alive". It is still in the future
at that point. Those who die in Christ would sleep
until His return.
23) But every man in his own order: Christ the
firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his
coming.
See above. At the return of Christ, the believers
would rise.
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.
25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies
under his feet.
26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Note: The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Now what the Rapturists do, is to try to claim that we
will die, be with God and then, one day, return to
Earth and be raised and take our old physical bodies
again, that have miraculously been changed. But does
that thinking hold water? No, it doesn't. Is that
teaching found anywhere in the Bible? No, it is not.
The fact is, that unless Christ returned, you die and
sleep until He does, or at the least, until He sets the
wheels in motion of His return. Paul clearly taught
that later event (later from that point in time).
Anyway, let's look at 1 Corinthians a bit more...
1 Corinthians 15:35-37,50-55
35) But some man will say, How are the dead raised up?
and with what body do they come?
36) Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened,
except it die:
37) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that
body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of
wheat, or of some other grain:
Notice here that Paul tells us that what is sown isn't
what is grown. Therefore, the body that goes into the
ground is not the body that is raised. So our physical
bodies can rot away all they like. It won't make any
difference, because their usefulness is gone. Our
physical bodies die and then we live unto eternal life.
50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption.
Here Paul tells us that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God. So it is not a physical kingdom
here on Earth, as the end timers like to claim. Yet
they won't face the fact that they violate the words
of Jesus...
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said,
The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
You make the same mistake that the Pharisees did,
demanding that God set up His kingdom here on Earth,
when Jesus said you would NOT be able to see the
kingdom of God coming here on Earth. It is within you.
When we are resurrected, it is not a reassembling of
our physical bodies. Rather, like the shell of a seed
that is disposed of, when what is inside comes out, so
are these bodies, when we die and our souls go to be
with God (see vs 35-37 above). In fact, that is the
analogy that Paul used (a seed), is it not?
51) Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Now here you may think that you will hear a trumpet and
our physical bodies will be changed, but Paul doesn't
actually say that. He says that we will be changed.
He does not say, "Our physical bodies will be changed".
The dead (in Christ) will hear the trump and rise in
their permanent spiritual, incorruptible bodies, not
the living, but the living will be changed. Why does
it have to be a physical change? When we are born
again, are we not "translated into the kingdom of God's
dear Son"? Check Colossians 1:13. Yet no one looks
for a physical change. Isn't that a hypocritical
approach?
And if the trump is heard by the dead, doesn't it
make sense that it's a spiritual trump and not
a physically heard trump?
53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality.
54) So when this corruptible shall have put on
incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying
that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55) O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy
victory?
Now when does mortality put on immortality? When the
mortal is sown. I.e., when we die. We have been
changed, in that we will not sleep when we die. This
can only be true if Christ has already returned. So
now (after His return) we are immediately resurrected.
This is why Paul says, "O death, where is thy sting?".
Death has been conquered now. There is no more dying
and waiting to be resurrected. Note the following...
"For I am in a strait between two, having a desire to
depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"
- Philippians 1:23
Now obviously Paul was talking about dying here. So
let me ask you, if he was to wait thousands of years
sleeping, why would he expect to be with Christ? Easy,
because he knew that Christ's return was imminent. If
he slept at all, he knew it wouldn't be for long. Of
course, now you may try to tell me how Paul wouldn't
know how much time passed. But that is just a copout.
Take a look at this passage from the OT and see what
happened to the dead and note that when the Bible
talked about death, it referred to sleep....
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead
know not any thing..." - Ecclesiastes 9:5
The dead don't know anything. That is because they
slept. See the following Scripture also...
Acts 13:35-37
35) Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou
shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36) For David, after he had served his own generation
by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto
his fathers, and saw corruption:
37) But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
Note that David saw corruption. I have no doubt that
he is now in Heaven, but he did see corruption of his
physical body. Why do people believe that we die, then
receive a spiritual body in Heaven and live in the
mansion that Jesus said He prepared for us and then
claim that the best thing, is that we will come back
here and get even newer and better bodies and live on
Earth, as if that would be better than Heaven? Is
Earth better than Heaven? If it is to be better, why
didn't God move here when He created it? And why would
Jesus bother preparing a place in the mansions in His
Father's house, if we were leaving Heaven? After all,
He didn't say, "hotel". That is a place you live, not
a temporary setup.
And remember, Paul and the others spoke of rewards that
they would see when they went to be with Christ. By
your logic, they would be only temporary rewards. Is
Jesus an Indian giver? Do you have any comprehension
of what that belief means?
Please read the following passages SLOWLY and
CAREFULLY, with the intent of trying to show me where
it says that our physical bodies will be raised. :)
1 Corinthians 15:35-50
35) But some man will say, How are the dead raised up?
and with what body do they come?
36) Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened,
except it die:
37) And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that
body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of
wheat, or of some other grain:
38) But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him,
and to every seed his own body.
39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one
kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another
of fishes, and another of birds.
40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies
terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and
the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of
the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star
differeth from another star in glory.
42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown
in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43) It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it
is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual
body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body.
45) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a
living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit.
46) Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but
that which is natural; and afterward that which is
spiritual.
47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second
man is the Lord from heaven.
48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are
earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly.
49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth
corruption inherit incorruption.
Now, are you able to prove to me that the physical body
will be raised after reading those passages? :)
That which is sown (buried) is dead. That which is
raised is not that which is sown, but is a spiritual
body. Paul gave the analogy of a seed and did so,
because lots of people worked the land and anyone who
did would immediately understand the analogy. Just
like a seed, so is death and resurrection. Just like
the shell of the seed dies and falls away and the inner
is released to glory, so are we. Our "shell" (the
human body of flesh) dies and falls away, so that our
spirit, given an incorruptible body, may be raised to
the glory of God and to our glory in Christ.
Pulpitfire
>What you are failing to admit, is that you snipped my
>arguments and tried to focus on one statement and then
>claimed that was my whole argument.
[Translation: Good point about my exegetical inconsistency in trying
to dismiss Christ's millennial reign because the word millennial
doesn't occur, yet not dismissing my own salvation just because my
name doesn't occur in the Bible. I can't answer that, so I'll accuse
you of snipping something that supposedly defeated your view, long
enough to distract you, while I take the shell with the nut under it,
and move it to a different location.]
>What you are now failing to admit, is that you are
>dancing around his request that you prove your beliefs
>Biblically. You know that you can't now, because I
>refuted the supposed "1,000 year reign of Christ
>from Earth", which you also snipped.
[Translation: Rule number two specifically states that whenever I say
you haven't proved something, that constitutes irrefutable proof you
haven't, and you are then obligated to re-define your point
ad-infinitum. On the other hand, all I have to say is that I've
defeated your view, and that constitutes irrefutable proof I have.]
>What you are also failing to admit, is that you did
>indeed start this thread for the sole purpose of
>personally attacking me and I am not even currently
>involved in a discussion with you. The other thread
>is ended. You are upset that I refuted your false
>belief system and you are angry at me, that I won't
>stoop down to your level of personally attacking
>the other person.
>You start a thread with nothing but personal attacks on
>me and then argue in that same thread, that you are
>the good guy.
[Translation: For political purposes, let it be understood, that rule
three in my debate laws says that I shall always be perceived as the
both the victim, and the victor.]
>You then claim, after doing this, that *I* am the one
>who is rattled? Please! <chuckle>
[Translation: "I'm Pastor Dave, and pain is my chief export!"
Oh...woops...sorry, that was from my WWF audition rehearsal.]
>>False teachings that lead to destruction have been recorded as a warning in
>>Scripture. Two examples are listed below;
>And now you wish to pretend that you want to honestly
>discuss the issues and we both know, that if I respond,
>you will pull the same tactic you did before, of
>ignoring what I say. And nothing you state below was
>even brought up in the thread that you and I were in,
>so you're LYING when you say they are, "examples". (:
[Translation: I'd rather write a book about how you are a liar than
deal with the exegesis.]
>>But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be
>>false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive
>>heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift
>>destruction on themselves. 2 Peter 2:1 NIV
>>
>>Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the
>>truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they
>>destroy the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:17b-18 NIV
>>
>>I have no intention of disproving the duration of Christ's reign as
>>Scripture is quite clear on this - you have mistakenly been distracted by
>>periphery. The example using the term "Millenium" has been provided to show
>>a common practice engaged in by Dave.
>
>Yea, sure, it's "quite clear".
>
>I.e., you cannot defend your belief Scripturally and
>you now know that Revelation 20:4 does not speak
>of a 1,000 year reign of Christ, as I proved to you.
[Translation: Remember, my rules specifically state that your view
falls when I say you haven't proved it, yet my view defeats yours when
I say it has.]
>You futurists go to great lengths to document and
>detail your beliefs on any other subject in the Bible.
>Yet, when it comes to this, you can't do it and after
>you post your initial message and your view is
>refuted, you immediately launch a personal attack
>and then go and start threads for that specific purpose
>and then claim that it's me who isn't acting like
>a Christian. This is very telling and ONCE AGAIN,
>you are not able to back up your claims. All you
>can do, is make accusations that you cannot prove,
>because they aren't true.
[Translation: I just can't admit that when it says Christ shall reign
on earth for "1,000 years", that it actually means a millennium, or
that this in no way negates His eternal reign in New Jerusalem
thereafter.]
duke
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:49:29 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:36:40 +1300, Millennial Reign
>>
>>>What are we left to conclude? Is Dave saved?
>>
>>Only God knows.
>
>If God wasn't so slack nobody would need saving.
God gave us a choice - if he wanted automatic affection with no interest on the
part of the giver, he would have made us robots.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Pulpitfire
> The reason I sigh when some say "Millennium" is that everyone who does
>believes it is a thousand year reign of Christ on Earth, a 1000 years
>of peace on Earth while Christ sits in Jerusalem somewhere. I am yet to
>meet someone who says "Millennium", and believes that those who died
>reign as priests of God and Christ and with Christ for a thousand years
>in Heaven amongst the thrones....just like the Bible says.
> Is that the case with you? You have never said.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given
unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the
witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not
worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark
upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned
with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years
were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on
such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God
and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out
of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to
battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Ok...someone help me...did I overlook the part where it says the
saints will rule with Christ in heaven, or that the thrones were in
heaven? Doesn't it say something about a "resurrection" before their
reign, and contrast these saints the dead people who have not yet been
resurrected? Why do you have to be resurrected in order to reign with
Christ in heaven, if we are just talking about some disembodied
spirits? No, it's talking about things that are happening on earth,
where the "nations" of God and Magog are.
> See, I say "those who reign with Christ for a thousand years", not
>"Millennium". The way I see it, if one was not taught by men that
>Christ will reign on Earth for a thousand years, they say "Millennium",
>but if one grew up with nothing but the Bible they would say "those who
>reign with Christ for a thousand years".
* scratches head...hmm....1,000 years vs. millennium.....it's a draw!
> If JESUS was going to reign on Earth for a thousand years, he would
>have said so as He taught His disciples, but He did not say a single
>word about it.
Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto
his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and
signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Ok...here is Christ saying something about prophecy to...well, to his
disciple John.
> But we both know there are many who might understand it [either way]
>who will inherit etrernal life, that im sure of. Above all, love one
>another.
Yes, good point. Differing on your view of eschatology is not the same
as differing on the terms of salvation. You can't treat someone like
an infidel, just because they differ on their view of last things.
> I have somewhat against Annanias917 for the way it seems he tries to
>make people who do not agree with him feel stupid, but he makes good
>sence as he reasons many scriptures too. Of course I don't agree with
>everything he teaches, just as not everyone agrees with your
>understanding of scripture, or Protestants and Catholics...but his
>understanding of "those who reign with Christ for a thousand years" is
>right on, 100% Biblical.
Well, at least one thing I agree with, is that you can't persuade
someone to come over to your view by using every breath to convince
them they are a dishonest liar, as Ananias53 (oops, I mean Ananias
917) does. Such an approach will galvanize people against his view
from the outset. Actually, maybe it's a good thing for our view that
he behaves as he does, because it will most likely increase the number
of people who hate his view with passion. You know, I'm sick of
talking about Ananias. Let's talk about Christ's millennial reign
instead!
Pulpitfire
wrote:
See my other reply, which answers this question.
Where do you see the word that they are reigning "from heaven" in
Revelation 20?
Why does it say these saints are part of the first resurrection, and
that they "live again" before they reign with Christ, as contrasted to
the dead who are not yet resurrected? Where is your dead body
resurrected from, and why do you have to be resurrected to reign from
heaven as a disembodied spirit?
And why does this chapter connect the time of the reign of the saints
with Christ, for 1,000 years, with the binding of Satan, so he cannot
deceive the "nations" of the earth, and the release of Satan, so that
he again deceives the nations of the "four quarters of the earth"? If
they were reigning with Christ in heaven, the activity amongst the
nations of earth would have no affect whatever on their reign.
Everything in the passage suggests they are reigning on earth, and
nothing that I can see, says they reign from heaven. You are
resurrected from earth, not from heaven, and this is where they are
reigning over the "nations" of the "four quarters of the earth".
Pulpitfire
>Do you believe in the resurrection, in a manner similar to that recorded in
>John 11 regarding Lazarus?
>
>What do you make of the following verses? Where and when does this
>resurrection take place? What is the significance of the term "first
>resurrection"? When does the final judgment take place?
>
>Revelation 20:4-6 KJV
>And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto
>them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of
>Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
>neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or
>in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
>
>But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
>finished. This is the first resurrection.
>
>Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
>the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
>Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Good point. Without even seeing what you had written here, I came to
the same conclusion, just from simply reading Revelation 20. You are
resurrected from earth, and you don't have to be resurrected to reign
as a disembodied spirit from heaven. Further, it connects their reign
with the binding of Satan, so that he does not deceive the "nations"
of the "four quarters of the earth". Why would that be necessary, if
they were reigning from heaven, instead of on earth?
Pulpitfire
wrote:
> Lazarus' body rose from the dead, but here we see that John saw "the
>souls" of them who were beheaded, and we must consider what Jesus said
>to Martha too:
Yes, it says these souls "shall" (v6; future tense) rule and reign
with him, because they have part in the "first resurrection" (20:6).
When you are a saint, you are not spiritually dead, until God
resurrects your spirit (Eph. 2:1). You are physically dead until He
resurrects your body from the earth (cf. 1 Cor. 15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:1-6).
>(ESV-a fine translation)
>Joh 11:23-27 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
>Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection
>on the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the
>life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and
>everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe
>this?" She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ,
>the Son of God, who is coming into the world."
>
>>What is the significance of the term "first resurrection"?
> Jesus was saying everyone who believes in Him and dies shall never
>die, but will live again. These of the first resurrection were
>victorious over the beast, a very special group that were granted a
>reign with God and Christ for 1000 years. The dead who don't believe in
>Christ pass into the second death, they are not resurrected. (You will
>notice it says nothing about a second ressurection, only a second
>death.)
Yes...and therefore? Everyone who believes in Him will not die the
second death, but will live again, physically, just as they already do
live spiritually.
>>
>> What do you make of the following verses? Where and when does this
>> resurrection take place?
>
> When they died they were caught up to the thrones which are in heaven.
>
>>When does the final judgment take place?
>
>
> I believe the judgement of this world began when Jesus said it would,
>when He rose from the dead and ascended to the Father :
>
>Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of
>this world be cast out.
>
>>
>> Revelation 20:4-6 KJV
>> And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto
>> them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of
>> Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast,
>> neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or
>> in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
>>
>> But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were
>> finished. This is the first resurrection.
>>
>> Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
>> the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
>> Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Pulpitfire
>Okay, I am about done with you for good. Once again,
>you ignored what I posted and snipped it and refused
>to deal with what I said, head on. That is completely
>dishonest of you. You just cannot admit when what
>you have said has been shown to be a misreading. (:
...who would of thought it? ...Dave, having had his shell-game
theology soundly defeated, is now going to resort--once again--to
calling someone a liar, and hiding behind a kill file.
Pulpitfire
That's it...if you don't have a simple explanation for the plain
truth, just conjure up 600 lines of shell-game, double talk, and
confuse people into believing you have an intelligent explanation for
your blatant denial of the plain truth. Then, if someone doesn't want
to spend three hours of trying to figure out what you're talking
about, just accuse them of snipping your arguments, boast that you
have won the day, and put them in a kill file for being too
"dishonest" to deal with your exegetical prowess.
Pulpitfire
[sigh...you can't even get along with people who agree with your view.
How do you expect to win over people who oppose it?]
Pulpitfire
>you snip it all, even in this message and then claim
>that I didn't prove anything and *I'm* dishonest?!
>
><chuckle>
You spew out 1,000 lines of shell-game, double talk, to give people
the impression you are intelligent, while blatantly denying the
simplest of Bible truths, then call people liars if they don't want to
spend three hours trying to unravel your ganglion knot, just to figure
out what you are talking about.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Christ does reign forever. He reigns 1,000 years on earth, in His
>>millennial kingdom, then He destroys the present heavens and earth,
>>creates new ones, and reigns for eternity, from the New Jerusalem
>>(Revelation 19-22). That's not a false doctrine, that is the plain,
>>literal statement of Revelation 19-22. There is no conflict between
>>Christ's millennial and eternal reign.
>
>He reigns forever, yet keeps switching thrones?
>
>Sounds to me like He'd be evacuating.
Your skepticism doesn't constitute an exegetical refutation.
>The truth is, I proved to you that Rev 20 does not
>speak of a thousand year reign of Christ and only
>talks about how long the beheaded saints reign
>WITH Christ. And they are not on Earth, but in
>Heaven, since John says he saw, "the SOULS of
>them". you know this and you snipped it when
>I showed it to you and then began to attack me
>personally. (:
Your shell-game theology proves nothing. Reigning with Christ for
1,000 years shows Christ is also reigning for those 1,000 years, and
only underscores that this is a reign from earth, as contrasted to
Christ's eternal, universal reign.
>I am not going to argue with you any more. You
>showed that you are incapable of defending your
>beliefs and that all you were interested in, was
>ignoring the facts and then lying about what
>you were shown and anyone can read the thread
>and see for themselves, how much you ignored.
>I kept showing you many different things and
>you kept ignoring them and trying to claim that
>my argument was based on one passage, just as
>he did.
I don't really care whether you argue or not, since you seem to
primarily contribute insults against others, and boasting about your
own exegetical prowess to these discussions.
It can already be predicted that you will state your view of the Bible
about once. Then, if someone challenges it, you will spew out 1,000
lines of shell-game double talk to try to make yourself seem
intelligent while you deny the simplest of Bible truths. Then you
will then accuse them of snipping your arguments, and call them a
dumb, dishonest liar if they don't spend three hours trying to unravel
your ganglion knot gibberish, to refute it point by point. You will
then pronounce yourself a victor, hide behind a kill-file, and accuse
THEM of fleeing from the truth.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I said, I always start out polite, just as I did
>with you. And after I post my first response,
>the futurists begin their personal attacks. (:
Have you ever noticed, that Dave seems to gravitate towards the
threads that have his name on them? I've tried before, to put these
debates in threads like "Where does Christ reign for 1,000 years", but
Dave seldom responds there. Maybe he wants the discussion to be
centered around him, instead of the Bible issues.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On 11 Dec 2005 00:30:08 -0800, "Flowerchild" <sha...@netzero.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Lazarus' body rose from the dead, but here we see that John saw "the
>>souls" of them who were beheaded, and we must consider what Jesus said
>>to Martha too:
>
>Yes, it says these souls "shall" (v6; future tense) rule and reign
>with him, because they have part in the "first resurrection" (20:6).
You are trying to take that verse and make it separate.
John is simply stating that what he saw in v4 is in
the future at the point of his writing.
Going back to v4, we see that John saw the souls of
them reigning with Christ. V4 says, "and they lived
and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Present
tense verb. There is no denying the Greek language
construction.
Who lived and reigned with Christ? The souls of them.
To relate it in English...
It is no different than if we describe an event that
would be taking place in the future from the point
we state it and then sum up the idea. If we could
see the outcome of the Olympics, for example, we
would say...
"And I saw the Germans winning the shotput event."
And then, after saying that, we said...
"And they will take the shotput event."
When it is viewed, it is a present tense statement
(not happening at that moment that we are physically
in, but we are zoomed into the future and it is present
tense to that future that we are seeing).
Then, after seeing it happen, we state that yes indeed,
it will happen and that is all John did.
You cannot separate v6 from v4 and pretend that
it's the verse that notes the time line.
V4 is in the present tense at the time it is happening
and v6 simply shows that it is in the future at the
time John was writing it down.
What you are doing now, is claiming that v6 is what
shows the time frame and in order to do so, you are
ignoring v4 and then, on top of that, you are inserting
physical bodies, when Revelation 20:1-8 doesn't mention
physical bodies at all.
In fact, Revelation 20:1-8 doesn't even say one word
about coming to Earth at all! So you're adding your
belief to it.
Where does it say, "And they came to Earth"?
Where does it say, "And they received no physical
bodies"?
Ananias917
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
How is it "a considered response" to delete what I said
and not consider it at all? Can you explain that to me
please?
The following was my response and as we can see above,
you snipped the points that I made and now claim to
have offered, "a considered response" to what I said.
Doesn't that make you a liar?
You claimed that I posted a straw man. The reality is,
that you didn't want to deal with what I said and so,
you deleted it. A straw man in this case, would
consist of trying to build a response that doesn't deal
with what you said. However, I responded directly
on point and you then snipped that and responded
with something else. That makes you the straw man
builder. (:
Here is the post you snipped text from in your response
and also, see below the quote for additional comments.
*****************************************************
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:36:08 +1300, Millennial Reign
<bring...@revelation.bible> spake thusly:
1) This passage does not mention a bodily resurrection,
but notes that John sees THEIR SOULS.
2) Thus, John is seeing this happening in Heaven.
3) This passage does not mention Christ coming
to Earth, nor does Rev 20:1-8 at all. Can you show
me where it says, "and He came down to Earth",
or something to that effect, after John sees THEIR
SOULS in Heaven?
4) It does not say how long Christ reigns at all.
It says how long the souls of the beheaded reign
WITH HIM, before the second resurrection.
These are all facts and so, the Earth bound 1,000 year
reign of Christ is not taught in Rev 20 and frankly,
that is the only place upon which this doctrine rests.
Thus, if it is not there, it is not anywhere and should
be discarded as unBiblical.
>Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such
>the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of
>Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
See above.
********************************************************
Now why didn't you deal with what I said, which was
directly on point and specific to what you stated?
I demonstrated that the language does not discuss how
long Christ reigns, but rather, how long "the souls of
them who were beheaded" reign WITH Christ. How is
that avoiding the issue???
Your snippage of my response, shows that you simply
DID NOT LIKE the response, because it showed that
you were misreading it and so, you thought you would
try to misdirect the discussion elsewhere, while
ignoring my response. (:
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
While you point your finger at me, the truth is, that
you failed to show how my post is "a shell game".
HE brought up 1 Cor 15, in an attempt to play a shell
game, by snipping what I said about Rev 20 and then
bringing 1 Cor 15 into it!
I then, after noting that, STILL DID RESPOND
to his comments about 1 Cor 15.
Now YOU try to claim that it is "a shell game" and yet,
you do NOT show how it is what you claim.
What specifically is in error, in the argument I made
above, which was A DIRECT AND ON POINT RESPONSE
to his claim about 1 Cor 15 and please, show it to us
Biblically and prove that I have made an error, by
referencing specifically what I said above and showing
me specifically how it is in error. And just claiming
that it is, isn't good enough. Isn't the Bible our
ruler with which to measure doctrine and not just
our desire for someone else to be wrong, which is
all you have displayed here?
It appears to me, that you were unable to respond
directly and specifically on point and so, as is the
usual approach by the futurists, you launched a
personal attack on me.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Whenever
a subject is opened up by you guys writing a post,
I respond and do so without personal insults and
I respond directly ON POINT.
Then, when you cannot dispute what I said, you
IMMEDIATELY IN YOUR VERY NEXT POST,
hurl personal insults at me!
I will admit that I have sunk to your level after that
point in time and I need to work on that, but what
I said above is true.
And while you guys keep denying that you do that,
just look at the title of this thread!!! What was it
started for, but simply to slam me!!!
So while you deny it, remember that you're typing
into the evidence, which is the thread itself! :)
It is obvious that you cannot dispute what I have said,
when you respond by avoiding what I said and accuse
me of "a shell game" and offer no proof, neither that
it is "a shell game", nor that anything I said is in
error. And yet, you tell everyone that I am the
dishonest one and you are the one serving God. (:
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:50:02 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As I said, I always start out polite, just as I did
>>with you. And after I post my first response,
>>the futurists begin their personal attacks. (:
>
>Have you ever noticed, that Dave seems to gravitate towards the
>threads that have his name on them?
Are you for real?! You people start threads that are
for the purpose of slamming me and then you think
it's honest to complain that I later appeared in them?!
>I've tried before, to put these
>debates in threads like "Where does Christ reign for 1,000 years", but
>Dave seldom responds there. Maybe he wants the discussion to be
>centered around him, instead of the Bible issues.
You are so full of crap it's pitiful! I engaged in
your other thread and the fact is, that it's YOU
PEOPLE who "gravitate to these threads"! I
didn't start this thread, which opened with a
message that questioned if I am saved or not!
You people want everyone to think YOU'RE
honest and that you're good, loving Christians
and then you start these threads and then
complain that I later appear in them and
you LIE and claim that I refuse to respond
to you in other threads, after having a long
dispute in another thread?!
The fact is, that you are upset because I popped
your "It's all about me!" balloon and this message
of yours that I am responding to, IS PROOF that
you people DO INDEED ATTACK ME!
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:48:27 GMT, Ananias917 >
>
>>you snip it all, even in this message and then claim
>>that I didn't prove anything and *I'm* dishonest?!
>>
>><chuckle>
>
>
>You spew out 1,000 lines of shell-game, double talk, to give people
>the impression you are intelligent, while blatantly denying the
>simplest of Bible truths, then call people liars if they don't want to
>spend three hours trying to unravel your ganglion knot, just to figure
>out what you are talking about.
Responding directly on point is not a shell game.
What is a shell game, is to snip what I said and then
post a different passage and that is what happened.
You simply cannot refute what I said and so you wish to
lie and attack me personally and claim that I am guilty
of what you have done.
If you can't understand what's being said, that's your
problem. Don't lay the burden of your lack of brain
power on me.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:32:00 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What you are failing to admit, is that you snipped my
>>arguments and tried to focus on one statement and then
>>claimed that was my whole argument.
>
>[Translation: Good point about my exegetical inconsistency
How is that shown, by snipping what I said and avoiding
it? Oh, that's right, it isn't.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:36:46 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Christ does reign forever. He reigns 1,000 years on earth, in His
>>>millennial kingdom, then He destroys the present heavens and earth,
>>>creates new ones, and reigns for eternity, from the New Jerusalem
>>>(Revelation 19-22). That's not a false doctrine, that is the plain,
>>>literal statement of Revelation 19-22. There is no conflict between
>>>Christ's millennial and eternal reign.
>>
>>He reigns forever, yet keeps switching thrones?
>>
>>Sounds to me like He'd be evacuating.
>
>Your skepticism doesn't constitute an exegetical refutation.
I gave one many times and each time, you snipped it.
So don't pretend that's what you were looking for.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On 10 Dec 2005 22:41:37 -0800, "Flowerchild" <sha...@netzero.com>
It does not say that they are NOT resurrected. It says
that they are the first resurrection and that death has
no power over them. John discusses them there in
Heaven reigning with Christ and then says (vs 5-6),
"But the REST OF THE DEAD lived not UNTIL the
thousand years were finished". Then he says that
he described the first resurrection.
In other words, he describes something and then says,
"THIS IS the first resurrection". What he just
described is the first resurrection and that is what
the language construction shows.
This is confirmed, since he says in v4 that the souls
are reigning with Christ a thousand years and then
he goes on to say blessed are they that have part
in that first resurrection and confirms it in v6,
by saying that the second death will have no power
over them and again talks about their thousand year
reign. Who reigned? The same people in v4.
>Why do you have to be resurrected in order to reign with
>Christ in heaven,
Because the Bible says that until a resurrection,
they sleep. One cannot reign with Christ, while
one is sleeping.
>Well, at least one thing I agree with, is that you can't persuade
>someone to come over to your view by using every breath to convince
>them they are a dishonest liar, as Ananias53 (oops, I mean Ananias
>917) does.
And there it is. While claiming I'm the bad guy,
YOU JUST KEEP ATTACKING.
And then you complain that I won't respond, which
is another lie!
Pulpitfire
response]
Of course Revelation 20 doesn't mention anything about coming to earth,
because chapter 19 already stated the armies of "heaven" "followed"
Christ to His slaughter of the "nations", and "kings" of "flesh" and
"of the earth" who gather themselves to battle against Him "who sat on
the horse, and against His army.
Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other location,
and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have gathered
together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the horse,
where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven where
they "followed" Him from? Somehow the kings "of the earth" have
managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him who sat on the horse? No.
The plain understanding is that they are on earth. So then, the
question is not, "Where does it say they came to earth?", but "Where
does it say they went back to heaven?", in chapter 20?
Regarding the resurrection, why would a disembodied spirit, in heaven,
have to be resurrected, in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years?
So you say they are already in heaven, and then, they have to be
spriritually resurrected in order to reign with Him? And why is the
time of their reign over the nations of the "four quarters of the
earth" timed with the binding of Satan, so that he cannot deceive the
"nations" "of the four quarters of the earth"? And why is it that at
the end of the thousand years, when Satan is released, He again stirs
the "nations of the four quarters of the earth", and they then gather
themselves "against the camp of the saints"?
Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and
compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire
came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
Now, if you say these saints are in heaven when they are reigning, then
how is it the nations of the earth going "up on the breadth of the
earth", and that they "compassed the camp of the saints about"?
And then you do some double talk, and act like the text plainly talks
about them being in heaven, and asking us to furnish proof they are on
earth? Nonsense. Everything about the passage indicates earth, and
nothing that they are in heaven.
duke
>>God gave us a choice - if he wanted automatic affection with no interest on the
>>part of the giver, he would have made us robots.
>If God was serious about being loved he would make himself lovable.
He is absolutely that.
>If God wasn't so slack nobody would need saving.
He gave us a free will. Got to have one of those to be in the likeness and
image of God.
Ananias917
<rn...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>[using Google, away from home, so not sure how it will format this
>response]
I started a new thread, called...
"Revelation 20 & the souls of them..."
...and responded there.
Pulpitfire
Are you trying to suggest that disembodied spirits are "resurrected"
from sleep? They only sleep, from the perspective of those who are
still alive on earth, and in the sense that their body lies in the
grave. Their spirit is conscious and present with the Lord.
For example, 2 Corinthians 5 says that to be absent from the body is
to be present with the Lord, just as being present in the body is to
be absent from the Lord:
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.
Why doesn't this say that to be absent from the body is to be asleep,
waiting the final resurrection?
And again, 1 Thessalonians 4 says:
13 ś But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning
them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have
no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them
also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent
them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with
the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in
Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we
ever be with the Lord.
Here, those who are "asleep" from the perspective of those who are
still alive and remain on earth, are said to be "with" Jesus when He
returns to earth's atmosphere. Now are you suggesting that He brings
back a bunch of sleeping souls, into earth's atmosphere, then, wakes
them up in mid air and takes them back into heaven? No, it's not
talking about waking up their souls, but their bodies. He raises
their old corruptible bodies as new, spiritual, and incorruptible
bodies, and reunites them with their conscious souls (cf. 1
Corinthians 15).
Further, look at these verses in Revelation, where people who are
killed during the Tribulation are conscious, in heaven, waiting for
the Lord to take vengeance upon their murderers:
Revelation 6
9 ś 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:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy
and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell
on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said
unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their
fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they
were, should be fulfilled.
Here, we have people whose bodies have been killed on earth, during
the Tribulation, and what are they doing, sleeping? No, they are
asking the Lord how long until He avenges their murder. They are
conscious, they are present with the Lord.
>In fact, Revelation 20:1-8 doesn't even say one word
>about coming to Earth at all! So you're adding your
>belief to it.
>Where does it say, "And they came to Earth"?
Of course Revelation 20 doesn't mention anything about coming to
earth, because chapter 19 already stated the armies of "heaven"
"followed" Christ to His slaughter of the "nations", and "kings" of
"flesh" and "of the earth" who gather themselves to battle against Him
"who sat on the horse, and against His army.
Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other
location, and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have
gathered together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the
horse, where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven
where they "followed" Him from? Or are you suggesting somehow the
kings "of the earth" have managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him
who sat on the horse? No. The plain understanding is that they are on
earth. So then, the question is not, "Where does it say they came to
earth in chapter 20?", but "Where does it say they went back to
heaven?", in chapter 20? Nowhere.
>Where does it say, "And they received no physical
>bodies"?
What?
Ananias917
<rn...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>[using Google, away from home, so not sure how it will format this
>response]
It came out fine, but it did not quote my text.
I believe there is an option for this.
I will assume that since you are posting from Google,
that you did not intentionally snip my argument and
ignore it.
Btw, thank you for your post. It was not insulting
and although I disagree with your conclusions, it
is obvious that you put some thought into it. I hope
that you will not take my response as one that is meant
to insult you personally.
Two other things please.
1) Please do not take caps, etc. as shouting. They are
there only for added emphasis.
2) I did try to keep this as small as possible, noting
your objection to the length of my posts. But you
did bring up a lot and so, it is still a bit long. I
do apologize for that. :)
>Of course Revelation 20 doesn't mention anything about coming to earth,
>because chapter 19 already stated the armies of "heaven" "followed"
>Christ to His slaughter of the "nations", and "kings" of "flesh" and
>"of the earth" who gather themselves to battle against Him "who sat on
>the horse, and against His army.
Actually, no, you're taking a symbolic statement and
trying to make it physically literal. See below.
>Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other location,
>and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have gathered
>together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the horse,
>where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven where
>they "followed" Him from? Somehow the kings "of the earth" have
>managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him who sat on the horse? No.
>The plain understanding is that they are on earth. So then, the
>question is not, "Where does it say they came to earth?", but "Where
>does it say they went back to heaven?", in chapter 20?
The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
physical literalism into the book, unless it
specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
For example, how could all of the nations on planet
Earth be gathered together in front of one person
on a horse? That's impossible. :)
Now of you wish to claim otherwise, then how do you
explain the beast in chap 19, which you do not take
as a literal beast? Aren't you leaving the physical
literalism you just demanded of me, if you do not
take the beast as a physically literal beast? Or is
that "just obvious", which, no offense, simply means
you telling me that what you think is physically
literal and what is symbolic, should be the attitude
of everyone. Again, no offense, but since you don't
take the beast literally and yet, say the person on
the horse is literal, what follows that, when it is
questioned? :)
We should also note that the passages say nothing about
the whole planet. It notes "the nations". That does
not automatically mean the entire planet.
You should also note that v14 says "the armies which
were in Heaven". Those are angels and so, it does not
automatically mean that they are seen. Read your
Old Testament and you will see that an army of
angels was present and was unseen by men.
2 Kings 6:15-17
15) And the servant of the man of God arose early and
went out. And, behold, an army surrounded the city, and
horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, Alas,
my master! What shall we do?
16) And he answered, Do not fear, for those with us are
more than those with them.
17) And Elisha prayed and said, I pray You, Jehovah,
open his eyes so that he may see. And Jehovah opened
the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the
mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round
about Elisha.
So saying a Heavenly army is there, does not
automatically mean physically seeing it.
It is for reasons like this, that I so highly stress
knowledge of the OT. This is just like the "two
witnesses". Knowing our OT would teach us that
they were never meant to be taken as physically
breathing fire and that is proved in the OT. :)
>Regarding the resurrection, why would a disembodied spirit, in heaven,
>have to be resurrected, in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years?
This is where you (whether intentional or not) begin
to argue your belief by assuming that it's true, which
is fine, but then you also assume that I must explain
some "disembodied spirit" to you. Has it occurred
to you, that when one says that they have a different
belief about a Scripture, that it isn't their job to
disprove your belief, by first assuming that your
belief is true? :)
It doesn't even occur to you, that "flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven", as Paul
clearly said. They are not "disembodied", but rather,
as Scripture says (and using the very same analogy
that Paul did), that first death must take place.
You are asking the same question that Paul chided the
church for asking ("With what body are they raised?").
Paul stated a farming example and just like the seed
that is planted, the shell falls away and dies off and
what is raised, is what was inside. Now tell me, why
would Paul use that exact analogy, if that's not
exactly what he was saying? :) Why does the futurist
doctrine consistently add to Scripture and then
demand an explanation from those who don't, as to
how what they say could be, when their question is
not based on what the Scripture actually and
specifically says, but rather, their addition to it? (:
There is no such thing as a "disembodied person"
in Heaven and the truth is, if they required bodies
that were physical, then how is it that they are
reigning with Him for a thousand years, as John
said? John said that "the souls of them" lived
and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Now whether you think they are doing that at that
moment or not, the fact is, they are SOULS and
they are ALIVE, in Heaven! So it is as obvious as
a pink bumper on a black truck, that they don't
require bodies to live in Heaven.
And what did Jesus say?...
John 14:2-3
2) In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were
not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place
for you.
3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again and receive you to Myself, so that where I am,
you may be also.
Jesus said that they would go to be with Him, where
He was going to. He would have said, "You're going
to stay here", if He was teaching living forever on
this planet. But He did not say that.
He said that He was going to prepare a place for them.
Now did He say, "hotel rooms"? :) No, He didn't,
because He was not speaking of a temporary stay
in Heaven.
The physical body dies. The soul lives on (or is
judged and dies).
Look at what Peter said...
2 Peter 1:13-14
13) Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this
tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in
remembrance;
14) Knowing that shortly I must put off this my
tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath
showed me.
Now can you show me where Peter said...
"...and I must put on another tabernacle." ???
Peter said he was "putting off" his tabernacle (tent)
and that was all he said about it. He expressed the
idea that it was just a tent and he would come out
of the tent. That is the Greek expression there.
A "putting off" of his tent, in order to be able to
finally escape the binding to the flesh.
Again, neither Peter, nor anyone else, in their
writings, stated anything about putting on another
physical body of flesh. Paul stated clearly that
"flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"
and yet, you claim that another flesh and blood body
(albeit not exactly the same) is what we get. And note
that Paul did not say, "this flesh and blood". He said
that flesh and blood could not inherit it, period.
Paul also, as I said, used the analogy of the seed.
Now let me ask you this and please, think this over
by sticking strictly to common sense and consider
that Paul is saying it to people who don't know, so
you can't call into play whatever you have been taught.
Why would Paul write to people who did a lot of farming
(people grew their food and didn't have Super Walmart)
and use the analogy of the seed, if he didn't want them
to believe that this body dies and is cast off and then
what rises is what was inside of the shell? Honestly,
can you answer that for me, please? Because I refuse
to ignore common sense to believe something and God
said, "Come, let us reason together..." and God is 100%
logical!
>So you say they are already in heaven, and then, they have to be
>spriritually resurrected in order to reign with Him?
I never said any such thing. You are requiring another
resurrection for them, which does not exist. They were
already resurrected. Why would they need to be
resurrected again?
I understand that you believe what you believe, but you
are assuming that I must explain what I said in light
of your belief and in doing so, you have added words
to what I said. (:
Again... What you want me to do, is to first assume
that you're right and agree with you about that and
then proceed from that point, to try to convince you
that you're wrong about it. I know that isn't
intentional, but that is the logical result of your
questions and it makes no sense. (:
The second death has no power over them, because
they are saints that have already been resurrected
and "they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand
years". Thus, when the final judgment came, they
would not be affected by the second death. They
were already resurrected to eternal life.
Now here is another point at which we should insert
another logical question...
If their souls was not their eternal state, then how is
it that John notes that THE SOULS of the beheaded
would not have to worry about the second death?
Why would he leave out altogether the supposed fact
that they would receive new bodies?
Revelation is the book that tells it all, about the end
and yet, this isn't even mentioned ANYWHERE in
Revelation? NO mention of getting new bodies???
These are questions that SCREAM OUT for an answer!
>And why is the
>time of their reign over the nations of the "four quarters of the
>earth" timed with the binding of Satan, so that he cannot deceive the
>"nations" "of the four quarters of the earth"? And why is it that at
>the end of the thousand years, when Satan is released, He again stirs
>the "nations of the four quarters of the earth", and they then gather
>themselves "against the camp of the saints"?
This is not the four quarters of the planet. It is the
four quarters of THE REGION. The word there is "ge"
and it means either "soil", or "a region". When Jesus
meant the whole planet, the word "kosmos" is used.
Note in Matthew 13:35, for example. And even John
made a difference between those words.
When Jesus was talking about being raised up off of
the ground during His crucifixion, John wrote it as
follows, to note soil, like the ground under your feet:
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth (ge),
will draw all men unto me." - John 12:32
Yet when John was describing the entire planet,
he wrote it as follows...
"He was in the world (kosmos), and the world (kosmos)
was made by him, and the world knew him not."
- John 1:10
Thus, it speaks of the four quarters of the region,
not the planet.
Now to answer your questions, what does that have
to do with whether or not it says that Christ will be
seated on an Earthly throne? It either says that, or
it doesn't.
Here is the question that throws a wrench into
the works of your belief.
You claim that in Rev 19, they all came to Earth.
Yet Rev 20 says that they are souls. So you now,
if you adhere to your own rule involving the time
line, must claim that THE SOULS are on Earth,
reigning with Christ. We both know that isn't
the case, so guess where that leaves your belief? :)
You raised the issue of Christ ruling with a rod of
iron and you feel that it HAS TO, HAS TO mean
that He does so from Earth, even though it DOES
NOT SAY THAT. So let's look at this "rod of iron"
and see what happens. I know you have seem at
least part of what follows before, but please read
it through, as I have changed some of it and have
added some things to it, that are germane to our
discussion and it also discusses Revelation 19 and it
shows that the "rod of iron" is a spiritual statement.
The futurists quote the following passage as proof
that Christ would physically rule Earth, from Earth.
Psalm 2:8-9
8) Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen
for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
of the earth for thy possession.
9) Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's
vessel.
They ask, "Where is He, ruling with a rod of iron?".
They also quote the following passage...
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule
all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was
caught up unto God, and to His throne." - Rev 12:5
So where is He doing that, they demand to know?
Well, first of all, look at the passage above.
It says that the child was caught *UP* to His throne.
So where is His throne? IN HEAVEN and NOT on Earth!
NOW read Rev 20:4, CAREFULLY...
"And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment
was given to them. And I saw THE SOULS of those who
had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the
WORD OF GOD and who had not worshiped the beast
nor his image, nor had received his mark on their
foreheads, nor in their hands. And THEY lived and
reigned WITH Christ a thousand years."
- Revelation 20:4
Christ is already reigning and they began their time
to reign WITH HIM. And the sword is the Word of God,
as is the "rod of iron" that He rules the nations with.
For example, if King Joey is 20 years old when he
begins to reign and he reigns for 20 years and then
gets married to Queen Betty (queen after the wedding)
at 40 years old and then they reign together for
another 20 years, does that mean that King Joey
only reigned for 20 years? No, it doesn't. He reigned
for 40 years, but SHE REIGNED WITH HIM for 20.
This is the SAME THING that Rev 20:4 is stating!
It is NOT discussing a reign of Christ for a thousand
years, but how long the souls of the beheaded reigned
WITH Him!
Daniel speaks of when Christ actually began to reign.
Using your belief, Christ ascended to Heaven and didn't
begin to reign. I know that you NOW recognize that
Christ began to reign in the first century, but you
didn't before and you just wouldn't admit that I showed
you something that you did not know. But I don't wish
to argue that. I just didn't want you to claim that
I'm stating something you're not saying, especially
since the fact is, as we both know, that none of the
futurists that I have run into in these news groups
knew that Christ began to reign when He ascended
and we both know they had to shuffle their doctrine
a bit, on the fly, as they were responding to my
message, in order to again somehow make it fit.
Christ began to reign when He ascended and Daniel
SPECIFICALLY NOTES THE NATIONS being ruled.
So your previous objection, which is always echoed
by every futurist of, "Oh yea?! So where is He, if
He's ruling the nations?!", which their asking of that
question proves that no, they did NOT realize what
the Bible says about when He began His reign over
the nations and simply won't admit later that they
did not know, when I show this to them. (:
Sometimes just ONE WORD can change the ENTIRE
meaning and view of a passage and the context of it!
So pay close attention here, because that is exactly
what's about to happen. :)
And note that THE NATIONS ARE INCLUDED in
His reign, so the statement that He LATER begins
to do that, IS NOT VALID and NOWHERE did Christ,
nor Daniel, nor John, say that Christ "partially ruled
the nations until later" and that question is asked, as
I pointed out earlier, not because of what Scripture
ITSELF says, but rather, because of what THEIR
PERSONAL DOCTRINES ADD TO IT.
No one can tell me they're NOT asking questions that
are based on what their doctrine adds to it, when they
can't show me "partial rule" (or a similar thing) in
Scripture! It's either there or it's not and so, when
one claims that they aren't adding to it and yet, can't
show it in the Bible, they're just flat out lying. And
they may not realize it, but facts are facts. As I
said, it is VERY SIMPLE. Either it's there, or it's
not there! :)
Let's take a look and see what Daniel says...
Ancient of Days = God the Father
Son of Man = Jesus Christ
Daniel 7:13-14
13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like
the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,
and came *_TO_* to the Ancient of Days, and
they brought him near before him.
14) 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.
Note that He received His Kingdom when He ASCENDED.
He was not waiting to one day receive it. Take a look.
The Father (Ancient of Days) is in Heaven and it says
that He came *_TO_* the Ancient of Days and received
His dominion and glory, etc. and it says that it WAS
GIVEN HIM and it says that His dominion *IS* an
everlasting dominion, thus proving that it WAS given
to Him at that time and IS an everlasting dominion
and that it is a present tense statement at the time of
His ascension and that it is EVERLASTING (and that
is the Hebrew construction there).
It is NOT some 1,000 year reign. You can't have it
both ways. It can't be forever and end, even if
temporarily since it says that it is "everlasting" at
the time He receives it, which IS WHEN HE ASCENDED.
Nor does it say, "And He will keep swapping seats and
will rule from Heaven and then Earth and then Heaven
again and the Earth and oh, btw, Satan will rule Earth
also, okay?".
It simply doesn't say all of that and as I said, this
is where THE ADDITION OF DOCTRINE comes in
and then answers are demanded of me based on that
doctrine and not what Scripture specifically says.
Christ began His rule when He ascended and did
reign over the nations, when He ascended, which
is exactly and specifically what Daniel says.
So why is this "He doesn't rule all nations yet"
statement made, when Scripture is clear that
He begins to do so when He ascends?
We should also take a look at Stephen's response,
when they were stoning him...
Acts 7:55-56
55) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up
steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God,
and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56) And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened,
and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God.
That is why they began to stone Stephen! Because
he was saying that Christ had been seated and ruled
and was the fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14!
While many here now today may be ignorant of
the implication of Stephen's statement, those
Jews standing there were not!
The thing the you miss, when you claim that Christ
does not rule the nations yet, is that Daniel said that
He does. Tell me, who should I believe? The Bible?
Or you?
God has ALWAYS ruled everything, including the
Earth and the nations in it! And doesn't His directing
everything throughout the OT show us that? Hear the
word of the Lord...
"But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised
my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor
of heaven and earth," - Genesis 14:22
"For the kingdom *_IS_* the LORD's, And He RULES
OVER THE NATIONS." - Psalm 22:28
"For the LORD Most High is awesome; He is a great
King over all the earth." - Psalm 47:2
Psalm 47:6-8
6) Sing praises to God, sing praises!
Sing praises to our King, sing praises!
7) For God is the King of all the earth;
Sing praises with understanding.
8) God reigns over the nations;
God sits on His holy throne.
And even before that was written. Joshua said that God
already ruled in his (Joshua's) day...
"...for the LORD your God, He *_IS_* God in heaven
above and on earth beneath" - Joshua 2:11
Note: "IS", not "will be".
God was obviously not on Earth sitting on a throne
at that point. By your belief, you are saying those
passages are not true. What other conclusion can
I reach?
Bible: God has always ruled over the nations and Christ
began to rule over the nations when He ascended and
it nowhere says, "partially now and fully later" for
Christ's rule.
Pulpitfire: Christ does not rule over the nations yet.
How do you explain this, in light of your claim that
He has yet to rule as King of the nations of the Earth?
Isn't that what you have been saying? If so, how do
you explain these passages? Show me Scripture
that says that He doesn't rule the nations until He
comes to Earth and I will show you that the Bible
contradicts itself and we should throw it away.
The passages I showed you are clear and I know that
you won't be able to show me the opposite, because
I know the Bible does not contradict itself, amen?
I know you believe in an Earthly throne in Jerusalem,
but the fact is, the people came to Jerusalem in the OT
to worship and God was not sitting on a physical
throne. In fact, God said the following...
Acts 7:48-50
48) However, the Most High does not dwell in temples
made with hands, as the prophet says:
49) Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the LORD,
Or what is the place of My rest?
50) Has My hand not made all these things?
How do we build an Earthly throne for Someone
Who makes the land His footstool? Didn't He
there say clearly that no house on Earth could
contain Him, the mighty and awesome God,
Who made heaven and Earth and the entire
universe?! Wasn't God mocking the idea of
an Earthly throne for Him in the above verses?
So when Zechariah says...
"And the LORD shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be; The LORD is one; And
His name one." - Zechariah 14:9
...what it is saying, is that Christ will rule and
God's name will be unified in the Father and
Son, for all to know this.
That's what Paul meant when he said (and it
is why he said)...
"And when all things shall be subdued unto him,
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto
him that put all things under him, that God may
be all in all." - 1 Corinthians 15:28
This shows that the difference is that God handed it
over to Christ and did so, when Christ ascended. It
was not some "future event, thousands of years later".
Daniel said clearly that Christ would rule when He
ascended.
Isaiah also spoke of this...
"But with righteousness shall He judge the poor,
and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth:
and He shall smite the earth with the rod of His
mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall He
slay the wicked." - Isaiah 11:4
Note: He will smite the Earth with the rod of
*_HIS MOUTH_* !
And He would slay the wicked with *THE BREATH
OF HIS LIPS*!!! It is HIS WORDS that defeat them!
"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my
mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall
accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper
in the thing whereto I sent it." - Isaiah 55:11
"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My Word and
believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and
shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from
death to life." - John 5:24
"Truly, truly, I say to you, If a man keeps My Word,
he shall never see death." - John 8:51
"He who rejects Me and does not receive My Words has
one who judges him; the Word that I have spoken, the
same shall judge him in the last day." - John 12:48
It is His words that we are judged by at the last day,
not a literal sword, sticking out His mouth, while He
physically swings His head side to side, to strike the
opposing armies down! What kind of nut case would
hold a sword like that?! :) But that is what we MUST
believe, in order to take it PHYSICALLY literal, as
you do. And you don't get to pick and choose within
the same passage! (:
"Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me,
he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him,
and We will come to him and make Our abode with
him." - John 14:23
Reference this later in this message, when the issue
of the New Jerusalem is brought up.
"If you abide in Me, and My Words abide in you, you
shall ask what you will, and it shall be done to you."
- John 15:7
"I know your works. Behold, I have given before you
an open door, and no one can shut it. For you have
a little strength and have kept My Word and have
not denied My name." - Revelations 3:8
It is all about His WORD and that is why it is a sword
going out of His mouth and the Bible is clear, that
the sword is THE WORD OF GOD!!!
And another thing that I have been teaching the
futurists, that they insult me for when I first say it,
is that while they believe that Jesus would come down
and save Jerusalem in this last battle and they claim
that Zechariah says so. Zechariah actually says that
the city (Jerusalem) would be TAKEN and that the
woman would be raped, etc. (Zech 14:2). Of course,
they go and read it and then later, pretend in a
message to me, that they already knew that, even
though I can now see a shift in what they are claiming
will happen, that contradicts what they previously
said. They just refuse to admit when I have made
a point, because I don't believe that it's all about
this generation (funny that they use that phrase).
See also, in Revelation, the following, which is from
the very same chapter that you point to and want
me to take as physically literal (if I'm going to say
that this war is physically literally Jesus riding on
a horse, since the rest of that same passage has to
go with it)...
"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 19:15
Note: OUT OF HIS MOUTH goes a sharp sword.
Of course, compare with the passages quoted above
about His words and His breath, etc..
Are you going to tell me, that Jesus is going to ride
around on that horse, swinging a sword that is sticking
out of His mouth, by turning His head left and right,
to smite the nations?!
C'mon, dude! :) This is obviously symbolism!
It is an ignorance of the Old Testament and a lack of
careful consideration of the texts, even in the NT,
that accounts for these errors in the doctrines that
you believe in. That's not an insult. Ignorance does
NOT mean "stupid". It means "uninformed".
Stupid is when you have the facts and still insist on
what you believe AND DON'T SIT BACK AND BEGIN
TO RESEARCH THIS.
And I'm not saying that you are stupid if you don't
instantly convert to what I believe. I am saying
that if you choose to REMAIN ignorant of the OT
and the language that God consistently used
throughout the OT, THEN you are stupid. <LOL!> :)
So now, it's up to you what you do with these facts.
But what is clear, is that His word is the "rod of
iron" and what is clear, is that you don't get to claim
that I must take the horse literally in Revelation 19
and then claim that you don't have to take the beast
literally, in the same chapter. (:
As I said, Revelation is A BOOK OF SYMBOLS.
And one should not take it literally, unless it
is clear that we should do so and that it doesn't
represent something else.
For example, the beast obviously represents
something else. However, we all know that souls
exist and therefore, we take that statement literally,
even though they themselves, are spiritual beings.
Literal does NOT automatically mean "physical".
It means only to take it as it's written. And I don't
mean as someone INTERPRETS IT. I mean, AS
IT'S WRITTEN.
So for example, they are literally souls, but souls
are not physical beings. Thus, my disagreement
with you is not always (not in every sentence)
about whether or not something is "literal", but
rather, whether or not something is "physical",
as in, "literally and physically seen by the
human eye".
The point is, that when I say "literal" to you, what
I mean is, "literally physically seen by the human
eye", okay?
Another example is that Revelation speaks of the
New Jerusalem. But is it literal? Or does it
represent something else? The Bible says that it
represents something else. How do we know that?
Simple! :)
What we must first understand, is that the new heaven
and earth are not physical. It is symbolic language.
I don't need to prove that though. The reason I don't
need to prove that is, that it is obvious that whether
physical or symbolic, the city of the New Jerusalem
comes down onto the new earth and not the old one.
So if I prove that the New Jerusalem is here, then it
is obvious that the new heaven and earth must already
have come, right? :)
Let us read the word of God together and see what
it has to say to us.
Revelation 20:2-3,22; 21:9-10
2) And I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,
coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared
as a bride adorned for her Husband.
3) And I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying,
Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He
will dwell with them, and they will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them and be their God.
22) And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God
Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
9) And one of the seven angels who had the seven vials
full of the seven last plagues came to me and talked
with me, saying, Come here, I will show you the bride,
the Lamb's wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and
high mountain and showed me that great city, the holy
Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven from God,
Here is the city, which many believe will be literal
and yet, what does it say? No temple in it. Guess
what? The temple was destroyed in 70 AD.
It also says that an angel took John to show him
THE BRIDE and what did the angel show John?
He showed him the NEW JERUSALEM!
Read it CAREFULLY, PLEASE! Go back up and
read it again if necessary, as this is the whole
point that I am making.
1) The angel says to John... "Come here, I will show
you THE BRIDE, the Lamb's wife" (21:9).
Who is the Lamb? The Lord Jesus Christ. The angel
is taking John to show him the Lamb's WIFE.
2) The angel takes John and shows him, "that great
city, the Holy Jerusalem, descending out of Heaven
from God." (21:10).
Who is the bride of Christ? The church, the body of
Christ. So what is the New Jerusalem? God, dwelling
with men, without a temple system. He dwells in us
through His Holy Spirit and we are the bride of Christ.
If the angel is showing John the bride of the Lamb
and he shows John the New Jerusalem, then there
is no disputing that the bride of the Lamb is the
New Jerusalem.
There is also no disputing that the bride of Christ
is the church and therefore, common sense and
logic dictate that the New Jerusalem is the church,
which is comprised of the individual believers
collectively.
The New Jerusalem is the church collectively and
the believer individually.
The temple of God is both the church (speaking wholly):
"Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that
the Spirit of God dwells in you?" - 1 Corinthians 3:16
And our bodies (speaking individually):
"And what agreement does a temple of God have with
idols? For YOU ARE THE TEMPLE of the living God,
as God has said, "I will dwell IN THEM and walk among
them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My
people."" - 2 Corinthians 6:16
Now compare "IN THEM" as the fulfillment of this,
with what Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21.
This is why it says, "and I saw no temple therein",
because the church and we, as individuals, are now
the temple of God! :)
Thus, the New Jerusalem is NOT a physical, literal
city, but a spiritual event.
Let us also read what the word of the Lord has to say
in Hebrews 12:22.
"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city
of the living God, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM,
and to an innumerable company of angels,"
- Hebrews 12:22
Note: The HEAVENLY JERUSALEM!
Note: He says that we "HAVE COME". It was
present tense to them in the first century!
This shows us that the physical merely represents
that which is spiritual and eternal and there is
no denying that God already dwells in us.
You see, the fulfillment of "God dwelling with men"
was never a physical throne. It was Him dwelling
in us through the Holy Spirit. Remember, God
never did that in the Old Testament. He "came
upon" men for instants in time and then left them
again, until the next instant in time for that man.
That is why we read about how "the Holy Ghost
came upon me" for these men more than once
in their lives. :)
Now look again at what our Lord said...
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation:
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
So while the futurists believe that these quick quotes
of only snippets of Scripture prove their claim about
this, the truth is, that the "rod of iron" and "the
sword" is the word of God. That is what the Bible
says and that is what the Bible teaches us.
Hebrews 4:12-13
12) For the Word of God is living and powerful and
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to
the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart.
13) Neither is there any creature that is not manifest
in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to
the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
>Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and
>compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire
>came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
Again, "region", not "planet". Nowhere and I mean
nowhere, does the NT describe a global destruction.
And what is the "fire"? I would suggest that it may
very well be the word of God judging them.
For example, Revelation speaks of the two witnesses
breathing fire, which you probably believe will be
literal. But is it? I would state that it is not. How
can I be sure? Simple. Look at what the OT
says about this...
"Therefore so says Jehovah, the God of Hosts, Because
you spoke this word, behold, I will make My Words in
your mouth fire, and these people wood, and it shall
devour them." - Jeremiah 5:14
Now did Jeremiah literally breathe fire?
Did the people literally turn to wood?
No, of course neither of those things happened.
But it is God saying that when His word is spoken,
the people are powerless before it and it is like
they are wood and His word is fire! How is this
any different from what Revelation says about
the two witnesses?
Don't we all agree that we should interpret Scripture
with and by Scripture? So why refuse to do that here,
right? :) After all, this is the only other place that
I know of, that mentions someone breathing fire.
So what is the Biblical precedent here? Jeremiah 5:14
and Jeremiah 5:14 shows that it is not a physically
literal thing.
>Now, if you say these saints are in heaven when they are reigning, then
>how is it the nations of the earth going "up on the breadth of the
>earth", and that they "compassed the camp of the saints about"?
As I said, it is not a global thing. But you are
confusing two different peoples. First of all,
you have left angels out of the armies that come
with Christ. Secondly, you jumped from 19 to 20.
But you are also assuming that the saints that
were mentioned in v4, are these same saints in
v9 and it simply does not say that.
You are assuming that the saints in v4 left Heaven
and went to Earth, because of what you read in
chapter 19. Thus, my point is, that you are grabbing
whatever you want, from wherever you want and
making up your own time line from pieces of each
chapter, laid one after the other, OUT OF THEIR ORDER
and then you want me to answer to this MADE UP
time line! How can I possibly do that???
>And then you do some double talk, and act like the text plainly talks
>about them being in heaven, and asking us to furnish proof they are on
>earth? Nonsense. Everything about the passage indicates earth, and
>nothing that they are in heaven.
You accuse me of double talk, after taking passages
and placing them in a different order than they
appear in and call my belief "nonsense"? Huh?
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:19:59 GMT, Ananias917
I never said any such thing and I dealt with this in
another thread. Thus, my participation in this one
regarding this subject is done.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
"Ananias917" <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ppp1lanjooek61u...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
> symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
> is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
> physical literalism into the book, unless it
> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
> is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
Bullshit.
The rule of Revelation is that which is "seen" must be seen, that which is
"heard" must be heard, and that which is "beheld" must be beheld.
Who the hell are you to make up your own rules for reading Revelation?
It has its own, thank you very much.
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Are you trying to suggest that disembodied spirits are "resurrected"
>>from sleep?
>
>I never said any such thing and I dealt with this in
>another thread. Thus, my participation in this one
>regarding this subject is done.
And I never said you did. But what are we supposed to conclude you
believe, if you think it's not referring to their bodies being
resurrected? So we're supposed to go do some Google research to see
what you say? You should be able to answer that question in as
concise and easy a manner as you declined to answer it. Whatever. If
you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to. Just write a book on
what you believe, post it on your web-site, and post a link to it
every time someone asks you to explain how your view answers the book
of Revelation.
It's as I thought. Once you get out of your super-strict
interpretation of Matthew 24, your view starts falling apart.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:17:29 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Are you trying to suggest that disembodied spirits are "resurrected"
>>>from sleep?
>>
>>I never said any such thing and I dealt with this in
>>another thread. Thus, my participation in this one
>>regarding this subject is done.
>
>And I never said you did. But what are we supposed to conclude you
>believe, if you think it's not referring to their bodies being
>resurrected? So we're supposed to go do some Google research to see
>what you say?
Sorry for the confusion.
No. I dealt with this in another thread yesterday
and noted that to you in another response yesterday,
providing the name of the thread and the message
that started it, was a detailed response to your post
in this thread.
>You should be able to answer that question in as
>concise and easy a manner as you declined to answer it.
I didn't decline to answer it, but I can see where you
took it that way. :)
As for "concise", I tried, but you brought a lot up, so
"concise" it still long, but nowhere near as long as I
would have made it, had you not noted length. :)
>It's as I thought. Once you get out of your super-strict
>interpretation of Matthew 24, your view starts falling apart.
This is why we argue. Because you attack and make
claims, without proving them.
MrEye
>>Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other location,
>>and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have gathered
>>together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the horse,
>>where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven where
>>they "followed" Him from? Somehow the kings "of the earth" have
>>managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him who sat on the horse? No.
>>The plain understanding is that they are on earth. So then, the
>>question is not, "Where does it say they came to earth?", but "Where
>>does it say they went back to heaven?", in chapter 20?
>
> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
> symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
> is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
> physical literalism into the book, unless it
> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
> is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
Dispensationalists assume the whole book is futuristic. I find both those
assumptions to cause us to come to conclusions can be wrong. I do not see
the seven churches a symbolic. There were 7 actual churches that existed
during that time. I think the book can be partly symbolic and partly
literal. It is where you draw the line that differences arise.
There are still some prophecies which should be taken literally. A good
example is Jesus riding on a donkey. It would be nice if scripture told us
everything were to be symbolic or everything is to be taken literally. But
it does not. Which is what makes the interpretation difficult.
<< snipped of the rest because i did not have time to read it. >>
WK
on 2005-12-12 announced this statement:
>
> "Ananias917" <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10ppp1lanjooek61u...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 Dec 2005 14:06:29 -0800, "Pulpitfire"
>> <rn...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
>> symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
>> is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
>> physical literalism into the book, unless it
>> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
>> is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The rule of Revelation is that which is "seen" must be seen, that which is
> "heard" must be heard, and that which is "beheld" must be beheld.
>
> Who the hell are you to make up your own rules for reading Revelation?
Ike means in contrast to him?
== quote
What I am saying is that I have reconciled the discrepancies be-
tween the doctrines held by the various churches in my own mind, and
hope that I may also do so in the minds of my readers for their own
edification.
Before we examine my conclusions, I would invite you to start out
the same way I did: Take out your old Bible and read Revelation as
many times as you can over a three day period. (I would recommend
the King James Authorized Version or the New Revised Standard
Version, but use whatever text you are comfortable with.)
As you are reading it, do two things.
First, clear your mind of all the interpretations of Revelation
peo- ple have imposed on you over the years and read it with fresh
eyes.
Second, ask yourself as many questions as you can while you are
reading it. (You may even want to take out a note pad and jot them
down as you go.) Let the questions wash over you and do not fret
over the answers just yet, for the key to understanding Revelation
is not to seek the right answers, but to ask the right questions
and let the an- swers take care of themselves.
== end quote
So what we have here is another one who thinks his interpretation of
Revelation is the only correct one....
>
> It has its own, thank you very much.
And you could be jsut as wrong as "Dave", "Ike"
This is from your website about yourself:
[...]
He has been studying the Bible since he began to read, but he has no
formal theological training. Due to circumstances beyond his control, he
has attended just about every kind of church one can think of, and even
a few one would not. (He is currently a Lutheran, but they are not sure
how to take him.)
== end quote
So IOW they might think that he is a heretic too? And by all means
just a "lay-person" claiming that God Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit
is teaching him.
So what we have here is two guys with egos as big as the sun, "battling"
each other who has the correct understanding of "sciptures" written 2000
years ago...
>
> Ike
>
Werner Kurator
===========================================================
"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by
imperfect man, this one falls short of it goal. Yet we are
grateful to God for the extend to which he has enabled us to
realize these goals and for the strength he has given us and our
colleagues to complete our task"
Preface to the "New International Version" of the Bible
August 1983......
==============================================================
"In fact, many professing agnostics are nearer belief in
the true God then are many conventional church-goers who
believe in a bogey that does not exist whom they miscall God."
Leslie D. Weatherhead; Preface to his "The Christian Agnostic"
--
Every snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty.
Ananias917
<Mr...@no-email.org> spake thusly:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:51:37 +0000, Ananias917 wrote:
>
>
>>>Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other location,
>>>and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have gathered
>>>together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the horse,
>>>where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven where
>>>they "followed" Him from? Somehow the kings "of the earth" have
>>>managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him who sat on the horse? No.
>>>The plain understanding is that they are on earth. So then, the
>>>question is not, "Where does it say they came to earth?", but "Where
>>>does it say they went back to heaven?", in chapter 20?
>>
>> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
>> symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
>> is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
>> physical literalism into the book, unless it
>> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
>> is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>
>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule",
not the totality. :)
>Dispensationalists assume the whole book is futuristic. I find both those
>assumptions to cause us to come to conclusions can be wrong. I do not see
>the seven churches a symbolic. There were 7 actual churches that existed
>during that time. I think the book can be partly symbolic and partly
>literal. It is where you draw the line that differences arise.
I agree that there were 7 literal churches and I agree
that the dispensationalists make a mistake, when
they try to make them symbolic of 7 dispensations.
I also believe that John saw the literal souls of the
beheaded in Heaven, in Rev 20:4.
>> For example, how could all of the nations on planet
>> Earth be gathered together in front of one person
>> on a horse? That's impossible. :)
>
>There are still some prophecies which should be taken literally. A good
>example is Jesus riding on a donkey. It would be nice if scripture told us
>everything were to be symbolic or everything is to be taken literally. But
>it does not. Which is what makes the interpretation difficult.
That is related to His time here on Earth and something
He actually did, so of course it is literal. :)
Him riding on a donkey already happened. There is
no prophecy of Him doing that again.
Common sense can rule what is physical and what is
symbolic, if we believe what the Bible says about the
WHEN of it and unfortunately, people TODAY don't.
For example, if a prophecy says, "And the sky will
open" and the Bible says this must happen within
the life time of the hearer, then it is obviously
symbolic, if it didn't physically happen and it's
2,000 years later. :)
But as I said, I highly stress being intimately
familiar with the OT, since that is what Christ
came to fulfill.
For example, let's look at one prophecy that people
think is still in the future. The "two witnesses
breathing fire" in Revelation 11. Futurists believe
(maybe you do as well, I don't know) that there will
actually be two men, breathing literal, physical fire.
They have demanded from me many times to prove
to them that this already happened. In other words,
they want me to prove them wrong about when
Jesus was supposed to return, by first assuming
that they are right about their futurist view. :)
The rule is, that we interpret Scripture by Scripture
and that rule should not be thrown out, when it
interferes with our personal view and what we desire
for Scripture to say. :)
Searching through the Scripture shows that this has
indeed happened before and that it was not a literal,
physical event. When Jeremiah was told to preach
God's word, the Lord said to him...
"Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts,
Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make
my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood,
and it shall devour them." - Jeremiah 5:14
It is obvious that Jeremiah, when speaking God's word,
did not have fire literally coming out of his mouth and
that the people did not literally turn into wood. :)
Thus we see that there is no reason to take that
statement in Revelation as being physically literal
either. Interpreting Scripture by Scripture, shows
us that we should take it symbolically and that
when Scripture says that fire is coming out of their
mouths, that it is showing that no one can stand
up to God's word. :)
Revelation is book of symbolism, that contains some
physically literal statements, not the other way around
and it is disingenuous, to state for example, that
Jesus
is literally riding a horse in Revelation 19, yet the
beast is symbolic, in the same scene. (:
It is also disingenuous to ignore all of the time
statements in Revelation and to try to make them
mean thousands of years.
IT IS ONLY WHEN THEY OPEN THEIR BIBLES,
that the futurists make these totally inane claims
about time statements. IN NO OTHER WRITING
would they say these things! (:
But when it comes to the Bible, all of the sudden...
"soon = thousands of years"
and...
"at hand" = "thousands of years".
I have two major problem with the futurists I deal with
in these news groups (no one would do these things in
person, where you have to look someone in the eye).
They never admit when I have taught them something.
Rather, they will insult me and then change their view
to what I showed them about some specific thing and
then some of them will even claim to have always
believed it. :)
It's not that I care about getting credit. It's that
it's impossible to get anywhere when that attitude
is displayed. (:
The other thing is that change their arguments on
the fly. I.e., they claim, "This is the generation!".
"We're the generation that is in the last days!".
Yet, when I prove to them that they were in the last
days in the first century with Scripture, ALL OF
THE SUDDEN, their argument changes to, "Well,
the last days started then and they are still going
on now.".
Well, wait a minute... doesn't that fly in the face
of what they have been telling me? :)
Why can't they just admit that they were wrong
about that and that they need to sit down and
study, instead of claiming that they're still right
and I'm still wrong, no matter how many points
I make along the way?
In other words, the integrity of the Bible is
sacrificed on the road to demanding it be
all about them and this is nothing but vanity!
The Bible is sifted through their doctrine, instead of
the other way around. (:
I guess what bothers me, is that I see the same
approach from them, as I do from the evolutionists.
They cannot back up their claims and when you
prove this wrong and that wrong, etc., that doesn't
matter. Evolution is right, period and no amount
of facts is going to change that! :)
Here is something I posted a while back. I don't know
if you have ever read it, but it expresses in part, how
I ended up believing what I do and why.
Sorry, I guess I went a bit off the track there for
a few minutes. :)
Pulpitfire
We agree the book of Revelation uses symbolism, but as illustrated
before, when it speaks symbolically, it tells you so, by saying things
like "like unto", or "as".
For example, as you noted yourself, in chapter one, it refers to stars
and a candlesticks. This is a symbolic reference. But does it leave
us to speculate as to what it means when it refers to these symbols?
No, it plainly tells us what the mystery is:
Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right
hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the
angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou
sawest are the seven churches.
Or again, in chapter one, it tells us Christ's feet are "like unto
fine brass". We know, here, that it doesn't literally mean Christ's
feet are made of brass, because it says they are "like unto" it. That
is symbolism, and we wouldn't argue it is literally saying Christ's
feet are made of brass. On the other hand, we are getting a literal
description of what Christ looks like. His feet are comparable to
fine brass, in their appearance or nature. The symbolic nature of the
language in Revelation is not a license to make this statement mean
whatever we want it to. The phrase "like unto" occurs fifteen times
in the book of revelation, in almost every other chapter of the book,
indicating when it is speaking symbolically.
Or again, the word "as" occurs dozens of times in the same way, to
explain a symbolic reference:
Re 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as
the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Now, these are literal demons, and they literally inflict misery on
men, and their torment is literally like that which a scorpion could
inflict. But we are not to conclude that these demons literally are
locusts and scorpions, just that they are similar to them in their
ability to inflict torment on men, and that's all the language of the
text claims.
Now, it's clear, that whenever the book of Revelation is speaking
symbolically, it gives us an explanation of this, by using symbolic
modifiers ("like unto", or "as"). We know, when we see this, that the
text is giving a literal description of something that can only be
explained by using symbolic comparisons.
There may be a few other references, like the phrase that Christ has a
sword that goes out of His mouth, which we have clear indication from
other Scriptures, are symbolic, representing His word:
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the word of God:
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than
any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discernment of the
thoughts and intents of the heart.
However, when we come to passages that say the armies "followed"
Christ from "heaven" to battle with the "nations" of the "kings" "of
the earth", it doesn't use the normal language that it does elsewhere
to describe a "mystery". We don't find, there, the normal modifiers
like "And it was as if they came to do battle with the kings of the
earth", or that they came to a place that was "like unto earth", or
that it "was as if they were slain with the edge of the sword, as it
always does in other places, when it gives literal explanations with
symbolic comparisons.
Revelation is a literal book, that describes literal events which are
to literally take place. When it uses symbolic language, it tells us
such by using modifiers like "like unto", or "as", and these describe
things literally (i.e. Christ's feet are literally like fine brass in
their appearance.). The idea we can start from the position that
everything is Revelation is just symbolic, and is subject to our
interpretation as to what that might mean, basically requires that
language ceases to be a medium for conveying anything other than what
we want it to mean. Unless we see language that indicates Revelation
is using symbolic comparisons, as it normally does, we should
interpret it literally. Otherwise, language ceases to be a medium for
conveying meaning which is anything other than what we want it to be.
>For example, how could all of the nations on planet
>Earth be gathered together in front of one person
>on a horse? That's impossible. :)
It says the "kings" "of the earth", and "their armies". This is
enough to establish the location of the battle as planet earth,
without requiring that every man, woman, and child on the planet went
into the battle. It is not impossible to have millions of troops
surrounding a geographic location on earth.
>Now of you wish to claim otherwise, then how do you
>explain the beast in chap 19, which you do not take
>as a literal beast? Aren't you leaving the physical
>literalism you just demanded of me, if you do not
>take the beast as a physically literal beast? Or is
>that "just obvious", which, no offense, simply means
>you telling me that what you think is physically
>literal and what is symbolic, should be the attitude
>of everyone. Again, no offense, but since you don't
>take the beast literally and yet, say the person on
>the horse is literal, what follows that, when it is
>questioned? :)
And again, when we have the description of the beast, we have an
explanation of the symbolism, that tells us it is referring to man:
Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
Six hundred threescore and six.
Now where is the similar explanation that the supposed "mystery" of
the King of Kings on the horse is actually Christ reigning from heaven
where His armies "followed" Him from to engage in battle with the
"kings" "of the earth"? Why would Revelation suddenly stop using
symbolic modifiers like "as" or "like unto", or the explanations of
the mystery (like it does with the stars, clandlesticks, and beast),
as it normally does when describing symbolic comparisons?
This is where your view has to throw a blanket of mysterious symbolism
over the whole event, to subject it to a meaning which supports your
view. Once we allow that principle, you can basically make the book
mean whatever you want it to, with impunity.
>We should also note that the passages say nothing about
>the whole planet. It notes "the nations". That does
>not automatically mean the entire planet.
We are showing the fact that Christ came to planet earth to do battle.
He cannot come to part of the planet, without coming to the whole
planet.
>You should also note that v14 says "the armies which
>were in Heaven". Those are angels and so, it does not
>automatically mean that they are seen. Read your
>Old Testament and you will see that an army of
>angels was present and was unseen by men.
>2 Kings 6:15-17
>
>15) And the servant of the man of God arose early and
>went out. And, behold, an army surrounded the city, and
>horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, Alas,
>my master! What shall we do?
>16) And he answered, Do not fear, for those with us are
>more than those with them.
>17) And Elisha prayed and said, I pray You, Jehovah,
>open his eyes so that he may see. And Jehovah opened
>the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the
>mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round
>about Elisha.
>
>So saying a Heavenly army is there, does not
>automatically mean physically seeing it.
>
Revelation 19:7-8 says the wife of the Lamb was given to array herself
in fine, clean, white linen, which is the righteousness of the saints.
Verse 14 uses the exact same language to describe the armies in heaven
who followed Him, i.e. that they are clothed in fine linen, white and
clean. The armies that "follow" Christ are apparently the saints who
are the wife of the Lamb, and not angels. Even so, angels are able to
appear to men, in the Bible (e.g. Mt. 28:2-4), and the kings of the
earth gathered themselves to do battle against Him who sat on the
horse, and His armies. This would indicate Christ and His armies are
visible, and nothing in our understanding of angelic interaction with
man, throughout the Bible, would necessitate that angels must be
invisible.
>It is for reasons like this, that I so highly stress
>knowledge of the OT. This is just like the "two
>witnesses". Knowing our OT would teach us that
>they were never meant to be taken as physically
>breathing fire and that is proved in the OT. :)
What is it about Zechariah 4:2-14, or any other passage in the OT,
that prohibits Revelation 11:3ff. from meaning exactly what it says?
>>Regarding the resurrection, why would a disembodied spirit, in heaven,
>>have to be resurrected, in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years?
>
>This is where you (whether intentional or not) begin
>to argue your belief by assuming that it's true, which
>is fine, but then you also assume that I must explain
>some "disembodied spirit" to you. Has it occurred
>to you, that when one says that they have a different
>belief about a Scripture, that it isn't their job to
>disprove your belief, by first assuming that your
>belief is true? :)
>
>It doesn't even occur to you, that "flesh and blood
>cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven", as Paul
>clearly said. They are not "disembodied", but rather,
>as Scripture says (and using the very same analogy
>that Paul did), that first death must take place.
We know from 1 Corinthians 15, that a resurrected body is not flesh
and blood, it is a spiritual body. However, it is a transformation of
their old body, which will come out of the grave as a new and glorious
body. We also know from 1 Thessalonians four, that Christ will bring
with Him from heaven, the saints who, from the sorrowful perspective
of those who are alive and remain on earth, have died, physically
(sleep), and they will then be resurrected along with those who are
alive and remain. So apparently there is a transitional phase, when
saints are in heaven, with Christ, but they do not yet have their
resurrected bodies.
>You are asking the same question that Paul chided the
>church for asking ("With what body are they raised?").
>
>Paul stated a farming example and just like the seed
>that is planted, the shell falls away and dies off and
>what is raised, is what was inside. Now tell me, why
>would Paul use that exact analogy, if that's not
>exactly what he was saying? :) Why does the futurist
>doctrine consistently add to Scripture and then
>demand an explanation from those who don't, as to
>how what they say could be, when their question is
>not based on what the Scripture actually and
>specifically says, but rather, their addition to it? (:
>There is no such thing as a "disembodied person"
>in Heaven and the truth is, if they required bodies
>that were physical, then how is it that they are
>reigning with Him for a thousand years, as John
>said? John said that "the souls of them" lived
>and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
>Now whether you think they are doing that at that
>moment or not, the fact is, they are SOULS and
>they are ALIVE, in Heaven! So it is as obvious as
>a pink bumper on a black truck, that they don't
>require bodies to live in Heaven.
I'm not sure what your point is, because I do not argue that the
resurrected body is a fleshly body. It is a spiritual body, but it
is, nevertheless a body, and it is a transformation of the seed
(fleshly body) which was sown in the ground (at the time of physical
death). Glorious spiritual bodies will be coming out of the graves on
earth, having been united with the souls which were previously
conscious with Christ, in heaven (1 Thess. 4). If I understand your
view, you are saying the resurrection is nothing more than waking up
sleeping souls, or some such, and has no connection with the earthly
body that was sown into the ground. I'm not sure I am clear about
your view, there.
>And what did Jesus say?...
>
>John 14:2-3
>
>2) In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were
>not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place
>for you.
>3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
>again and receive you to Myself, so that where I am,
>you may be also.
>
>Jesus said that they would go to be with Him, where
>He was going to. He would have said, "You're going
>to stay here", if He was teaching living forever on
>this planet. But He did not say that.
>He said that He was going to prepare a place for them.
>Now did He say, "hotel rooms"? :) No, He didn't,
>because He was not speaking of a temporary stay
>in Heaven.
>
>The physical body dies. The soul lives on (or is
>judged and dies).
>
We do not argue the saints live forever on this planet. We simply
hold what Revelation 19-22 plainly states. Christ will return to
earth, conquer it, rule here for 1,000 years with the saints, then
dissolve the present heavens and earth, judge the unsaved dead of all
ages at the Great White Throne judgment, then abide in the new heavens
and earth, in the city of New Jerusalem, which he described Himself as
making in John 14, with the saints, forever.
Again, I am not arguing that the resurrected body is a fleshly body.
It is a spiritual, glorious body, but it is, nevertheless, a body, and
it is a transformation of the seed (physical body) which was sown into
the ground on planet earth. There is a connection with the
resurrection, and the physical bodies on planet earth, and this does
show a connection to where the saints shall rule with Christ.
On the other hand, there is nothing in Revelation 20 that talks about
flying back to heaven after the resurrection, or going back to heaven,
after defeating the combined armies of the earth, as described in
Revelation 19. It is therefore not our obligation to prove that
Revelation 20 is talking about a reign on earth, but your obligation
to prove it is not. There is nothing in the text which necessitates
these people are ruling from heaven, and every indication in the text,
they are where Revelation 19 says they came, and where the
resurrection of their old bodies, into new and glorious spiritual
bodies, will occur--i.e. earth.
>>So you say they are already in heaven, and then, they have to be
>>spriritually resurrected in order to reign with Him?
>
>I never said any such thing. You are requiring another
>resurrection for them, which does not exist. They were
>already resurrected. Why would they need to be
>resurrected again?
And where were they resurrected from?
It may be that I don't quite understand your position, or how it
relates to where these saints are reigning from, so my answer may not
satisfy your question. Simply, it is talking about people who were
beheaded during the Tribulation on earth, who died on earth, and who
then "live again", as a result of the resurrection, and who will not
be harmed by the second, eternal death.
Now I didn't entirely hang my view that these people were reigning on
earth, on this verse alone, but the fact they "live again", after they
died physically on earth, and were resurrected, seems to connect
plainly with an earthly resurrection of a dead physical body, albeit
with a spiritual, glorious body. The soul doesn't die after physical
death, so in what sense do they "live again" (Revelation 6:10 shows
those physically killed during the Tribulation are alive and
conscious, spiritually, in heaven, with Christ)? It is in relation to
the resurrection of their old body, which was sown into the ground on
planet earth, into a new glorious body, that they are resurrected, and
"live again" on the planet earth where they were killed.
When you then go on with the very next verses that show that when
Satan is released, he stirs the nations of the four quarters of the
earth to march against the camp of the saints, at the end of their
1,000 years of reigning with Christ, how can you conclude this is
talking about a reign from heaven, and not earth?
Aside from the issue of whether the judgments that fall on earth are
universal to the whole planet, or local to a region of the planet, are
you then acknowledging this is soil, and not heaven? Because before,
it seems you were saying they were reigning from heaven. Now are you
at least admitting it is a region of the four corners of the planet
earth where these armies of the nations are marching against?
I wouldn't dispute that the camp of the saints is in a region of earth
(even though I still hold the judgments fall on the whole planet), it
is still a region of earth. It seems to me, you would have to go to
strange, complicated, and confusing places to render this verse as
referring to heaven, and not earth.
>Here is the question that throws a wrench into
>the works of your belief.
>
>You claim that in Rev 19, they all came to Earth.
>Yet Rev 20 says that they are souls. So you now,
>if you adhere to your own rule involving the time
>line, must claim that THE SOULS are on Earth,
>reigning with Christ. We both know that isn't
>the case, so guess where that leaves your belief? :)
I don't see the point, so this answer may not satisfy you. They are
souls which were slain on earth, during the Tribulation. They "live
again" (the soul doesn't die and then come back to life) and reign
with Christ for 1,000 years, as a result of their part in the first
"resurrection". The nations of the four quarters of the earth then
march against their camp after the 1,000 years is complete, and Satan
is released from the pit for a season. If that doesn't speak of a
reign from earth, then language ceases to be a medium for conveying
anything other than what you want it to mean.
>You raised the issue of Christ ruling with a rod of
>iron and you feel that it HAS TO, HAS TO mean
>that He does so from Earth, even though it DOES
>NOT SAY THAT.
When it says the saints "follow" Him from "heaven", and that they
battle against the armies of the earth, then that the armies of the
four quarters of the earth rally against the camp of the saints after
the 1,000 year reign, why would you conclude it is all happening
in/from heaven? Either the armies of earth have access to heaven, or
the heavenly armies come to earth, or it is all such a strange
allegory that it can basically mean whatever you want it to mean.
That's the way it seems to me.
>Psalm 2:8-9
Well, it seems you want me to splice together some extracts from a few
different passages, in a way that's favorable to such a view, because
the plain statements of Revelation 19 and 20 don't lend themselves to
that interpretation. Revelation 19 says Christ and the armies are
going somewhere from heaven, so our view doesn't have a problem with
the idea that the same Christ who rules the nations was, beforehand,
seated at the right hand of God. I also don't have a problem
admitting that Christ COULD reign the nations of the world from
heaven, if He wanted to, or that the saints COULD reign with Him from
heaven, over the nations of the world.
I do have a problem with the understanding it that way, however, when
the passage says the armies "followed" Him from "heaven", to engage
with the armies of the fleshly kings of the earth, and that after they
reign with Christ for a thousand years over these people they have
just conquered, Satan is released, and then the armies from the "four
quarters of the earth" compass the camp of the saints round about.
All that combined convinces me this is talking about an earthly reign,
and I would have to abandon myself to a blanket, spiritual
interpretation that basically lets you assign whatever meaning you
want to the passage, in order to agree otherwise.
>For example, if King Joey is 20 years old when he
>begins to reign and he reigns for 20 years and then
>gets married to Queen Betty (queen after the wedding)
>at 40 years old and then they reign together for
>another 20 years, does that mean that King Joey
>only reigned for 20 years? No, it doesn't. He reigned
>for 40 years, but SHE REIGNED WITH HIM for 20.
The reign of Christ is not limited to 1,000 years on earth, but it
does include a 1,000 year reign on earth with the saints.
>This is the SAME THING that Rev 20:4 is stating!
>It is NOT discussing a reign of Christ for a thousand
>years, but how long the souls of the beheaded reigned
>WITH Him!
Yes. And the fact it shows they reign with Him for this 1,000 years
shows that He also reigns for that 1,000 years in the realm where they
do, and I believe the text shows this is from earth.
>Daniel speaks of when Christ actually began to reign.
>Using your belief, Christ ascended to Heaven and didn't
>begin to reign. I know that you NOW recognize that
>Christ began to reign in the first century, but you
>didn't before and you just wouldn't admit that I showed
>you something that you did not know. But I don't wish
>to argue that. I just didn't want you to claim that
>I'm stating something you're not saying, especially
>since the fact is, as we both know, that none of the
>futurists that I have run into in these news groups
>knew that Christ began to reign when He ascended
>and we both know they had to shuffle their doctrine
>a bit, on the fly, as they were responding to my
>message, in order to again somehow make it fit.
I believe Christ has always been the Master of the Universe in the
absolute sense. He created everything, and by Him and for Him, all
things consist, according to Colossians 1:16-17. You didn't enlighten
me to this fact, and I wasn't forced into acknowledging this by your
exegetical prowess. This only underscores that the 1,000 year reign
of Revelation 19-20 is different from His universal reign, and I
understand it to be different in the sense that He reigns now from
earth, as a king, just as He did in heaven.
>Christ began to reign when He ascended and Daniel
>SPECIFICALLY NOTES THE NATIONS being ruled.
>So your previous objection, which is always echoed
>by every futurist of, "Oh yea?! So where is He, if
>He's ruling the nations?!", which their asking of that
>question proves that no, they did NOT realize what
>the Bible says about when He began His reign over
>the nations and simply won't admit later that they
>did not know, when I show this to them. (:
Actually, I believe the visions of the images in Daniel show the
successive kingdoms of the earth, beginning with Babylon, progressing
to Medo-Persia, then Greece, and Rome. The stone which was made
without hands represents the kingdom of Christ smashing the kingdoms
of the world, so that He then reigns it. You may then take glee in
thinking this is an admission that Rome's sacking of Jerusalem
constitutes the fulfilment of these prophecies (which I agree in part
it does), but I believe it indicates that the beast is the revived
Roman empire (the beast had a wound unto death, but was healed), which
Christ will destroy when He returns to earth in Revelation 19. It is
only in this sense that He will "begin" to reign over the nations of
the earth, although He has always, and will always be the Master of
the Universe in the absolute sense of Colossians 1:16-17.
[NOTE: I've been at this for several hours now, so I'm going to have
to hurry along. This does not mean I am fleeing from the truth, or
refusing to answer your arguments, just that I can't spend the entire
day responding to everything in the post. Each of these points
introduces other passages, each with their own considerations, so they
deserve more careful attention than I am able to give all in one
sitting--especially since I don't have a library of previous studies
and posts to draw from, having studied eschatology, but having never
debated these issues against such alternate views as yours before.
I'll do my best to answer now, but may have to answer the rest later.]
Again, I acknowledge Christ's universal reign according to Colossians
1:16-17, and have never denied that. It only underscores that the
sense in which He rules the nations for the 1,000 years in Revelation
19-20 is different than the sense in which He ruled from heaven.
As far as Christ beginning to reign over the nations the moment He
ascended, as you attempted to prove from Daniel, I think Hebrews 10 is
clear this is not the case:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God; [sat down in heaven after
ascending]
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
[still waiting until His enemies be made His footstool.]
I think I already acknowledged, above, that this use of the phrase
"sword" of His mouth is a symbolic reference to the Word of God, and
is clearly defined as such, in the NT epistles. An exception proves
rather than establishes a rule. It is the norm for the book of
Revelation to make statements like "as", or "like unto", or to explain
"this is the mystery of the stars and the candlesticks", when it is
using symbolic comparisons to give literal explanations about events.
Since the phrases "sword of the mouth" and "two edged sword" are
already clearly established in the NT readers minds (Eph. 6:17; Heb.
4:12), it doesn't require the normal modifiers Revelation uses ("like
unto"; "as") or the explanations ("this is the mystery of the stars
and candlesticks") where it overwhelmingly does in all other places in
the book. To make an exception, here or there, the standard, and
ignore the overwhelming manner in which Revelation indicates symbolic
speech, is not a smart and intelligent, vs. a "stupid" method of
interpretation.
The whole book of Revelation does not fall as a spiritual allegory, if
the phrase "sword of the mouth" is symbolic, without specifically
being stated as such, and making an exception here or there your
standard for interpreting a book, at the expense of the overwhelming
number of passages where symbolic speech is either modified as such or
explained, is what I would call "stupid".
>For example, the beast obviously represents
>something else. However, we all know that souls
>exist and therefore, we take that statement literally,
>even though they themselves, are spiritual beings.
Yes, and Revelation 13, as is the pattern for almost every symbol used
in the book, explains what the mystery of the "beast" refers to:
Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
number of the beast: for it is the number of a man;
We also know from the visions of the images in Daniel, that the beast
is the Roman empire, which consists of mere men, and not the God that
the beast sets itself up to be.
>Literal does NOT automatically mean "physical".
>It means only to take it as it's written. And I don't
>mean as someone INTERPRETS IT. I mean, AS
>IT'S WRITTEN.
And spiritual does not exclude physical, as the incarnation of God in
human flesh proves. A spiritual kingdom doesn't exclude the concept
of a literal, physical, kingdom on earth.
[see the last lines of this post]
[I've been at it for four hours now, and cannot spend this much time
responding to every line of every post you write, so if you have all
day to write, and/or libraries of previous articles to draw from, and
post lengthy articles like this, and I don't have time to respond to
every point, it would be dishonest to try and brag about this as if
you have just sent people fleeing from your exegetical prowess. Take
this part that I didn't finish replying to, and repost it, or just
wait, and I'll try to get to the rest later.]
Ananias917
<werner@peace-with-all_of.them> spake thusly:
>H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. in <Eq2dnaBqSrTHjADe...@comcast.com>
>on 2005-12-12 announced this statement:
>>
>> "Ananias917" <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:10ppp1lanjooek61u...@4ax.com...
>>> On 11 Dec 2005 14:06:29 -0800, "Pulpitfire"
>>> <rn...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
>>> symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
>>> is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
>>> physical literalism into the book, unless it
>>> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
>>> is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> The rule of Revelation is that which is "seen" must be seen, that which is
>> "heard" must be heard, and that which is "beheld" must be beheld.
>>
>> Who the hell are you to make up your own rules for reading Revelation?
>
>Ike means in contrast to him?
Yes, the first word of his response indicates
the obvious Biblical expertise with which
he so devastatingly refuted me! :)
And since "what is seen must be seen", I guess I'll go
wait for a beast to come up out of the water now. :)
--
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
It absolutely refutes you, because what you said IS bullshit, and Revelation
itself declares it.
You unilaterally pronounced that all of Revelation is interpreted according
to YOUR one rule, whereas Revelation itself says that it must be "seen," and
"heard," and "beheld."
There are elements that move from the Spiritual through the intellectual to
the literal, and elements that move from the literal through the
intellectual to the Spiritual.
What's really funny is that you demonstrate your own ignorance in your
concluding statement.
What's a beast? A man who rejects the will of God and lives by his own
understanding.
What's the "water?" The Gentiles in General, Christians specifically, and
antichristians when used as an antithesis, as it is in the passage to which
you refer. (This as opposed to "earth," which represents the Semites in
general, the Jews in thesis, and the antijews (i.e. modern Muslims) in
antithesis.
This is just one demonstration of the fact that Revelation must sometimes be
read left to right, and sometimes right to left, so your "one-rule" concept
IS bullshit.
Looks like we have another Pastor Dave on our hands, telling us that an
interpretation must be his way according to his rules without paying
attention to the rules that are in the texts themselves.
Of course, that has always been the Preterists' line of illogical logic to
begin with.
MrEye
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:15:15 GMT, MrEye <Mr...@no-email.org> spake
> thusly:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:51:37 +0000, Ananias917 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Now, if they are in heaven, and "follow" Christ to some other
>>>>location, and this location is where the kings "of the earth" have
>>>>gathered together to battle against the King of Kings who sat on the
>>>>horse, where are you suggesting Christ and His armies are...in heaven
>>>>where they "followed" Him from? Somehow the kings "of the earth" have
>>>>managed to fly to heaven to battle with Him who sat on the horse? No.
>>>>The plain understanding is that they are on earth. So then, the
>>>>question is not, "Where does it say they came to earth?", but "Where
>>>>does it say they went back to heaven?", in chapter 20?
>>>
>>> The plain understanding is that we're dealing with symbolism, since
>>> almost the entire book of Revelation is symbolism. It is actually out
>>> of line to insert physical literalism into the book, unless it
>>> specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation, is to take it
>>> symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>>
>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>
> No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule", not the totality. :)
You are making a distinction here between "the rule" and "totality". Can
you explain it clearly. I do not think i see the distinction yet.
>
>>Dispensationalists assume the whole book is futuristic. I find both
>>those assumptions to cause us to come to conclusions can be wrong. I do
>>not see the seven churches a symbolic. There were 7 actual churches that
>>existed during that time. I think the book can be partly symbolic and
>>partly literal. It is where you draw the line that differences arise.
>
> I agree that there were 7 literal churches and I agree that the
> dispensationalists make a mistake, when they try to make them symbolic
> of 7 dispensations.
>
> I also believe that John saw the literal souls of the beheaded in
> Heaven, in Rev 20:4.
>
>
>>> For example, how could all of the nations on planet Earth be gathered
>>> together in front of one person on a horse? That's impossible. :)
>>
>>There are still some prophecies which should be taken literally. A good
>>example is Jesus riding on a donkey. It would be nice if scripture told
>>us everything were to be symbolic or everything is to be taken
>>literally. But it does not. Which is what makes the interpretation
>>difficult.
>
> That is related to His time here on Earth and something He actually did,
> so of course it is literal. :)
Are you saying if it is a prophecy of something that the Messiah would do,
we should take it literally? Jesus himself prophesied that he would
destroy and rebuild the temple in 3 days. According to you then, he should
have done that literally.
> Him riding on a donkey already happened. There is no prophecy of Him
> doing that again.
>
> Common sense can rule what is physical and what is symbolic, if we
> believe what the Bible says about the WHEN of it and unfortunately,
> people TODAY don't.
Here is where I differ with you. You use common sense to decide what is
symbolic and what is literal. Dispensationalists, do exactly the same
thing. I would rather only use scripture to interpret scripture and things
which i cannot interpret, i leave it open, since scripture gives us enough
evidence that it could go either the literal or the symbolic way.
>
> For example, if a prophecy says, "And the sky will open" and the Bible
> says this must happen within the life time of the hearer, then it is
> obviously symbolic, if it didn't physically happen and it's 2,000 years
> later. :)
>
> But as I said, I highly stress being intimately familiar with the OT,
> since that is what Christ came to fulfill.
Yet the Jews who were intimately aware of the OT could not reconcile what
they saw Jesus to what they wanted him to do. Even Jesus had to teach his
disciples how he would fulfill scripture. It was not obvious to them. We
need Jesus' words to understand how he fulfills the OT. Or better stated,
we need scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to common sense or
man's wisdom.
I agree.
>
> Revelation is book of symbolism, that contains some physically literal
> statements, not the other way around and it is disingenuous, to state
> for example, that Jesus
> is literally riding a horse in Revelation 19, yet the beast is symbolic,
> in the same scene. (:
>
> It is also disingenuous to ignore all of the time statements in
> Revelation and to try to make them mean thousands of years.
>
> IT IS ONLY WHEN THEY OPEN THEIR BIBLES, that the futurists make these
> totally inane claims about time statements. IN NO OTHER WRITING would
> they say these things! (:
>
> But when it comes to the Bible, all of the sudden...
>
> "soon = thousands of years"
>
> and...
>
> "at hand" = "thousands of years".
But Peter does that too!. He says that a day with God is like a thousand
years and vice versa. This should teach us that "soon" can mean "thousands
of years" and "thousands of years" can mean "soon". Does this lead to
ambiguity? Well yes. But that is the nature of the scripture that God has
given us. Let us leave it that way.
>
> I have two major problem with the futurists I deal with in these news
> groups (no one would do these things in person, where you have to look
> someone in the eye).
>
> They never admit when I have taught them something. Rather, they will
> insult me and then change their view to what I showed them about some
> specific thing and then some of them will even claim to have always
> believed it. :)
>
> It's not that I care about getting credit. It's that it's impossible to
> get anywhere when that attitude is displayed. (:
I agree.
>
> The other thing is that change their arguments on the fly. I.e., they
> claim, "This is the generation!". "We're the generation that is in the
> last days!".
>
> Yet, when I prove to them that they were in the last days in the first
> century with Scripture, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, their argument changes to,
> "Well, the last days started then and they are still going on now.".
>
> Well, wait a minute... doesn't that fly in the face of what they have
> been telling me? :)
I agree.
>
> Why can't they just admit that they were wrong about that and that they
> need to sit down and study, instead of claiming that they're still right
> and I'm still wrong, no matter how many points I make along the way?
I ask myself the same questions.
>
> In other words, the integrity of the Bible is sacrificed on the road to
> demanding it be all about them and this is nothing but vanity!
>
> The Bible is sifted through their doctrine, instead of the other way
> around. (:
>
> I guess what bothers me, is that I see the same approach from them, as I
> do from the evolutionists. They cannot back up their claims and when you
> prove this wrong and that wrong, etc., that doesn't matter. Evolution
> is right, period and no amount of facts is going to change that! :)
I agree.
>
> Here is something I posted a while back. I don't know if you have ever
> read it, but it expresses in part, how I ended up believing what I do
> and why.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/e3nt8
>
> Sorry, I guess I went a bit off the track there for a few minutes. :)
That's OK.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>>The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
>>symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
>>is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
>>physical literalism into the book, unless it
>>specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
>>is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>
>We agree the book of Revelation uses symbolism, but as illustrated
>before, when it speaks symbolically, it tells you so, by saying things
>like "like unto", or "as".
That's not true. Jesus does not have a literal sword
sticking out of His mouth when He was to return,
yet what do we see in Rev 19?
"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." - Revelation 19:5
Where is the "like unto a sword", or "as a sword"?
Not only this, but I also demonstrated that the
"rod of iron" is not literal. In fact, it isn't even
a literal rod. Where is the "like unto a rod"?
Now if you want to be literal and use that rule,
then you must also say that Christ will actually
fly around to trouble spots and beat people with
a literal rod, when they get out of line! :)
And what would be the point of ruling them with
a literal rod of iron, when it will be peace anyway?
These are logical questions that come up, that
the futurists do not consider and frankly, when
you look at a doctrine, you should try to attack
it before believing it. God invented science and
this is just like science. Take a doctrine and
try to DISPROVE it and when you can't, THEN,
MAYBE it is true. :)
The "rod of iron" is the word of God, as I demonstrated
in my other post regarding this. If you did not see
it, it can be found here (not the post I sent you, but
a "rod of iron" post that I sent out as a new thread
a while ago, without all of the extras)...
Start at the very top of that page. It's not that
long. The page is long, but not my post in it.
Revelation is a book of symbolism, with some physical
literalism here and there, like the seven churches,
which did exist in the first century. But you have
confused what I mean by that. See below.
>For example, as you noted yourself, in chapter one, it refers to stars
>and a candlesticks. This is a symbolic reference. But does it leave
>us to speculate as to what it means when it refers to these symbols?
>No, it plainly tells us what the mystery is:
>
>Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right
>hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the
>angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou
>sawest are the seven churches.
<snip other examples, which I did read>
>Revelation is a literal book, that describes literal events which are
>to literally take place. When it uses symbolic language, it tells us
>such by using modifiers like "like unto", or "as", and these describe
>things literally (i.e. Christ's feet are literally like fine brass in
>their appearance.).
As I said, that is not always the case. It does not
always say when something is symbolic and in
fact, it should be taken as symbolic, except for
some of it.
You are confused about what I am saying. I think
I know where the confusion lies. I know that you
are confused about what I am saying, because I
do believe in a physical battle and you think I am
saying that there is no literal battle (at least it
seems that way by your response).
I am not saying that there are not events that take
place. Let me explain the word "literal", as it is
meant in the accurate Biblical sense, when it is
used in textual criticism of said Scriptures...
Technically, the whole Bible is a literal book, since
all of it happens. What is being questioned here,
is whether or not it is a "physically, seen literally
with the human eye, actually and physically taking
place, as it is being seen, in the exact manner that
it is stated".
That is what I am talking about, when I say, "literal".
Most folks abbreviate all of that into the word,
"literal", because that is too long to write each and
every time. :)
To be more technical for a moment, to further my
explanation above...
John literally saw the souls of the beheaded in Heaven
IN A VISION. That does not mean that we see them
with human eye while we live in our bodies. They are
souls and cannot be seen with the human eye and never
will be seen with the human eye (human meaning what
we are right now).
>The idea we can start from the position that
>everything is Revelation is just symbolic, and is subject to our
>interpretation as to what that might mean, basically requires that
>language ceases to be a medium for conveying anything other than what
>we want it to mean. Unless we see language that indicates Revelation
>is using symbolic comparisons, as it normally does, we should
>interpret it literally. Otherwise, language ceases to be a medium for
>conveying meaning which is anything other than what we want it to be.
I never said, nor did I imply that I was saying that
"everything in Revelation is just symbolic".
However, to claim that revelation is a physically
literal book, does not make sense (physically
meaning "as we are right now" physical).
First of all, IT IS A VISION, so it wasn't even really
happening in that moment of time to begin with.
Secondly, John saw many things in Heaven. The
human eye does not and cannot see Heaven at all,
let alone see things that happen there. :) As I said,
it was a vision and it was a vision of the future,
which does not mean our future, just because we
opened our Bible today. :) But it was in the future
from John's time of seeing the vision.
Sidenote: It is disingenuous to assume that something
is in OUR future, just because we bought our first
Bible today and are just now reading it in our time.
All that can HONESTLY be said, until proved otherwise,
is that it was still in the future when the writer
first wrote it.
Thirdly, we see swords sticking out of mouths, beasts
rising up out of the sea, seven heads, ten horns, etc..
It is obvious that these things are not literal
(remember the abbreviated usage of that word).
And finally, much of what Jesus and the Apostles said,
is symbolism.
What you don't seem to understand, because of your
ignorance of the Jewish history and the way they
thought and spoke and wrote (which is also reflected
in Scripture) and your ignorance of the OT, is that
it is symbolism that THEY WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY
UNDERSTOOD. Jesus did not say anything literal
(physically literal), when He talked about stars
falling and the Sun going dark, etc., which I showed
you in another thread a while ago.
Sidenote: It is disingenuous to read a writing from
ANY OTHER view than that of the writers. The
perspective and time of the writer determine
the view, NOT OUR time and perspective!
So yes, Revelation is mainly a book of symbolism.
And while you point to verses that say that it is
about to be explained, you prove my point, not yours.
It wouldn't have to be explained, if it wasn't a book
of symbolism. :)
Also remember that it is because it is full of
symbolism, that Revelation is the hardest book
in the Bible to understand. It is not the hardest
because it is all plainly stated as physically literal.
This fact also shows that your approach is the
opposite of the reality of the writing.
>>For example, how could all of the nations on planet
>>Earth be gathered together in front of one person
>>on a horse? That's impossible. :)
>
>It says the "kings" "of the earth", and "their armies". This is
>enough to establish the location of the battle as planet earth,
>without requiring that every man, woman, and child on the
>planet went into the battle. It is not impossible to have millions
>of troops surrounding a geographic location on earth.
Now you are trying to claim that the kings themselves
will be right there, at that spot alone? That seems to
me to be changing your doctrine on the fly, to fit
something I said, which you had to recognize as fact.
When is the last time you said, "Oh, just the kings
themselves would be there.", before today? :)
The reality is, that you believe in this huge, huge
army of the nations (isn't the popular quote at
200 million?) going out to fight, so that statement
above doesn't work and the kings would not expose
themselves that way. Not too many kings would say,
"Hey, there's Jesus, with a huge army! C'mon,
fellow kings, let's go by ourselves and face Him!". :)
Not only this, but after I pointed out that it isn't
possible that all of the nations' armies could be
in that one spot, you said that it only says "the
kings". Okay, so now you have the kings coming
without any army, to face Jesus and His host.
I DON'T THINK SO!!! :)
Jesus is not there physically seen!
You make so little of this! Do you REALLY think
that ANY earthly king would stand up to Jesus
Himself, appearing that way?!?!?! PLEASE!!! :)
THEY'D RUN, SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS!!! :)
Here's Jesus, with His Heavenly Host and now,
the kings are just trotting on up to Him, to face
Him in battle?! NO WAY!!! :)
See further down and note: "Historical Evidence".
And note the example I gave from 2 Kings. It shows
that God's army is not seen by the human eye. :)
>>Now of you wish to claim otherwise, then how do you
>>explain the beast in chap 19, which you do not take
>>as a literal beast? Aren't you leaving the physical
>>literalism you just demanded of me, if you do not
>>take the beast as a physically literal beast? Or is
>>that "just obvious", which, no offense, simply means
>>you telling me that what you think is physically
>>literal and what is symbolic, should be the attitude
>>of everyone. Again, no offense, but since you don't
>>take the beast literally and yet, say the person on
>>the horse is literal, what follows that, when it is
>>questioned? :)
>
>And again, when we have the description of the beast, we have an
>explanation of the symbolism, that tells us it is referring to man:
Actually, it says to "A MAN" and it also refers
to a system. There is a dual reference there. :)
>Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
>number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
>Six hundred threescore and six.
You haven't answered as to which beast this is
and if it is the same beast that is in Rev 13.
Also see below.
>Now where is the similar explanation that the supposed "mystery" of
>the King of Kings on the horse is actually Christ reigning from heaven
>where His armies "followed" Him from to engage in battle with the
>"kings" "of the earth"? Why would Revelation suddenly stop using
>symbolic modifiers like "as" or "like unto", or the explanations of
>the mystery (like it does with the stars, clandlesticks, and beast),
>as it normally does when describing symbolic comparisons?
>
>This is where your view has to throw a blanket of mysterious symbolism
>over the whole event, to subject it to a meaning which supports your
>view. Once we allow that principle, you can basically make the book
>mean whatever you want it to, with impunity.
Okay, first of all, you have not proved your time line.
You are jumping back and forth between chapters 19
& 20 as it is convenient for your view. According to
you, they come to Earth in chap 19, so why are you
taking the passages in chap 20 as coming before
chap 19, which you are forced to do, considering
that chap 20 has souls in Heaven?
You are also not considering the fact that you are
saying that a literal Jesus will appear on a horse,
with an actual sword sticking out of His mouth,
if you demand physical literalism.
You mentioned being shown that the beast is
symbolic. But you fail to recognize that also,
the sword is symbolic and if the sword is symbolic,
that means that it isn't really a literal sword
sticking out of the mouth of Jesus, so who says
that Jesus is literally on a literal horse?
Again, see the link I provided above about
the "rod of iron", which also deals specifically
with this sword (link quoted again below).
So you first have to prove that the chapters
should be taken out of order for a time line.
Then you have to explain why you claim that
it is literally Jesus on a horse and yet, don't
explain the sword sticking out of His mouth,
which using your rule, would mean that it
is a literal sword, when it isn't.
You then have to show that it is the same beast
(you did know there are two beasts, right?).
And then you have to explain why you accept
a symbolic explanation for the beast, based
on a note from chapter 13, and don't automatically
apply the Scriptures that I showed you about
the sword and how it relates to, and is, this
"rod of iron", which I showed is the word of God.
So you have four facets of your view left to be
explained, before I can even consider it to be
accurate, since in considering it just as you
have stated it thus far, leaves me with the
problems I listed above, until you can prove
that they are not problems. It's your view,
so it's up to you to demonstrate that they
aren't problems. So "Na, na na, naaa na!". :)
In fact, I can't even respond to your questions,
until you make sense of the four points that
I noted above. :)
And note that the bride of the Lamb is the New
Jerusalem, which means it's not a literal city,
as I showed you in my other post. :)
>Verse 14 uses the exact same language to describe the armies in heaven
>who followed Him, i.e. that they are clothed in fine linen, white and
>clean. The armies that "follow" Christ are apparently the saints who
>are the wife of the Lamb, and not angels. Even so, angels are able to
>appear to men, in the Bible (e.g. Mt. 28:2-4), and the kings of the
>earth gathered themselves to do battle against Him who sat on the
>horse, and His armies. This would indicate Christ and His armies are
>visible, and nothing in our understanding of angelic interaction with
>man, throughout the Bible, would necessitate that angels must be
>invisible.
You are assuming that they are the saints.
You have some problems, using your own
rule of "here's an explanation, so apply it"
and I'll use your words above to present
the problems.
1) It says that the white that the saints are clothed
in, is their righteousness. Therefore, it isn't
literal linen, but represents their righteousness.
2) Angels have been literally seen by men in white,
so they are literally wearing white.
3) You ARE ASSUMING that they are the saints
above and yet, it DOES NOT SAY THAT.
4) The saints are taught to love their enemies and that
vengeance is the Lord's. We know that the Lord uses
His angels to do battle, but to assume that He is using
us in what you say above, flies in the face of the
claim that all Christians make, that we are not to go
to war with our enemies. If vengeance is the Lord's,
then the Lord will handle it and use His army and
that is His angels, as is clear THROUGHOUT Scripture!
Again, note the example I showed from 2 Kings.
It shows that His armies are unseen by humans
and that they are angels.
5) You are assuming that the saints win this war.
They don't. They lose it and lose it badly, because
they don't fight. The Bible tells you that all flesh
would be killed, if God didn't cut the days short.
You are having problems with this, because you are
confusing God's angelic army, that comes not to
win, but to stop everyone from being slaughtered,
with the saints in Heaven, who are not doing battle.
Satan gathers the physical kings against Jerusalem
and Judea and he wins that battle, AS JESUS SAID!
God and His angelic army comes out and stops it
from being a total slaughter and fights a SPIRITUAL
battle against Satan and wins THAT battle! In the
end, Satan is cast into the lake of fire and the
resurrection happens. It is time for the second death,
which will not affect the souls in Heaven, which is
where we will be for eternity (see Hebrews 12:22).
Here is what I noted above, for you to view later,
as "Historical Evidence"...
Historical evidence of the return of Jesus being the
judgment on Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
Heavenly phenomena:
- A star resembling a sword
- A comet (Halley's Comet)
- A bright light shining around the altar
and the temple
- A vision of chariots and soldiers running around
among the clouds and all cities of Palestine.
Earthly phenomena (reported by priests)
- A quaking
- A great noise
- The sounds of a great multitude saying,
"Let us remove hence."
Read the testimonies and get more detailed information
at the following link...
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/c/chariots-in-clouds.html
The event in Jerusalem was the destruction of it and
God removed His protection of it, as the Roman army
advanced on it and it was about God handing it over
for destruction! Note, "Let us DEPART from THIS
place". God WANTED the Temple DESTROYED!
The victory that God won after that, was a spiritual
victory, not a physical one!
Note what the OT prophecy says about it...
Zechariah 14:1-3
1) Behold, the day of Jehovah comes, and your spoil
shall be divided in your midst.
"Your spoil" is not the spoil of Jerusalem's victory.
It is their goods, being divided right in front of
them! Read the next passage carefully (note what
is in caps and what comes after what is in caps)...
2) For I will gather all nations to battle against
Jerusalem; AND THE CITY SHALL BE TAKEN,
and the houses plundered, and the women raped.
And half of the city shall go into exile, and the rest
of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Now note what Jesus said...
"And except those days should be shortened,
there should no flesh be saved: but for the
elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
- Matthew 24:22
The saints are not fighting! They are being
slaughtered, as are almost all Jews (and the
saints were being slaughtered in the tribulation
leading up to this event)!
God does not say that He is cutting the days
short, because of a war the saints fight!
Nor is He even saying that it is only the saints
that are being attacked!
He is saying that the days of the attack, which
was on ALL JEWS were cut short, FOR THE ELECT,
because the elect were there also!
3) And Jehovah shall go out and fight against those
nations, like the day He fought in the day of battle.
THEN Jehovah comes out to fight against those
nations! Which, as the OT shows, has nothing
to do with a PHYSICAL APPEARANCE of God!
The Roman Empire did indeed begin its decline
after attacking Jerusalem!
Note Isaiah 13:6-10, which speaks THE SAME
EXACT LANGUAGE that Jesus used and is
talking about Babylon destroying Jerusalem,
which already happened! Even the Sun and
Moon going dark! Note that Isaiah 19:1 speaks
of God riding a cloud into Egypt, which was
about Babylon conquering Egypt!
The Roman army is "the people of the prince"
in Daniel and that Prince is CHRIST, NOT
SOME ANTICHRIST! As Isaiah shows us
twice minimum, God uses Gentile armies
to judge the Jews!
Note that it says in Daniel, that this prince
would be "cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF".
If this is the AntiChrist, he would be cut off
FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS!
ONLY CHRIST could be cut off for the actions
of others, because ONLY CHRIST is 100%
innocent!!!
Also note that the Hebrew does NOT say that
a covenant would be MADE (Hebrew = "cut")!
It says that a covenant would be CONFIRMED
(Hebrew = "to make strong").
This means that the covenant had to EXIST ALREADY!
What covenant of "The AntiChrist" already exists,
to be "made strong" / "confirmed" ???
The weeks run together and the Jews never separated
them, nor does the NT anywhere say to do that! It says
that He was cut off in the middle of the week. Jesus
appeared and the last week began when He was baptized
by John and the Holy Spirit came down.
He had a 3.5 year ministry and was crucified. He was
CUT OFF, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF.
But remember, the covenant, which WAS WITH THE JEWS
had to be confirmed for the whole week.
History tells us that the Apostles did, for the next
3.5 years, preach to the Jews almost exclusively.
Guess what happened after that 3.5 years of them?
That's right, you guessed it! :)
Enter Paul the Apostle, who was, "The Apostle to
the Gentiles"!!! :)
Thus, the Covenant was confirmed for the whole week!
And it is "on the wing of abominations" that this
destruction comes (those abominations being
sacrifices performed, after Jesus' sacrifice).
It does not say in Daniel that the destruction itself
comes within the 70 weeks. It actually says that...
"desolations are DETERMINED within that 70 weeks!
Remember how I pointed out that sometimes,
one or two words can change our whole view?
Desolations ARE DETERMINED within that
70 weeks, not carried out. :)
And to note Nebby again, even Daniel himself said
that Nebby was God's agent and that God would
punish anyone who didn't SERVE NEBBY!!! He
was God's agent at that time and that is what it
teaches us, in Scripture! :)
Note that it says that GOD MADE HIM RULER
over all...
Daniel 2:37-38
37) You, O king, are a king of kings. For the God
of Heaven has given you a kingdom, power, and
strength, and glory.
38) And wherever the sons of men, the beasts of the
field, and the birds of the heavens live, He has given
them into your hand, and has made you ruler over
them all. You are this head of gold.
Daniel also says that the Kingdom (which Christ
said is within us) would be GIVEN TO the saints.
That means that it isn't fought for by the saints.
If it was, then it would be something that we
earned. God said that it would be given to us,
which means that someone else earned it and
then gave it to us (Daniel 7:27).
So what is the difference then, you ask, as all
futurists understandably do? If it has happened
before, what is the difference now? Why such
a big deal about this war in 70 AD then, that
the people like me make such a big deal out of,
that the Bible should lead all to it? Simple. :)
T-H-E-Y K-I-L-L-E-D G-O-D'S S-O-N !!!!!!!
Read Matthew 21:33-46 and you'll see very clearly
that Jesus said the owner would come back and
JUDGE THOSE WHO KILLED HIS SON, NOT
some generation of their descendants that lived
thousands of years later!!!
What could ANY generation do, that would be
worse than murdering the Son of God?! Think
about that!!!
And don't say, "They would reject Him", because
every generation does that and that generation
did that too and did it worse, since not only did
they reject Him, but they MURDERED HIM!!!
THEY MURDERED GOD'S SON !!!!!!!
Again, read Matthew 21:33-46 and see what
Jesus CLEARLY SAYS about THAT GENERATION!
Note that THIS TIME, not only did God use
another army to destroy the Temple, but
THIS TIME, IT HAS STAYED DESTROYED!!!
And note that Jesus said... "not one stone shall
be left upon another.".
And what happened? After the Roman army came
in and burned the Temple, they tore it apart, stone
by literal stone, to retrieve the melted gold that
ran in between the stones! FULFILLED TO
THE LETTER!!! :)
2,000 years later and they are STILL MOURNING
over it! What people don't understand today, is
that fine, they have the land, but it isn't enough,
until THEY HAVE THEIR TEMPLE!!! Look at
what they do, EVERY DAY, at the...
W-A-I-L-I-N-G W-A-L-L !!! ...
...which is the foundation of what? THE TEMPLE!!!
Their whole life centered around the Temple!
That's why the parents didn't stick up for
their son, the blind man in the Book of Acts!
Neither Jesus, nor the Apostles ever preached anything
but a return within their generation and they always
gave a message that was very forceful about the
imminence of His return.
For example, did you ever wonder why Felix trembled,
when Paul talked about the resurrection and judgment? I
mean after all, we tell people about that lots of times
and it doesn't have much effect. People simply
do not tremble the way that Felix did. Of course, they
are not taught that imminent means imminent. They
are taught that "imminent = thousands of years", so
why tremble? :)
Let's take a look at it and see if we can figure out
why it is not obvious as to the reason that Felix
trembled the way he did...
"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance,
and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered,
Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient
season, I will call for thee." - Acts 24:25
It's because the translations don't bring out the
imminence that Paul stated. Take a look at the ALT,
also translated from the Majority Texts and you can
see the imminence, which you can verify, using a
Strong's, if you wish.
"But while he [was] reasoning about righteousness
and self-control and the judgment, the one being
about to happen, Felix having become terrified,
answered, "For the present be going, but having time,
I will call for you."" - Acts 24:25
Note: The one being about to happen.
The Greek word there, means, "being, about to be".
Paul said it was about to happen. Not someday way off.
but about to happen. It was imminent and that is why
Felix trembled.
The closest I can come to helping you understand what
the Greek is expressing here, is an example of you
being on a work site and someone yells, "Heads up!".
You look up, because you know that something is
about to fall! That is the imminence expressed in
Paul's teaching to Felix.
What you do NOT do, is to ignore it and act as if it is
something that may happen somewhere in your life time,
or at some point thousands of years from the time it
was yelled out. (:
Paul and the rest taught that imminent return and
contrary to the popular doctrine, imminent does not
mean, "Maybe now, maybe far off".
And let me tell you something, when your doctrine
demands that you continually redefine words from their
common sense meaning, then you have a problematic
doctrine! The fact is, if they meant "Maybe thousands
of years off", then why didn't Jesus, nor one of the
Apostles ever say that? Why would they use words
that are contrary to what they are expressing? Why did
they not once say, "Maybe in our life time, maybe not."
instead of "being about to be"???
This is common sense, brother. C-O-M-M-O-N S-E-N-S-E!
>>It is for reasons like this, that I so highly stress
>>knowledge of the OT. This is just like the "two
>>witnesses". Knowing our OT would teach us that
>>they were never meant to be taken as physically
>>breathing fire and that is proved in the OT. :)
>
>What is it about Zechariah 4:2-14, or any other passage in the OT,
>that prohibits Revelation 11:3ff. from meaning exactly what it says?
Because you shouldn't claim to interpret Scripture with
Scripture, until it becomes inconvenient to your view.
Searching through the Scripture shows that this has
indeed happened before and that it was not a literal,
physical event. When Jeremiah was told to preach
God's word, the Lord said to him...
"Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts,
Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make
my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood,
and it shall devour them." - Jeremiah 5:14
It is obvious that Jeremiah, when speaking God's word,
did not have fire literally coming out of his mouth and
that the people did not literally turn into wood. :)
Thus we see that there is no reason to take that
statement in Revelation as being physically literal
either. Interpreting Scripture by Scripture, shows
us that we should take it symbolically and that
when Scripture says that fire is coming out of their
mouths, that it is showing that no one can stand
up to God's word. :)
>>>Regarding the resurrection, why would a disembodied spirit, in heaven,
>>>have to be resurrected, in order to reign with Christ for 1,000 years?
>>
>>This is where you (whether intentional or not) begin
>>to argue your belief by assuming that it's true, which
>>is fine, but then you also assume that I must explain
>>some "disembodied spirit" to you. Has it occurred
>>to you, that when one says that they have a different
>>belief about a Scripture, that it isn't their job to
>>disprove your belief, by first assuming that your
>>belief is true? :)
>>
>>It doesn't even occur to you, that "flesh and blood
>>cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven", as Paul
>>clearly said. They are not "disembodied", but rather,
>>as Scripture says (and using the very same analogy
>>that Paul did), that first death must take place.
>
>We know from 1 Corinthians 15, that a resurrected body is not flesh
>and blood, it is a spiritual body. However, it is a transformation of
>their old body, which will come out of the grave as a new and glorious
>body.
No, it does NOT say that. In fact, Paul specifically
says that the body which would be raised, is NOT
that body!
"Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless
it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow the body
that is going to be."
Note: That body dies. He is using a farming example
here. Ask yourself (we must be logical), does the
SEED'S SHELL rise up out of the ground? No!
>We also know from 1 Thessalonians four, that Christ will bring
>with Him from heaven, the saints who, from the sorrowful perspective
>of those who are alive and remain on earth, have died, physically
>(sleep), and they will then be resurrected along with those who are
>alive and remain. So apparently there is a transitional phase, when
>saints are in heaven, with Christ, but they do not yet have their
>resurrected bodies.
You make that assumption because of your belief.
In other words, you are sifting the Bible through
your doctrine, instead of the other way around!
And note also that Paul says, "with what body do
THEY COME".
Thus, he is showing that contrary to your belief that
they come and get new bodies, after their old ones are
raised, he is actually equating the raised body to the
same body that THEY COME with!!! And as John
said, they are SOULS when they are in Heaven!
So what body would they be "coming" with? Their
SOUL BODIES! The soul IS the SPIRITUAL body!
You are hung up on the word "body", because you're
a human being. :) I will explain this further below.
And I don't mean to talk down to you, so don't
misunderstand me, but the Greek sentence construction
shows what I am saying, as far as what is connected
with what. Pastors who teach what you are saying,
which is where we get this and not from the Bible
itself, are always quick to point out a Greek word
here and there, but are always ignorant as to the
actual vocabulary and sentence construction! (:
See further down, for further explanation of this.
Again, this is where your problem is. You are missing
the part about the shell. Where does Paul say the
shell is transformed? He doesn't. The shell is left
behind and what rises, is the spiritual body.
>Glorious spiritual bodies will be coming out of the graves on
>earth, having been united with the souls which were previously
>conscious with Christ, in heaven (1 Thess. 4). If I understand your
>view, you are saying the resurrection is nothing more than waking up
>sleeping souls, or some such, and has no connection with the earthly
>body that was sown into the ground. I'm not sure I am clear about
>your view, there.
That is your view. You have not explained to me word
for word, how it says that.
This is what I have been trying to get you to note, as
to the difference in the futurist approach and my
approach.
They tell you what is going to happen and then just
say, "1 Thes 4!".
I show you the passage itself and break it down,
word for word if necessary, to prove my point.
You respond with, "No sir, because of 1 Thes 4!".
Do you see the difference??? When the opposing side
cannot do a word for word verification, that should
tell you something. :)
But I have further to say on this body thing below.
That is your claim. Again, I have you saying it's so
and then saying, "John 14!".
The truth is, I have shown you that the New Jerusalem
could not possibly be a physical city. Is Jesus going
to marry a city? :)
Nothing in the text necessitates it, you say.
That is not the same as disproving my view.
That is saying that you admit that it can be seen
there, without directly admitting it. :)
The fact that you claim that they won't be souls while
on Earth and the fact that they are in Heaven and
the fact that Christ ascended to His throne and the
fact that they received thrones AS SOULS, shows that
they are indeed, ruling with Christ, in Heaven.
You try to place chap 20 before 19, but have not proved
that you should.
You also, have still failed to address the fact that
Rev 20:4 does not speak of how long Christ reigns,
but rather, how long the saints reign with Him.
You seem to refuse to admit this simple fact of
language, because it doesn't suit your doctrine.
The truth is Randy, you cannot say that Christ
has some "special reign for a literal 1,000 years"
in that passage, because it does not say that
and nowhere else in the Bible, is a 1,000 year
reign of Christ taught. NOWHERE!!!
Coupling this with the fact that you try to make this
claim because you switch the order of chap's 19 & 20,
shows us that you are building this doctrine from
your assumptions.
And not only is it as weak as your assumptions, but it
is actually only inference based on assumptions.
And not only is it as weak as inference based on
assumptions, but you get those inferences from
switching the order of the chapters for your time
line, without proving that it should be done.
So what we have from you really, is inference
based on assumptions that were based on
switching the orders of two chapters, to get
a time line that you haven't proved exists
in that order!
You need to sit back and think about this, son. :)
>>>So you say they are already in heaven, and then, they have to be
>>>spriritually resurrected in order to reign with Him?
>>
>>I never said any such thing. You are requiring another
>>resurrection for them, which does not exist. They were
>>already resurrected. Why would they need to be
>>resurrected again?
>
>And where were they resurrected from?
From their graves. Again, see below for further
thoughts on the resurrection issue. :)
I think that is the case. I admit that I have been off
on some of the fine points of your view. But you have
assumed that I don't even believe in actual events. :)
That's okay, we can correct each other. That's what
the keyboard is for, right? :)
>or how it
>relates to where these saints are reigning from, so my answer may not
>satisfy your question. Simply, it is talking about people who were
>beheaded during the Tribulation on earth, who died on earth, and who
>then "live again", as a result of the resurrection, and who will not
>be harmed by the second, eternal death.
>
>Now I didn't entirely hang my view that these people were reigning on
>earth, on this verse alone, but the fact they "live again", after they
>died physically on earth, and were resurrected, seems to connect
"SEEMS TO", DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL "DO" !!!
Souls are beings, as Rev 20:4 shows. They do talk,
right? :)
And nowhere does the Bible say, "and after they exist
as souls, they get other physical bodies".
And if you're saying that you're not claiming that they
are physical, then why believe we come to Earth at all?
Isn't Heaven spiritual enough for you? :)
Think about it... Where does Scripture specifically
say... "They exist as souls for a while and then get
bodies."? Aren't you inferring it from what you
believe another passage says about them being
resurrected? But even that passage does not say,
"They are resurrected and then a while later...".
It says they are resurrected and it does not say that
they are not resurrected into whatever their body
will be. Be honest about this. 1 Cor 15 talks about
them being resurrected. It says nothing about
later changing bodies and Rev 20:4 says they
are alive as souls.
I.e., You are ASSUMING that they are not resurrected
in Rev 20:4. But when we acknowledge that Scripture
says that a soul SLEEPS until the resurrection and then
read that souls are alive in Rev 20:4 and we admit that
nowhere does 1 Cor 15 say they later change bodies
and we apply the "farming" analogy that Paul gave
and admit that when a seed is planted, that the shell
does indeed fall off and what is inside rises and when
we admit that we do believe that our souls are inside
of us, this all comes together. :)
Nowhere does I see a passage that says, "And when
the saints come, they get new physical bodies".
Your belief comes from inference only, just like
(no offense), the evolutionists INFER evolution,
when the fossil record doesn't actually SHOW
the steps. :)
Paul also says, "it is sown a natural body and is
raised a spiritual body".
IT IS RAISED A S-P-I-R-I-T-U-A-L BODY !!!
Is not a soul, "a spiritual body"? Of course it is!
You are getting caught up in the word "body"
and thinking of what you were born knowing
a body to be and you have the idea from the
movies that a soul is some kind of "mist" or
something. :) If the souls are in Heaven, then
they were raised to be in Heaven. If they were
raised, then they were resurrected, which is all
that means.
Why doesn't a soul have arms and legs, etc.,
that are spiritual? Where does the Bible
say that a soul is just some mist floating
around?
I know you didn't say that, but my point is,
that if you are waiting for them to get bodies,
doesn't that assume that they would currently
be some sort of "blob mist"? :)
>plainly with an earthly resurrection of a dead physical body, albeit
>with a spiritual, glorious body. The soul doesn't die after physical
>death, so in what sense do they "live again" (Revelation 6:10 shows
>those physically killed during the Tribulation are alive and
>conscious, spiritually, in heaven, with Christ)? It is in relation to
>the resurrection of their old body, which was sown into the ground on
>planet earth, into a new glorious body, that they are resurrected, and
>"live again" on the planet earth where they were killed.
>
>When you then go on with the very next verses that show that when
>Satan is released, he stirs the nations of the four quarters of the
>earth to march against the camp of the saints, at the end of their
>1,000 years of reigning with Christ, how can you conclude this is
>talking about a reign from heaven, and not earth?
I do not take the 1,000 years to be literal and in
fact, it seems that it is always used in Scripture
symbolically. You keep ignoring that I showed
you that. You keep ignoring the things I show
you and argue as if they were never said!
I.e., It's one thing if you deal with them HEAD ON
and SHOW WHY you disagree with my specific
statements. It's another to avoid my wording and
then keep making the same argument and then
criticize me for repeating myself so much! (:
Doesn't that make a HUGE DIFFERENCE is your doctrine?
C'mon, we BOTH KNOW it does! :) As I said, look at
what Glenn did. :)
>are
>you then acknowledging this is soil, and not heaven? Because before,
>it seems you were saying they were reigning from heaven. Now are you
>at least admitting it is a region of the four corners of the planet
>earth where these armies of the nations are marching against?
A war did happen on Earth, yes. My contention is that
it is a war that was lost physically and won
spiritually. That will take some explanation, so don't
jump to conclusions. :) I simply mean that the war
being won spiritually, meant the Jews losing
physically. That's why it is funny when futurists
claim Zech 14 says they win, because as I pointed
out to you, it actually says that they lose Jerusalem
and the women are raped, etc.. :)
Now here is my question to you...
If Zech shows that they LOSE Jerusalem and
the enemies divide the spoil, rape the women,
etc. and that the Temple is destroyed, then
how is it possible that Christ would be reigning
from that point on Earth? No one seems to ask
that question. :)
I snipped the rest, because as you said, it is long and
you need to deal with the four things I said earlier
and above.
Here they are again, copied from earlier in this
message...
*************************************************
>Now where is the similar explanation that the supposed "mystery" of
>the King of Kings on the horse is actually Christ reigning from heaven
>where His armies "followed" Him from to engage in battle with the
>"kings" "of the earth"? Why would Revelation suddenly stop using
>symbolic modifiers like "as" or "like unto", or the explanations of
>the mystery (like it does with the stars, clandlesticks, and beast),
>as it normally does when describing symbolic comparisons?
>
>This is where your view has to throw a blanket of mysterious symbolism
>over the whole event, to subject it to a meaning which supports your
>view. Once we allow that principle, you can basically make the book
>mean whatever you want it to, with impunity.
Okay, first of all, you have not proved your time line.
You are jumping back and forth between chapters 19
& 20 as it is convenient for your view. According to
you, they come to Earth in chap 19, so why are you
taking the passages in chap 20 as coming before
chap 19, which you are forced to do, considering
that chap 20 has souls in Heaven?
You are also not considering the fact that you are
saying that a literal Jesus will appear on a horse,
with an actual sword sticking out of His mouth,
if you demand physical literalism.
You mentioned being shown that the beast is
symbolic. But you fail to recognize that also,
the sword is symbolic and if the sword is symbolic,
that means that it isn't really a literal sword
sticking out of the mouth of Jesus, so who says
that Jesus is literally on a literal horse?
Again, see the link I provided above about
the "rod of iron", which also deals specifically
with this sword (link quoted again below).
So you first have to prove that the chapters
should be taken out of order for a time line.
Then you have to explain why you claim that
it is literally Jesus on a horse and yet, don't
explain the sword sticking out of His mouth,
which using your rule, would mean that it
is a literal sword, when it isn't.
You then have to show that it is the same beast
(you did know there are two beasts, right?).
And then you have to explain why you accept
a symbolic explanation for the beast, based
on a note from chapter 13, and don't automatically
apply the Scriptures that I showed you about
the sword and how it relates to, and is, this
"rod of iron", which I showed is the word of God.
So you have four facets of your view left to be
explained, before I can even consider it to be
accurate, since in considering it just as you
have stated it thus far, leaves me with the
problems I listed above, until you can prove
that they are not problems. It's your view,
so it's up to you to demonstrate that they
aren't problems. So "Na, na na, naaa na!". :)
In fact, I can't even respond to your questions,
until you make sense of the four points that
I noted above. :)
*****************************************************
Let me ask you, did you understand what I said about
the rod of iron? Should I put that in a separate
thread and discuss it there with you?
Tell you what... read the following separate link
about it (start at the very top of the web page)...
And as for His reign, no, I am not trying to "string
together passages", that don't fit. I am viewing all
of what Scripture says about it instead of taking
just one or two exclusively and then assuming they
are literally physical.
You thought that He couldn't be reigning because
sin is present.
It says that He began His reign when He ascended.
It says that He reigns until all enemies are put under
His feet and the last enemy is death.
Now think about that. You claim that you are not
talking about flesh and blood bodies, yet you are
waiting for flesh and blood death to cease.
People died and then "slept with their fathers".
Now people die physically and then go to be with God.
Death has been conquered! And when He returned,
the "change" was that there was no more sleep for
ANYONE! Although of course, some are damned.
Hebrews says, "It *IS* appointed unto men once to die
and then the judgment". That is what is happening now.
We die physically and then the judgment for each of us
now and we do not sleep!
Now what happens when death was to be conquered?
Christ hands the Kingdom over to His Father. Where
is His Father? IN HEAVEN! And God clearly MOCKED
the idea of Him sitting on Earth!
Acts 7:48-50
48) But, the Most High does not dwell in temples made
with hands, as the prophet says,
49) "Heaven is My throne and earth is My footstool.
What house will you build Me, says the Lord, or what
is the place of My rest?
50) Has not My hand made all these things?"
The father would not sit on Earth! And here is the
destroyer to your "rule from Jerusalem" argument.
Did you know that passage is not talking about
the planet? It is talking about the Holy Land
specifically! The Greek word there is "ge" and
yes, does mean "soil", but look at what the OT
says (again, we must know the OT!)...
Psalm 99:4-6
4) The King’s strength also loves justice;
You have established equity; You have
executed justice and righteousness in Jacob.
5) Exalt the LORD our God and worship at
*HIS FOOTSTOOL*; He is holy.
6) Moses and Aaron were among His priests,
and Samuel was among those who called upon
His name; They called upon the LORD, and
He answered them.
Note that the Bible says that where God was
worshipped was His footstool.
Thus, if Christ is God and God is not going
to rule from His footstool and specifically
MOCKED the idea, how is it that it is claimed
that He will rule from His footstool???
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:03:54 GMT, Pulpitfire
><altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>
>
>>>The plain understanding is that we're dealing with
>>>symbolism, since almost the entire book of Revelation
>>>is symbolism. It is actually out of line to insert
>>>physical literalism into the book, unless it
>>>specifically says to do so. The RULE of Revelation,
>>>is to take it symbolically, unless otherwise commanded.
>>
>>We agree the book of Revelation uses symbolism, but as illustrated
>>before, when it speaks symbolically, it tells you so, by saying things
>>like "like unto", or "as".
>
>That's not true. Jesus does not have a literal sword
>sticking out of His mouth when He was to return,
>yet what do we see in Rev 19?
Woe, woe, woe...read on. I admit that, but I'm talking about the
norm. In all but a few places, when it uses symbolic phrases, it says
so by saying "like", "as", or gives an explanation, such as "this is
the meaning of the stars and candlestick".
>"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." - Revelation 19:5
>
>Where is the "like unto a sword", or "as a sword"?
You select this one verse, because it is one of the few places where
you can point to a symbol that isn't explained as a symbol. In two
other passages (Ephesians and Hebrews), it uses these exact words to
explain sword refers to the word of God. The readers knew that. I
admit, not every single symbol is explained as such, but I also
maintain that the overwhelming use of symbols is explained or
indicated as a symbol with language as above. The clear norm is that
when it is using a symbol, it indicates or explains that they are
symbols, and what the meaning is.
>Not only this, but I also demonstrated that the
>"rod of iron" is not literal. In fact, it isn't even
>a literal rod. Where is the "like unto a rod"?
>
>Now if you want to be literal and use that rule,
>then you must also say that Christ will actually
>fly around to trouble spots and beat people with
>a literal rod, when they get out of line! :)
>And what would be the point of ruling them with
>a literal rod of iron, when it will be peace anyway?
See, though, you are trying to view a forest with a microscope. You
are looking for exceptions to the general principle, and making a few
of them seem like they constitute the whole. In reality, I could
produce probably fifty or more instances, in Revelation, where
symbolic language is indicated as such, with phrases like "like unto",
"as", or with a straightforward explanation. It is clearly the norm,
for Revelation to use indicators or explanations, when it is using
symbols. Here and there, you will find a symbolic reference that is
so common, or well understood, that it doesn't really need an
explanation. The exception proves, rather than establishes the rule.
>These are logical questions that come up, that
>the futurists do not consider and frankly, when
>you look at a doctrine, you should try to attack
>it before believing it. God invented science and
>this is just like science. Take a doctrine and
>try to DISPROVE it and when you can't, THEN,
>MAYBE it is true. :)
>The "rod of iron" is the word of God, as I demonstrated
>in my other post regarding this. If you did not see
>it, it can be found here (not the post I sent you, but
>a "rod of iron" post that I sent out as a new thread
>a while ago, without all of the extras)...
>
>http://tinyurl.com/cgmj8
>
>Start at the very top of that page. It's not that
>long. The page is long, but not my post in it.
I already knew that, and agreed with it. [see above and below].
>Revelation is a book of symbolism, with some physical
>literalism here and there, like the seven churches,
>which did exist in the first century. But you have
>confused what I mean by that. See below.
>
>
>>For example, as you noted yourself, in chapter one, it refers to stars
>>and a candlesticks. This is a symbolic reference. But does it leave
>>us to speculate as to what it means when it refers to these symbols?
>>No, it plainly tells us what the mystery is:
>>
>>Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right
>>hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the
>>angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou
>>sawest are the seven churches.
>
><snip other examples, which I did read>
>
>>Revelation is a literal book, that describes literal events which are
>>to literally take place. When it uses symbolic language, it tells us
>>such by using modifiers like "like unto", or "as", and these describe
>>things literally (i.e. Christ's feet are literally like fine brass in
>>their appearance.).
>
>As I said, that is not always the case. It does not
>always say when something is symbolic and in
>fact, it should be taken as symbolic, except for
>some of it.
Yes, I agreed about the sword reference. But I would say it is
demonstrable that in the overwhelming body of instances where symbolic
language is used, it indicates such with "like unto", "as", or a
straightforward explanation.
Ok, you are using literal to mean something humans can observe with
their eyes. When I say literal, I mean that, as a general principle
[not every single instance, such as the use of the word sword, which
is understood already], the text means what the words and context say
it means, without embellishment or complicated interpretation.
I don't have a problem with the idea that the souls (immaterial,
psuche, life force) are literally souls, which a human being could not
see, from earth, with their earthly eyes, at a point in time.
However, I don't think this verse is talking about one instant in
time. It is talking about a series of events included in the "first
resurrection", which includes the immaterial souls that we cannot
currently see from earth, being well, resurrected from the dead seed
which was sown, into a glorious, spiritual body [that's how 1
Corinthians 15 describes resurrection, as a physical body being sown
as a seed, then being resurrected as a spiritual, glorious body].
Since their bodies were sown on earth, they will be resurrected from
earth, and then will be visible to the people on earth, just as Christ
was visible, and ate with the disciples, after His resurrection.
The very next verses seem to confirm this is case, when they talk
about the nations of the four quarters of the earth compassing the
camp of the saints at the end of their 1,000 year reign.
>>The idea we can start from the position that
>>everything is Revelation is just symbolic, and is subject to our
>>interpretation as to what that might mean, basically requires that
>>language ceases to be a medium for conveying anything other than what
>>we want it to mean. Unless we see language that indicates Revelation
>>is using symbolic comparisons, as it normally does, we should
>>interpret it literally. Otherwise, language ceases to be a medium for
>>conveying meaning which is anything other than what we want it to be.
>
>I never said, nor did I imply that I was saying that
>"everything in Revelation is just symbolic".
>
>However, to claim that revelation is a physically
>literal book, does not make sense (physically
>meaning "as we are right now" physical).
>
>First of all, IT IS A VISION, so it wasn't even really
>happening in that moment of time to begin with.
Yes, but it wasn't a vision of a vision. It was a vision of "the
things which shall be hereafter". Because John saw it in a vision
doesn't mean that the events are therefore allegorical, any more than
seeing things on television means the images are merely electronic.
The vision was the means by which John saw these events, as they would
literally take place.
>Secondly, John saw many things in Heaven. The
>human eye does not and cannot see Heaven at all,
>let alone see things that happen there. :) As I said,
>it was a vision and it was a vision of the future,
>which does not mean our future, just because we
>opened our Bible today. :) But it was in the future
>from John's time of seeing the vision.
Yes, I agree it was a vision of the future, but that the verses
mentioned don't show just one point in time. It is talking about
those who have part in the "first resurrection". It would only be
expected that it would talk about people who are souls of murdered
saints being in heaven, then being resurrected, then reigning on earth
with Christ, from which camp they shall be surrounded by the nations
of the "four quarters of the earth", at the end of their 1,000 year
reign.
>Sidenote: It is disingenuous to assume that something
>is in OUR future, just because we bought our first
>Bible today and are just now reading it in our time.
>All that can HONESTLY be said, until proved otherwise,
>is that it was still in the future when the writer
>first wrote it.
By the way, when do you think Revelation was written, before A.D. 70?
Why was John on Patmos? It's like you observe when you interpret
those passages in Isaiah, about Babylon sacking the Jews. You look at
the events, you understand that all of those events couldn't have been
literally fulfilled in the attack by Babylon, so you have to come up
with a way of dealing with it.
If I understand your view correctly, your solution is to say something
to the effect...well, since it wasn't all fulfilled when some of it
was fulfilled, then the parts that weren't fulfilled must have just
been symbolic language, and the whole event has already been
fulfilled.
Our view looks at Revelation, and these other prophecies, reaches the
same conclusion that they have not been completely fulfilled as they
were prophesied. The difference is, instead of forcing them to be
mere allegorical embellishments that were already fulfilled, we just
understand that prophecy can be fulfilled in more than one stage.
For example, when the serpent tempted Eve to sin, and God prophesied
his punishment, he said there will be enmity between your seed and the
woman's seed. You shall bruise his heel, but he shall crush your
head. No doubt, this prophecy was fulfilled many times over, through
history, when some serpent bit a man on the heel, or some man crushed
the head of a snake with a rock, or stick. But it was also fulfilled
in a future sense, when Christ died on the cross, and dealt the devil,
that serpent, a fatal blow. And this prophecy will be ultimately
fulfilled when Satan, the serpent of old, is cast into the lake of
fire.
>Thirdly, we see swords sticking out of mouths, beasts
>rising up out of the sea, seven heads, ten horns, etc..
>It is obvious that these things are not literal
>(remember the abbreviated usage of that word).
Yes, but again, as I said, Revelation gives a plain explanation of
these symbols in chapter 17:
7 ¶ And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will
tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth
her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of
the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the
earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life
from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was,
and is not, and yet is.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have
received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with
the beast.
The seven heads represent seven mountains, on which the woman sits,
and also represents seven kings, and the ten horns are ten kings who
ally with the beast. This plainly shows the literal explanation of
the figurative language.
>And finally, much of what Jesus and the Apostles said,
>is symbolism.
>
>What you don't seem to understand, because of your
>ignorance of the Jewish history and the way they
>thought and spoke and wrote (which is also reflected
>in Scripture) and your ignorance of the OT, is that
>it is symbolism that THEY WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY
>UNDERSTOOD. Jesus did not say anything literal
>(physically literal), when He talked about stars
>falling and the Sun going dark, etc., which I showed
>you in another thread a while ago.
>Sidenote: It is disingenuous to read a writing from
>ANY OTHER view than that of the writers. The
>perspective and time of the writer determine
>the view, NOT OUR time and perspective!
I can see you are trying to get an informed edge. But, if you are
referring to the passage in Isaiah that you quoted, I already gave my
explanation for that, which you did not then refute. People who hold
your view do just what people who hold mine do. They look at events
like the one in Isaiah, understand that some of the things prophesied
in them did not seem to literally happen at the time when some of the
events were definitely literally fulfilled, and have to come up with a
way to deal with that.
If I understand correctly, your view concludes the events which didn't
happen when some things were literally fulfilled, must just be an
allegory to describe what already happened. Our view understands
prophecy can be fulfilled in more than one stage. You view prophecy
as punctiliar, we view it as telescopic.
This is not to say we are ignorant of the normal symbolism of the
Hebrew language and culture set forth in the OT, like trees clapping
their hands in the Psalms, and such, or, on the other hand, to say
that knowing about this gives someone an informed edge.
>So yes, Revelation is mainly a book of symbolism.
>And while you point to verses that say that it is
>about to be explained, you prove my point, not yours.
>It wouldn't have to be explained, if it wasn't a book
>of symbolism. :)
But it seems you want the symbolic language in Revelation to lead us
to a symbolic conclusion (that is, it uses symbolic language, because
it wants us to conclude these are just symbols), when actually, it
uses symbolic language to help us understand what the literal,
historic events will be like.
When it says, for example, that demons will be as locusts with tails
like serpents, we understand this is to explain that literal demons
will have the literal ability to literally torment literal men just as
a literal scorpion's tail does. Thus, we are not left with a symbolic
conclusion, but with an understanding of a literal, prophetic event,
which symbols helped us to understand. And it mostly uses language
that let's us see it is using a symbol to help us understand ("like
unto" "as), or gives a plain explanation of what the symbols mean
(like Revelation 17 shows that the heads and horns of the beast are
literally mountains and kings).
>Also remember that it is because it is full of
>symbolism, that Revelation is the hardest book
>in the Bible to understand. It is not the hardest
>because it is all plainly stated as physically literal.
>This fact also shows that your approach is the
>opposite of the reality of the writing.
Revelation does not want us to reach the conclusion that it is
speaking about symbolism. It wants us to reach the conclusion it is
speaking about the things which shall be hereafter, and uses symbolic
language, not to make these things more difficult to understand, but
to help us understand them.
>>>For example, how could all of the nations on planet
>>>Earth be gathered together in front of one person
>>>on a horse? That's impossible. :)
>>
>>It says the "kings" "of the earth", and "their armies". This is
>>enough to establish the location of the battle as planet earth,
>>without requiring that every man, woman, and child on the
>>planet went into the battle. It is not impossible to have millions
>>of troops surrounding a geographic location on earth.
>
>Now you are trying to claim that the kings themselves
>will be right there, at that spot alone? That seems to
>me to be changing your doctrine on the fly, to fit
>something I said, which you had to recognize as fact.
>When is the last time you said, "Oh, just the kings
>themselves would be there.", before today? :)
What "spot" are you talking about? I'm talking about planet earth,
where the nations of the earth shall be smitten, and where the kings
of the earth and their armies will gather before the Lord and His
armies. This does not require a microscopic spot, so small as to make
it physically impossible, and to render the whole idea of a literal
interpretation ridiculous, other than in your attempt to make it such
to avoid the plain fact it's happening on earth.
This is the kind of diversion that turns what could be a simple,
edifying, brief, exegetical exchange, into a 1,000 line web of
confusing, fruitless, time consuming cerebral combat.
[Have to go for now, and will try to answer the rest later. Grace &
peace]
Remove 123 from my e-mail address to contact me directly.
Ananias917
<Mr...@no-email.org> spake thusly:
>>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>>
>> No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule", not the totality. :)
>
>You are making a distinction here between "the rule" and "totality". Can
>you explain it clearly. I do not think i see the distinction yet.
Revelation is a book of symbolism. That is why it is
the hardest book in the Bible to understand. If it
were not a book of symbolism, then there wouldn't
be so much written on it. :)
The rule in Revelation, is that unless something
is clearly "physically seen with the human eye
as it worded" literal, then it should be considered
symbolic.
For example, the beast and even the sea it rises out
of, are symbolic. The sword in Jesus' mouth is
symbolic. The 144,000 is a symbolic number.
Chances are the mark is not an actual mark that
can be seen on the skin. Etc., etc..
>> That is related to His time here on Earth and something He actually did,
>> so of course it is literal. :)
>
>Are you saying if it is a prophecy of something that the Messiah would do,
>we should take it literally? Jesus himself prophesied that he would
>destroy and rebuild the temple in 3 days. According to you then, he should
>have done that literally.
That's not what I said and He didn't prophesy that.
He said, "Destroy this Temple" and He was speaking
of His body, which the passage explains to us.
As for "what He did", I said that He literally rode
a donkey.
>> Him riding on a donkey already happened. There is no prophecy of Him
>> doing that again.
>>
>> Common sense can rule what is physical and what is symbolic, if we
>> believe what the Bible says about the WHEN of it and unfortunately,
>> people TODAY don't.
>
>Here is where I differ with you. You use common sense to decide what is
>symbolic and what is literal. Dispensationalists, do exactly the same
>thing. I would rather only use scripture to interpret scripture and things
>which i cannot interpret, i leave it open, since scripture gives us enough
>evidence that it could go either the literal or the symbolic way.
I am not saying that I don't use Scripture. I am
saying that Scripture shows a common sense
realization. For example, by looking through
Scripture, we see that the "sea" has been used
to describe the nations (not Israel) before. Thus,
it becomes common sense that the beast is rising
up out of the Gentile nations and that is what
the sea represents in Revelation, rather than
a literal sea. :)
>> For example, if a prophecy says, "And the sky will open" and the Bible
>> says this must happen within the life time of the hearer, then it is
>> obviously symbolic, if it didn't physically happen and it's 2,000 years
>> later. :)
>>
>> But as I said, I highly stress being intimately familiar with the OT,
>> since that is what Christ came to fulfill.
>
>Yet the Jews who were intimately aware of the OT could not reconcile what
>they saw Jesus to what they wanted him to do. Even Jesus had to teach his
>disciples how he would fulfill scripture. It was not obvious to them. We
>need Jesus' words to understand how he fulfills the OT. Or better stated,
>we need scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to common sense or
>man's wisdom.
They could not see it, because the Jews demanded a
physically established kingdom. Jesus told them that
that wasn't going to happen.
However, that does not mean that they didn't get
anything. For example, they knew what Jesus meant,
when He said the Sun and Moon would go dark.
That is why they didn't turn to Him and say, "Huh?".
It is disingenuous to try to filter Scripture through
a 21st century Gentile view. It is a collection of
Jewish writings, written by Jews and almost all
of it, was written to Jews.
Re: Jeremiah - Fire
>> Thus we see that there is no reason to take that statement in Revelation
>> as being physically literal either. Interpreting Scripture by
>> Scripture, shows us that we should take it symbolically and that when
>> Scripture says that fire is coming out of their mouths, that it is
>> showing that no one can stand up to God's word. :)
>
>I agree.
Now you understand my point above. :)
>> It is also disingenuous to ignore all of the time statements in
>> Revelation and to try to make them mean thousands of years.
>>
>> IT IS ONLY WHEN THEY OPEN THEIR BIBLES, that the futurists make these
>> totally inane claims about time statements. IN NO OTHER WRITING would
>> they say these things! (:
>>
>> But when it comes to the Bible, all of the sudden...
>>
>> "soon = thousands of years"
>>
>> and...
>>
>> "at hand" = "thousands of years".
>
>But Peter does that too!. He says that a day with God is like a thousand
>years and vice versa. This should teach us that "soon" can mean "thousands
>of years" and "thousands of years" can mean "soon". Does this lead to
>ambiguity? Well yes. But that is the nature of the scripture that God has
>given us. Let us leave it that way.
So then you think that Peter was saying to ignore every
time statement made, because he was really saying
nothing? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. (:
That is simply an "end timer copout verse" that is
twisted up like a pretzel, to mean what futurists want
it to mean.
Again, COMMON SENSE! :)
Why would Jesus and the Apostles consistently use terms
that means the OPPOSITE of what they are trying to
express? That doesn't make any sense at all! Using
that logic, we can take ANY word we want to and claim
it means the opposite!
When Jesus said "this generation", He meant "that
generation".
When Jesus said that He was returning in judgment
before they all died, He meant after they all died.
No, sorry, I'm not buying it. (:
If they meant "any amount of time", they would not
have consistently expressed an "any moment imminent"
return. (:
Many quote Peter, regarding the last days and scoffers,
as proof that WE are THE generation that is in the
"last days" and that "soon" and "quickly" can mean
"thousands of years". But they only quote part of it.
The following is one example, that I copied from
someone's message...
...in the last days scoffers will come...
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised?"
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,
and a thousand years are like a day.
(2 Peter 3:3, 4, 8 NIV)
That's not an accurate representation of what Peter
said. They chopped part of it off, to make it seem as
if Peter was saying that the last days were still in
the future to Peter and that people scoffing is somehow
a warning he is giving for some future time.
Let us look at the more complete version...
2 Peter 3:1-4
1) Beloved, I now write this second letter to you,
in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
2) to remember the words which were spoken before
by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of
the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
3) First, knowing this, that there will come in the
last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
4) and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were from the beginning of creation.
The fact is, that false teachers were rampant in the
churches and people at that time, were scoffing and
claiming that Jesus was not going to return to judge
them. Peter makes the statement that scoffers were
warned about and that their scoffing is ironic proof
of what the holy men had said would come. He is not
saying that the scoffers are still off into the future.
He was responding to word that he had received that
it was happening already.
Why would Peter tell THEM this, if THEY were NOT
experiencing the scoffing? What would be the point
in telling THEM about something thousands of years
off into the future?
Have you ever thought this through logically? :)
Let's do that now, okay?
The thing to do with any doctrine, is to submit it to
Scripture, which is the ruler by which we measure all
doctrines and to pray for guidance. We must NEVER
filter the Bible through our doctrine, but rather, we
are COMMANDED to do the opposite. In Acts, the Bereans
are noted as being "more noble" because they did NOT
automatically believe Paul, but rather, as he reasoned
with them from Sabbath to Sabbath, they "searched
the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so"
(Acts 17:10-12).
But first, it must pass the logic and reason test.
God gave us these things and asked us to use them,
even when talking to Him.
"Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord"
- Isaiah 1:18
So frankly, if it doesn't pass the logic test, there is
no reason to bother God with it. Does that sound
"anti-Christian" to you?
Well it isn't. For example, if someone said to you...
"The Bible teaches that all people will devolve back
into monkeys."
...do you need to pray to God for guidance about that?
No, you don't. :) Nor does it pass the logic test for
those who know their Bibles, does it? :)
And didn't God give us our Bibles, so that we would
know what He has to say on various subjects and not
need to pray about it?
Didn't Jesus say, "You err, not knowing the Scriptures,
nor the power of God." (Mat 22:29) ?
For another example, do we really need to pray to God
and ask Him, "Lord, who is the Savior?" ??? Or can
we just open our Bible, see the Scriptures and know?
So my point is, it must pass the logic test first. If
it is not even Scripturally logical, we don't need to
go any further.
So let's look at what Peter said and use our God given
logic and reason and then, if we still have some things
that we must resolve in our hearts and minds, let us
go to God. What we should NOT do, is to ignore what
we know is fact that has been presented to us, because
it doesn't answer every question we might ever have. (:
So let's look at the Scriptures one more time and then
proceed, okay? :)
2 Peter 3:1-4
1) Beloved, I now write this second letter to you,
in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder
2) to remember the words which were spoken before
by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of
the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.
3) First, knowing this, that there will come in the
last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts
4) and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue
as they were from the beginning of creation.
Here Peter gives one of the signs that they were
in the last days.
Here is the problem. The premise that we are now in
the last days, combined with Peter's statement, would
mean that no one could have scoffed before your time,
since if they did, that would mean that the last days
were before our time, as Peter demonstrates, by
stating that the scoffers were a sign to those
experiencing it, that they were in the last days.
In fact, the futurists use this passage as proof that
we must be in the last days, because look, people are
scoffing. Yet Peter's letter was a response to a
church that he received word from, which said that
people were scoffing about this issue.
The fact is, that people were scoffing in the first
century and the fact is, that since Peter said that
in the last days scoffers would come, that means
that his time was the last days.
Now put your own personal doctrines aside for
a moment, since we cannot test the validity of a
doctrine, if we filter the Bible through our doctrine,
instead of the other way around, which is what
we're supposed to be doing. :)
Isn't what I just said, entirely logical and reasonable
to conclude? Isn't that what the Scripture shows?
The issue here, is WHY they would be scoffing. It
would be because of waiting for the Lord Jesus Christ
to return ("Where is the sign of His coming?").
The futurist belief requires that no one scoffed before
our time about Jesus' return and we know that is not
true. People began scoffing in the first century and
since Peter said that was proof that the ones to first
see this, were the ones who were in the last days and
since Peter was responding to word that people had
indeed begun to scoff regarding the return of the Lord
Jesus, that means that those people were in the last
days. Logic does not allow for any other conclusion.
But is the idea of the people in the first century
being in the last days Biblical? Well, wasn't that
just proved? :) Yes, it was. But to look at it a
little further, to see if we can find any more proof
of this, we will find that yes indeed, the fact is that
it shouldn't be a mystery to us, since they came
right out and said it.
Hebrews 1:1-2
1) God, who at many times and in many 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, by whom
also He made the worlds,
"Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME. And just as
you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now
many antichrists have risen up, from which we know
that IT IS THE LAST HOUR." - 1 John 2:18
How many times have we read these passages in our
Bibles and not even realized what they said? And
who's word are we going to take? The futurists?
Or the writers of the New Testament?
Now the common response when this is pointed out,
is that the last days must then have begun then and
are still going on. But isn't that just an attempt to
dance around the facts just presented, in order to
hang on to the doctrine, no matter what the Bible
actually says? I mean, were they saying that BEFORE
this was pointed out? No! They had NOT said that!
In fact, we see all the hoopla about...
"We're the generation that will see Him return!"
"We're in the last days!"
...all the time, do we not?
We see the magazine and TV shows that of course are
trying to say that we're in the last days and begin by
asking, "Are we in the last days?" and "Does the Bible
show that we are the generation that is in the last
days?". This is not said because the last days began
in the first century and are continuing on to this day.
This is said to show that WE are THE generation that
is in the last days, UNLIKE the OTHER generations
and they know very well, that it is a GENERATION,
just as the word is normally used.
In fact, before you even respond, how many times
have you told someone, when they asked about
Jesus' "this generation" in Mat 24:34, that He
really means, "the generation that sees those signs"?
Thus, it is proved that no, they did NOT believe
that the last days started back then and so, when
they try to use this Peter quote as proof that WE
are THE GENERATION, because we see people
scoffing, they have proved for me that what
Peter was saying was that they were in the last
days back then! He was NOT trying to say that
it is thousands of years away!
No, those who say that they begun back then and
are still going on now, are simply dishonestly failing
to admit what the facts are that they have just been
shown. It's that simple.
Jesus said He was returning in the generation
that was alive in the first century.
"Truly I say to you, This generation shall not pass
until all these things are fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
And He did. Of course, the response is, "Really?
When did Jesus come riding on a cloud?". But Jesus
never said we would see Him physically, in the flesh.
No, Acts 1:9-11 does not say that. In fact, when
discussing how they would see Him return (and
note that the angel said THEY would see Him return)
in like manner", it actually says that "a cloud
received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT", so the way
they saw Him departing, was "OUT OF THEIR SIGHT".
They did not physically see Him when He ascended.
Read the account carefully. :)
Jesus was using symbolic language that was quite
familiar to the Jews. Remember, Jesus was a Jew,
not a 21st century Gentile and He spoke to Jews,
not to 21st century Gentiles.
The same language is used in the following FULFILLED
prophecy regarding Egypt...
"The burden against Egypt: Behold, Jehovah rides on
a swift cloud and comes into Egypt. And the idols of
Egypt shall tremble at His presence, and the heart of
Egypt shall melt in its midst." - Isaiah 19:1
So if the futurists want to know when Jesus was seen
riding on a cloud and when that was recorded in
history, then I want to know when God was recorded
in history as riding on a cloud into Egypt.
Jesus used the same symbolic language that was used
throughout the Scriptures and it is those who are
ignorant of the Old Testament Scriptures and are not
intimately familiar with them, as the Jews would have
been whom Jesus spoke to, that don't understand this.
So the obvious conclusion here, is that no, the
scoffing that people do these days, is NOT a sign that
WE are in the last days. It was happening then and
Peter said very clearly, in reminded them that this
was predicted, that they were in the last days then
and that the scoffing they were experiencing, was
the ironic proof that the scoffers were providing.
Thus, he was not telling them that the last days were
still far off and that Jesus was not returning any time
soon. No, quite the opposite. :) He was encouraging
them that Jesus was indeed returning very soon, by
telling them that what they were experiencing with
this scoffing, was a sign that He was due very soon. :)
This is common sense. C-O-M-M-O-N S-E-N-S-E !!!
And we aren't talking about applying the world's wisdom
here. That is a copout! Are we to forget that "God is
not the author of confusion." (1 Cor 14:33)? God would
not use words that are the opposite of what He is
saying! He simply would not do that.
"Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord"
- Isaiah 1:18
Now you may have questions. "What about this?
And this?". But that does not mean that you throw out
factual conclusions, because they raise questions. It
means that you begin to reexamine the issue of the
"last days", because you have now been shown a truth
that cannot be denied and that common sense, logic
and reason, verified by the word of God. So I
encourage you to begin that journey. :)
I know that people have been taught about a world wide
destruction and I know that is one of the questions
that come up and make you want to toss all of this
aside, because that hasn't happened yet. But the fact
is, when someone asks me, "When did that happen, huh?!"
I don't have to answer that, because it's not what the
Bible teaches in the first place! The Bible does not
teach a world wide destruction and neither did Jesus!
Read Luke 21:20-22, the parallel account to Matthew 24.
You will find that Jesus localized it and you will find
that it happened, exactly as He described it, in 70 AD.
If you examine the Greek, you will also find that the
NT does not speak of the globe, but of "the land",
or "a region". Bad translation is what has the English
Bible's saying "world". Look for example, at Luke 2:1.
"And it happened in those days that a decree went
out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should
be taxed." - Luke 2:1
Now do you really believe that Caesar taxed the North
American Indians and made them journey over to be
taxed by him? :) Common sense tells us that it
couldn't possibly mean the entire planet. :)
The Greek word behind it is, "oikoumene", which means,
"land" and specifically, "the Roman Empire". And it is
this Greek word and another ("ge") that is used in the
NT and yes, there was a difference. When Jesus spoke
about "the foundation of the world" in Matthew 13:35,
which was obviously the planet He was speaking about,
the Greek word is "kosmos", which does mean the globe.
And "kosmos" is NOT the word used when speaking about
the destruction that was coming during the tribulation
in any of the NT writings!
I know that people will also demand to know when
the resurrection happened, because they believe
that it is bodily and physical, but that is not what
Paul taught in 1 Cor 15. In fact, he said clearly that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.
And he used the example of farming to show that
a seed must be planted and die first, because he knew
almost everyone would immediately understand what
he was saying and don't forget, he was answering the
question, "HOW are the dead raised and with what
body do they come?".
1 Corinthians 15:35-37
35) But someone will say, How are the dead raised up,
and with what body do they come?
36) Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless
it dies.
37) And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is
going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of
some of the rest).
Note that he calls them foolish for not understanding
this and for teaching something different. You see,
the logical conclusion here, is that they were thinking
that it is our physical bodies that would be raised.
Think about it. That is the ONLY LOGICAL conclusion
as to why they asked that question!
"How can our bodies live again?"
Think about it carefully!
So Paul used the example of farming and planting. So
what is the obvious conclusion? Well, what falls away
when you plant a seed? The shell, doesn't it? These
bodies are a shell and nothing more. It is what is
inside that grows and it is our souls that are raised,
which is why John said in Revelation, "I saw THE SOULS
of those who had been beheaded...". Because that
is what's raised, not the physical bodies. THAT is
the point that Paul was making! Don't ask such a dumb
question, you foolish people! Isn't that really how he
responded ('foolish ones")?
And yes, I know about Jesus' body being raised, but
He had to rise that way, to show that He had conquered
death. If He had left His body there, who would
believe that He had?
He also told Mary not to touch Him yet, remember?
And the saints at the day of His crucifixion were a
physical manifestation of a spiritual truth, not a
showing of what we would all experience. Just as
the destruction of the Temple was a physical
manifestation of a spiritual reality, in 70 AD.
Did God have to destroy the Temple, to be able to
forgive sins through Christ? No. Neither does He
have to raise our old bodies, for us to live eternally
with Him. Remember, "and I saw THE SOULS..."
(Rev 20:4).
So I know that what I have pointed out about Peter's
words will raise questions and I will be more than
happy to discuss them with anyone who wishes to
discuss it reasonably and intelligently and politely.
But questions do not prove what I have said wrong
and what I have shown is indeed fact.
Fact: In the last days, scoffers about Jesus' return
would come.
Fact: Scoffers had arrived in the first century.
Fact: Both the writer of Hebrews and John said that
they were in the last days when they were alive.
Conclusion based on the facts: The last days were
in the first century.
The statement by Peter is quite simple. He was merely
saying that it seems like a long time, just as when we
exaggerate and say, "I was there, waiting in line
FOREVER!".
Why do people alway quickly say that God used the
personalities of the people He wrote through and
yet, when it comes time to demand their doctrine
is true, all of the sudden, that wouldn't happen?!
I hope you don't take offense. I meant none. :)
Pulpitfire
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:16:48 GMT, Ananias917
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>The reality is, that you believe in this huge, huge
>army of the nations (isn't the popular quote at
>200 million?) going out to fight, so that statement
>above doesn't work and the kings would not expose
>themselves that way. Not too many kings would say,
>"Hey, there's Jesus, with a huge army! C'mon,
>fellow kings, let's go by ourselves and face Him!". :)
>Not only this, but after I pointed out that it isn't
>possible that all of the nations' armies could be
>in that one spot, you said that it only says "the
>kings". Okay, so now you have the kings coming
>without any army, to face Jesus and His host.
>
>I DON'T THINK SO!!! :)
Actually, it says He will smite the nations with the sword of His
mouth (v. 15), and that He will rule these nations with a rod of iron.
Then, verse 19 says the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered
together to make war against Him who sat on the horse. It doesn't say
how many kings, or how many armies, but it does say they are the kings
"of the earth", and that they have gathered their armies against Him
who sat on the horse.
Talking about this, as if the whole lot of them must be compressed in
front of the Lord's horse, and then dismissing it as ridiculous on
that basis, seems itself to be a ridiculous attempt to avoid the
obvious statements of this passage.
>Jesus is not there physically seen!
>You make so little of this! Do you REALLY think
>that ANY earthly king would stand up to Jesus
>Himself, appearing that way?!?!?! PLEASE!!! :)
>
>THEY'D RUN, SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS!!! :)
>Here's Jesus, with His Heavenly Host and now,
>the kings are just trotting on up to Him, to face
>Him in battle?! NO WAY!!! :)
[I guess, when you run out of exegetical arguments, this kind of bold
speculation is all that's left to sustain your views. :)]
>See further down and note: "Historical Evidence".
>
>And note the example I gave from 2 Kings. It shows
>that God's army is not seen by the human eye. :)
Oh my...this is getting sad :). The army Revelation 19 talks about
apparently consists of the "saints" who are the wife of Christ, and
who are dressed in clean, fine, white linen. Even if they were
angels, angels can and have appeared visibly to men, and we would not
therefore be bound to understand them as being invisible at this time.
>>>Now of you wish to claim otherwise, then how do you
>>>explain the beast in chap 19, which you do not take
>>>as a literal beast? Aren't you leaving the physical
>>>literalism you just demanded of me, if you do not
>>>take the beast as a physically literal beast? Or is
>>>that "just obvious", which, no offense, simply means
>>>you telling me that what you think is physically
>>>literal and what is symbolic, should be the attitude
>>>of everyone. Again, no offense, but since you don't
>>>take the beast literally and yet, say the person on
>>>the horse is literal, what follows that, when it is
>>>questioned? :)
>>
>>And again, when we have the description of the beast, we have an
>>explanation of the symbolism, that tells us it is referring to man:
>
>Actually, it says to "A MAN" and it also refers
>to a system. There is a dual reference there. :)
>
>
>>Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
>>number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
>>Six hundred threescore and six.
>
>You haven't answered as to which beast this is
>and if it is the same beast that is in Rev 13.
>Also see below.
Yes, the beast with seven heads and ten horns, described in Revelation
13, seems to be the same beast Revelation 17 explains the mystery of,
and which then gathers against the Lord in Revelation 19. It is a
king/kingdom which was, and is not, and yet is. Daniel's vision shows
an image that represents the successive kingdoms of the earth, from
Babylon to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome. The kingdom of a stone
made without hands is Christ's kingdom, and smashes the feet of iron
and clay, which represents the Roman Empire that was divided into ten
kingdoms. Since this empire was, and is not, and yet is, and is said
to recover from it's mortal wound, I believe it is talking about the
revived Roman Empire. It sits on seven mountains, has ten kings who
ally with it, etc.
Having said that, however, there are three prominent figures, in
connection with the beast (antichrist, the false prophet, and the
revived Roman empire itself). Then there is the economic, religious,
and political systems of the beast, which is also described in
Revelation 17-18.
>>Now where is the similar explanation that the supposed "mystery" of
>>the King of Kings on the horse is actually Christ reigning from heaven
>>where His armies "followed" Him from to engage in battle with the
>>"kings" "of the earth"? Why would Revelation suddenly stop using
>>symbolic modifiers like "as" or "like unto", or the explanations of
>>the mystery (like it does with the stars, clandlesticks, and beast),
>>as it normally does when describing symbolic comparisons?
>>
>>This is where your view has to throw a blanket of mysterious symbolism
>>over the whole event, to subject it to a meaning which supports your
>>view. Once we allow that principle, you can basically make the book
>>mean whatever you want it to, with impunity.
>
>Okay, first of all, you have not proved your time line.
>You are jumping back and forth between chapters 19
>& 20 as it is convenient for your view. According to
>you, they come to Earth in chap 19, so why are you
>taking the passages in chap 20 as coming before
>chap 19, which you are forced to do, considering
>that chap 20 has souls in Heaven?
Notice it says John saw the souls that "were" beheaded, and that "had
not worshipped the beast" (these are things that happened before
Christ returned to earth in Revelation 19), and that they now "lived",
and reigned with Christ a thousand years", until Satan was released
and the nations of the four quarters of the earth compass the camp of
the saints.
>You are also not considering the fact that you are
>saying that a literal Jesus will appear on a horse,
>with an actual sword sticking out of His mouth,
>if you demand physical literalism.
I've dealt with this a couple times earlier in part one of my reply to
this post.
>You mentioned being shown that the beast is
>symbolic. But you fail to recognize that also,
>the sword is symbolic and if the sword is symbolic,
>that means that it isn't really a literal sword
>sticking out of the mouth of Jesus, so who says
>that Jesus is literally on a literal horse?
I've already addressed the sword issue in part one of this post, and
have shown where Revelation 17 explains the mystery of the beast, so,
as I said, Revelation normally either identifies figurative speech, or
explains it. The symbolism is to help us understand the literal
events which must happen, not to lead us to the conclusion that what
is going to happen is just symbols.
>Again, see the link I provided above about
>the "rod of iron", which also deals specifically
>with this sword (link quoted again below).
>So you first have to prove that the chapters
>should be taken out of order for a time line.
>
>Then you have to explain why you claim that
>it is literally Jesus on a horse and yet, don't
>explain the sword sticking out of His mouth,
>which using your rule, would mean that it
>is a literal sword, when it isn't.
See, I'll just point out again, that you find a couple figures of
speech that don't identify themselves as figurative speech, or offer
an explanation, and you act like that brings the whole literal view
down, and we must now interpret the book as an allegory, or some such.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming mass of the book, and probably fifty or
more references scattered in perhaps every single chapter, either
directly explains the literal nature of what the symbols represent, or
else indicates it is using figurative speech to help describe the
literal events.
>You then have to show that it is the same beast
>(you did know there are two beasts, right?).
Well, actually, I think there are three key figures that are prominent
in reference to the beast...the antichrist, the false prophet, and the
revived Roman empire. The number of the beast is 666, the number of
man, man, man, not God.
>And then you have to explain why you accept
>a symbolic explanation for the beast, based
>on a note from chapter 13, and don't automatically
>apply the Scriptures that I showed you about
>the sword and how it relates to, and is, this
>"rod of iron", which I showed is the word of God.
This sword issue again. Already answered in part one.
>So you have four facets of your view left to be
>explained, before I can even consider it to be
>accurate, since in considering it just as you
>have stated it thus far, leaves me with the
>problems I listed above, until you can prove
>that they are not problems. It's your view,
>so it's up to you to demonstrate that they
>aren't problems. So "Na, na na, naaa na!". :)
Ok, put like that, I can accept that.
>In fact, I can't even respond to your questions,
>until you make sense of the four points that
>I noted above. :)
>>>We should also note that the passages say nothing about
>>>the whole planet. It notes "the nations". That does
>>>not automatically mean the entire planet.
>>We are showing the fact that Christ came to planet earth to do battle.
>>He cannot come to part of the planet, without coming to the whole
>>planet.
>>
>>>You should also note that v14 says "the armies which
>>>were in Heaven". Those are angels and so, it does not
>>>automatically mean that they are seen. Read your
>>>Old Testament and you will see that an army of
>>>angels was present and was unseen by men.
Again, it says the wife of the lamb was dressed in fine, clean, white
linen (which is "the righteousness of the saints"), made herself ready
for the supper, and then says the armies that came with the Lord were
dressed in fine, clean, white linen. This seems to be a reference to
the saints. But as shown above, there are many instances where angels
made themselves visible to men, so even if it is not the saints who
are the army, and is angels, we are not, of necessity, stuck with an
invisible army.
Ok, that's all I have time for for part 2. Lord willing, I shall
continue with part 3 later.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>>>We agree the book of Revelation uses symbolism, but as illustrated
>>>before, when it speaks symbolically, it tells you so, by saying things
>>>like "like unto", or "as".
>>
>>That's not true. Jesus does not have a literal sword
>>sticking out of His mouth when He was to return,
>>yet what do we see in Rev 19?
>
>Woe, woe, woe...read on. I admit that, but I'm talking about the
>norm. In all but a few places, when it uses symbolic phrases, it says
>so by saying "like", "as", or gives an explanation, such as "this is
>the meaning of the stars and candlestick".
>
>>"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." - Revelation 19:5
>>
>>Where is the "like unto a sword", or "as a sword"?
>
>You select this one verse, because it is one of the few places where
>you can point to a symbol that isn't explained as a symbol.
I selected it, because it's part of the verses YOU
brought up. Don't be quick to jump to conclusions.
>>Not only this, but I also demonstrated that the
>>"rod of iron" is not literal. In fact, it isn't even
>>a literal rod. Where is the "like unto a rod"?
>>
>>Now if you want to be literal and use that rule,
>>then you must also say that Christ will actually
>>fly around to trouble spots and beat people with
>>a literal rod, when they get out of line! :)
>
>>And what would be the point of ruling them with
>>a literal rod of iron, when it will be peace anyway?
>
>See, though, you are trying to view a forest with a microscope. You
>are looking for exceptions to the general principle, and making a few
>of them seem like they constitute the whole. In reality, I could
>produce probably fifty or more instances, in Revelation, where
>symbolic language is indicated as such, with phrases like "like unto",
>"as", or with a straightforward explanation. It is clearly the norm,
>for Revelation to use indicators or explanations, when it is using
>symbols. Here and there, you will find a symbolic reference that is
>so common, or well understood, that it doesn't really need an
>explanation. The exception proves, rather than establishes the rule.
I am simply saying that you stated a rule as if it's
always there and it's not. Now that I have done that,
you're coming up with "Well, I mean normally, but
not always".
No offense. I simply used the very passages that you
were using, to show you that it is not stated as a rule
that it will say, "like", or :as unto to".
I think you are confusing my intent here. There are
many places where it does say that. I'm not trying
to claim that it doesn't exist. I simply said that it
is not hard and fast and isn't always there and we
both agree on that. :)
>>The "rod of iron" is the word of God, as I demonstrated
>
>I already knew that, and agreed with it. [see above and below].
Okay, I didn't remember and I didn't want to assume,
my friend, that's all. :)
>Yes, I agreed about the sword reference. But I would say it is
>demonstrable that in the overwhelming body of instances where symbolic
>language is used, it indicates such with "like unto", "as", or a
>straightforward explanation.
I don't know about "overwhelming", but assuming
that's true, I don't think it's really worth arguing,
because we both agree that it's not always the case
and therefore, can't affect every passage and that's
all I am saying.
>Ok, you are using literal to mean something humans can observe with
>their eyes. When I say literal, I mean that, as a general principle
>[not every single instance, such as the use of the word sword, which
>is understood already], the text means what the words and context say
>it means, without embellishment or complicated interpretation.
I thought that might be the case and so, wanted
to explain, because I had a feeling we were arguing
over things we both agree are literal anyway. :)
>I don't have a problem with the idea that the souls (immaterial,
>psuche, life force) are literally souls, which a human being could not
>see, from earth, with their earthly eyes, at a point in time.
>
>However, I don't think this verse is talking about one instant in
>time.
Okay, but all I'm saying is, that "I don't think",
is not the same as, "It is so". :) That is the point
I have been trying to make.
>It is talking about a series of events included in the "first
>resurrection", which includes the immaterial souls that we cannot
>currently see from earth, being well, resurrected from the dead seed
>which was sown, into a glorious, spiritual body [that's how 1
>Corinthians 15 describes resurrection, as a physical body being sown
>as a seed, then being resurrected as a spiritual, glorious body].
>Since their bodies were sown on earth, they will be resurrected from
>earth, and then will be visible to the people on earth, just as Christ
>was visible, and ate with the disciples, after His resurrection.
>
>The very next verses seem to confirm this is case, when they talk
>about the nations of the four quarters of the earth compassing the
>camp of the saints at the end of their 1,000 year reign.
Okay, but again, "seem to" isn't the same as, "they do"
and that means that you may be wrong. :)
My point is that I gave what is a plausible explanation
and it shouldn't be automatically dismissed, when we
can now both see that your explanation you have NOW
admitted, is "I don't think" and "seems to".
These terms have not and do not justify rearranging
the chapters to fit a time line and on top of that,
expecting that I would have automatically done that.
Now that doesn't mean you are automatically wrong
either. It only means that you have made assumptions
and then criticized me (not yesterday or today) for
not making those same assumptions, as if it somehow
were the only logical thing to do. It isn't and in
fact, I don't think it is the logical thing to do.
Now that we have this out in the open, without fighting
about it, we can proceed from there. :)
>>>The idea we can start from the position that
>>>everything is Revelation is just symbolic, and is subject to our
>>>interpretation as to what that might mean, basically requires that
>>>language ceases to be a medium for conveying anything other than what
>>>we want it to mean. Unless we see language that indicates Revelation
>>>is using symbolic comparisons, as it normally does, we should
>>>interpret it literally. Otherwise, language ceases to be a medium for
>>>conveying meaning which is anything other than what we want it to be.
>>
>>I never said, nor did I imply that I was saying that
>>"everything in Revelation is just symbolic".
>>
>>However, to claim that revelation is a physically
>>literal book, does not make sense (physically
>>meaning "as we are right now" physical).
>>
>>First of all, IT IS A VISION, so it wasn't even really
>>happening in that moment of time to begin with.
>
>Yes, but it wasn't a vision of a vision. It was a vision
>of "the things which shall be hereafter". Because John saw it in a vision
>doesn't mean that the events are therefore allegorical, any more than
>seeing things on television means the images are merely electronic.
>The vision was the means by which John saw these events, as they would
>literally take place.
Granted, but so what? As I said, it shows a sword
sticking out of Jesus' mouth and a beast. So this
vision is a vision of symbolic things also and not
only literal things.
I.e., while John literally saw things, he did not see
only literal things. :)
You also say, "as they literally take place". Yet we
would not see a literal beast.
You also say, "as they literally take place". Yet you
take them out of the order they are in, to suit a
doctrine and then claim that I am somehow out of
line for not taking them literal.
These things are what doesn't make sense to me.
1) Determining the order must be done and you
have ASSUMED that 19 comes after 20. We will
see if you justify this. :)
2) You assume that it was a hard and fast rule of,
"like unto to", when it isn't. I have made that point.
So please, don't keep making the assumption as we
progress. That's all I'm asking. :)
But enough of this my friend, let us instead get on
with our views of these events. :)
I am going to snip whatever is below, that keeps
discussing this same point, okay? :)
>>Secondly, John saw many things in Heaven. The
>>human eye does not and cannot see Heaven at all,
>>let alone see things that happen there. :) As I said,
>>it was a vision and it was a vision of the future,
>>which does not mean our future, just because we
>>opened our Bible today. :) But it was in the future
>>from John's time of seeing the vision.
>
>Yes, I agree it was a vision of the future, but that the verses
>mentioned don't show just one point in time.
Well, that's the difference between us. I do believe
that they show at most, the time from Christ's birth
to His return, in 70 AD and more likely, the time
from His death (or shortly before), until His return,
in 70 AD.
>>Sidenote: It is disingenuous to assume that something
>>is in OUR future, just because we bought our first
>>Bible today and are just now reading it in our time.
>>All that can HONESTLY be said, until proved otherwise,
>>is that it was still in the future when the writer
>>first wrote it.
>
>By the way, when do you think Revelation was written, before A.D. 70?
>Why was John on Patmos? It's like you observe when you interpret
>those passages in Isaiah, about Babylon sacking the Jews. You look at
>the events, you understand that all of those events couldn't have been
>literally fulfilled in the attack by Babylon, so you have to come up
>with a way of dealing with it.
No, I disagree. I believe that the events were
fulfilled. You are trying to put them into the future,
in order to hang on to your literalism of the Sun for
going dark, for example. I showed previously used
language, to show that they were symbolic statements.
>If I understand your view correctly, your solution is to say something
>to the effect...well, since it wasn't all fulfilled when some of it
>was fulfilled, then the parts that weren't fulfilled must have just
>been symbolic language, and the whole event has already been
>fulfilled.
I'm saying that the words are taken as symbolic,
because they are meant to be symbolic. I would
suggest that you study this usage. For example,
a comet was viewed as symbolic of a king, or
kingdom falling. It is a fact that Herod saw
a comet and that is why he killed the first born.
He was afraid of being replaced and losing his
throne. Contrary to the ignorance of the modern
church, it is not some big mystical event. (:
This is not an evil thing, to look for signs in the
stars. God stated Himself that these things were
for signs. Astrology is simply a perversion of
what God ordered.
"And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse
of the heavens to divide between the day and the
night. AND LET THEM BE FOR SIGNS, and for
seasons, and for days and years." - Genesis 1:14
In Jewish thought, the Sun was the light of God
and the Moon was Israel, which like the Moon
which reflects the light of the Sun onto the Earth,
reflects the light of God to the Gentile nations?
THAT is how any orthodox Jew will tell you it
is used!
Think I'm wrong? Then why is the Sun used
that way in Scripture?
"For the LORD God is a sun and shield:
the LORD will give grace and glory: no
good thing will He withhold from them
that walk uprightly." - Psalm 84:11
"His seed shall endure forever, and His throne
as the Sun before me." - Psalm 89:36
Now look at this one and PAY ATTENTION...
"Then the Moon shall be confounded and
the Sun ashamed..." - Isaiah 24:23
Now let me ask you... Do you REALLY think that
the Sun was ashamed and the Moon confounded?
Or tell me Randy... Tell me... Do you think it's
POSSIBLE, that the Sun, being symbolic of God,
was ashamed and that the Moon, being Israel,
was "confounded"???
Or do you wish to claim that this type of language
is literal and that we are still waiting for the Sun
to be ashamed? And that the literal Moon must
be confounded, in order for the end to come???
Is it possible that when the Sun, representing
God's light, when God takes that light away,
would mean that the Moon has no light to reflect
and thus, it meant that in Isaiah 13 and in
Matthew 24, Jerusalem and Judea were left
to defend themselves against God sending in
the other nations to destroy them?
Which do YOU think is more logical and more
Scriptural, in approach?
Isaiah 13:6-10 & Matthew 24:29-30 are symbolic
language, used to show God's protection being
removed from the Jews.
In the opposite vein, we see God healing His people
how?... Let's take a look...
"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light
of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be
sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that
the LORD bindeth up the breach of his people, and
healeth the stroke of their wound." - Isaiah 30:26
But hey Randy, let's ignore all of this and let's
pretend that in ONLY the places that YOU
want it to be physically literal, it is! (:
And why did the Apostles refer to their day as being
that which Joel talked about, when Joel says the
following...
"The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon
into blood, before the great and the terrible day of
the LORD come." - Joel 2:31
Now is it possible Randy, that the "Moon turning into
blood" represents the bloodshed that was going to come
upon Jerusalem and Judea and that yes indeed, the
Apostles DID recognize that Jesus was talking about
THAT and not the Moon literally turning to blood?!
And what of Ezekiel, who preached about THE EXACT
SAME EVENT THAT ISAIAH NOTED, when Isaiah
discussed the Sun and Moon going dark? Let's see
if your logic of waiting for fulfillment because of the
Sun and Moon statement holds water...
Let's take a look at what God said to Ezekiel and the
destruction of Jerusalem and Judea. Pay attention,
because the false prophets in the following text,
mirror you people and your claims that God wasn't
bringing it on the generation alive at the time.
The FALSE prophets that God was angry at here,
PREACHED THE EXACT SAME THING THAT
YOU FUTURISTS DO!!!!! Which is that the Lord
wasn't saying that it was coming on them, but was
in the future. That it was postponed until later.
And note what God means by "at hand" there.
He means it is coming on them! Yet you people
claim that "at hand" means thousands of years off.
So here God is blasting YOU PEOPLE.
Ezekiel 12:21-28
21) And the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
22) “Son of man, what is this proverb that you people
have about the land of Israel, which says, ‘The days
are prolonged, and every vision fails’?
23) Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:
“I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no
more use it as a proverb in Israel.” But say to them,
“The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every
vision.
24) For no more shall there be any false vision or
flattering divination within the house of Israel.
25) For I am the LORD. I speak, and the word which I
speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed;
for in your days, O rebellious house, I will say the
word and perform it,” says the Lord GOD.’”
26) Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
27) “Son of man, look, the house of Israel is saying,
‘The vision that he sees is for many days from now,
and he prophesies of times far off.’
28) Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD:
“None of My words will be postponed any more, but the
word which I speak will be done,” says the Lord GOD.’
Here the Lord tells Ezekiel to tell the people to stop
saying that it will be postponed. It is coming and
it is coming ON THEM. "At hand" means just what
it says and God is MAD that they said it does NOT!!!
So YOUR claim that it didn't happen then, because
you claim that they were literal statements about
the Sun and Moon going dark, IS FALSE!!!
God said ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC PROPHECY that
is WAS coming in THEIR time!!! The VISION is NOT,
"for many days now", meaning many days off! It was
FOR THEM AND IN THEIR TIME!!!
Now do a phrase search for "at hand" in the Bible.
Now once you do that, ask yourself the following...
"Who do I read Ezekiel and know that 'at hand' of
course means just that and then, when I read the
New Testament, demand that 'at hand' means,
'thousands of years' away?"
Let's also take a look at what Jesus said. And note
that He is clearly telling them that it is to come
upon them and note, that in the rest of Matthew 24,
He never expands it to the world. That is YOUR
ADDITION to His words. And do not forget that
Luke 21 is the parallel account to Matthew 24
and in it, Jesus states specifically, that He is only
speaking about Jerusalem and Judea. THAT'S IT!
We are not even looking at Matthew 24 here,
but Matthew 23, which happened immediately
before Matthew 24 and there was no lapse in time!
Matthew 23:36-38
36) Truly I say to YOU, All these things shall come
on THIS GENERATION.
Jesus here confirms it. It will come upon that
generation, not a generation thousands of
years away.
37) O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, the one killing
the prophets and stoning those who are sent to her,
how often would I have gathered YOUR children
together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, and YOU would not!
Note that Jesus specifies Jerusalem. It is not
the whole world that He is discussing here.
38) Behold, YOUR HOUSE is left to YOU desolate.
And here is where He pronounces what that
judgment will entail. Their "house" is the temple.
So you tell me, what now? Should we really be
waiting for the Sun and Moon to go dark? Did
God fail to keep His word, which He said was
indeed coming on the people in Ezekiel 32 and
that Jesus said was coming on the generation
alive in His time of walking the Earth?
>Our view looks at Revelation, and these other prophecies, reaches the
>same conclusion that they have not been completely fulfilled as they
>were prophesied. The difference is, instead of forcing them to be
>mere allegorical embellishments that were already fulfilled, we just
>understand that prophecy can be fulfilled in more than one stage.
Our views? Not my view. :) And I didn't say they were
all just allegory. You are misrepresenting my view!
>>Also remember that it is because it is full of
>>symbolism, that Revelation is the hardest book
>>in the Bible to understand. It is not the hardest
>>because it is all plainly stated as physically literal.
>>This fact also shows that your approach is the
>>opposite of the reality of the writing.
>
>Revelation does not want us to reach the conclusion that it is
>speaking about symbolism. It wants us to reach the conclusion it is
>speaking about the things which shall be hereafter, and uses symbolic
>language, not to make these things more difficult to understand, but
>to help us understand them.
It uses symbolism to show us truths. That is my point.
>>>>For example, how could all of the nations on planet
>>>>Earth be gathered together in front of one person
>>>>on a horse? That's impossible. :)
>>>
>>>It says the "kings" "of the earth", and "their armies". This is
>>>enough to establish the location of the battle as planet earth,
>>>without requiring that every man, woman, and child on the
>>>planet went into the battle. It is not impossible to have millions
>>>of troops surrounding a geographic location on earth.
>>
>>Now you are trying to claim that the kings themselves
>>will be right there, at that spot alone? That seems to
>>me to be changing your doctrine on the fly, to fit
>>something I said, which you had to recognize as fact.
>>When is the last time you said, "Oh, just the kings
>>themselves would be there.", before today? :)
>
>What "spot" are you talking about? I'm talking about planet earth,
>where the nations of the earth shall be smitten, and where the kings
>of the earth and their armies will gather before the Lord and His
>armies. This does not require a microscopic spot, so small as to make
>it physically impossible, and to render the whole idea of a literal
>interpretation ridiculous, other than in your attempt to make it such
>to avoid the plain fact it's happening on earth.
>
>This is the kind of diversion that turns what could be a simple,
>edifying, brief, exegetical exchange, into a 1,000 line web of
>confusing, fruitless, time consuming cerebral combat.
No, I am referring to the spot where you claim that
Jesus will be sitting on a horse. Look back to the
last couple of messages. You even said that it didn't
require the armies to be there, in that spot, when
I pointed out that it wouldn't be possible.
>[Have to go for now, and will try to answer the rest later.
>Grace & peace]
Okey dokey. :)
MrEye
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:26:01 GMT, MrEye <Mr...@no-email.org> spake
> thusly:
>
>
>>>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>>>
>>> No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule", not the totality. :)
>>
>>You are making a distinction here between "the rule" and "totality". Can
>>you explain it clearly. I do not think i see the distinction yet.
>
> Revelation is a book of symbolism. That is why it is the hardest book
> in the Bible to understand. If it were not a book of symbolism, then
> there wouldn't be so much written on it. :)
>
> The rule in Revelation, is that unless something is clearly "physically
> seen with the human eye as it worded" literal, then it should be
> considered symbolic.
You know if this rule were clearly stated in scripture, i would have no
problem excepting it. But for now it remains a man made rule.
> For example, the beast and even the sea it rises out of, are symbolic.
> The sword in Jesus' mouth is symbolic. The 144,000 is a symbolic
> number. Chances are the mark is not an actual mark that can be seen on
> the skin. Etc., etc..
This example does not prove the rule above. I agree more with your
interpretation than that of the futurists, but i think we need to be
cautious on how far we take this symbolism.
By the way, I have certain post-modern inclinations. So this idea of
"common sense" really does not sound like a good argument. If two people
use "common sense" and come to different conclusions, then they really do
not have a "common" "sense". In the end i think there is no common sense.
It was a creation of people who all thought and reasoned alike, which is
no more the case.
I know that scripture gives us possible ways of interpretation. It gives
us both symbolic and literal ways of interpretation. The problem comes
when we start extrapolating. Do we do that extrapolate literally or
symbolically? I have not easy answer. I try not to extrapolate.
Considering i am uneasy with "common sense" and with "extrapolating", i
tend not to make conclusions where the Bible does not. So though I agree
more with you than I do with futurist, i am not all the way with you. Does
the explanation of my hermeneutic make sense? Or is my babble filled with
madness? (Don't worry, you will not be the first person to think i am
crazy)
>
>
>>> For example, if a prophecy says, "And the sky will open" and the Bible
>>> says this must happen within the life time of the hearer, then it is
>>> obviously symbolic, if it didn't physically happen and it's 2,000
>>> years later. :)
>>>
>>> But as I said, I highly stress being intimately familiar with the OT,
>>> since that is what Christ came to fulfill.
>>
>>Yet the Jews who were intimately aware of the OT could not reconcile
>>what they saw Jesus to what they wanted him to do. Even Jesus had to
>>teach his disciples how he would fulfill scripture. It was not obvious
>>to them. We need Jesus' words to understand how he fulfills the OT. Or
>>better stated, we need scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to
>>common sense or man's wisdom.
>
> They could not see it, because the Jews demanded a physically
> established kingdom. Jesus told them that that wasn't going to happen.
>
> However, that does not mean that they didn't get anything. For example,
> they knew what Jesus meant, when He said the Sun and Moon would go dark.
> That is why they didn't turn to Him and say, "Huh?".
>
> It is disingenuous to try to filter Scripture through a 21st century
> Gentile view. It is a collection of Jewish writings, written by Jews
> and almost all of it, was written to Jews.
I agree, but the point i was getting at was that their human wisdom did
work for the Jews of Jesus day. We need to take that as an example and not
come to conclusions which the Bible does not state clearly.
The context of Peter making that claim was the promise of Jesus coming. So
it is legitimate to use that scripture for Jesus coming. Scripture
interprets scripture. So why should not this verse be used to interpret
what scripture means by "soon".
>
> That is simply an "end timer copout verse" that is twisted up like a
> pretzel, to mean what futurists want it to mean.
I am sure from a preterist perspective it may seem to be a cop-out. But it
is in scripture and we need to apply it. I am not using this as a cop-out
to become a futurist but to counter your argument that every-time the word
"soon" is used, it should mean soon in human terms.
>
> Again, COMMON SENSE! :)
Sorry but i do not have your sense. :)
>
> Why would Jesus and the Apostles consistently use terms that means the
> OPPOSITE of what they are trying to express? That doesn't make any
> sense at all! Using that logic, we can take ANY word we want to and
> claim it means the opposite!
Just because it does not make sense to us, does not mean it did not make
sense to them.
>
> When Jesus said "this generation", He meant "that generation".
>
> When Jesus said that He was returning in judgment before they all died,
> He meant after they all died.
>
> No, sorry, I'm not buying it. (:
For now quote a verse to prove that Jesus said he would come before they
died.
>
> If they meant "any amount of time", they would not have consistently
> expressed an "any moment imminent" return. (:
>
> Many quote Peter, regarding the last days and scoffers, as proof that WE
> are THE generation that is in the "last days" and that "soon" and
> "quickly" can mean "thousands of years". But they only quote part of
> it.
Yes i know that, but I do not agree with them. ANd because they do it,
should not be a reason for us to pretend that the 2 Peter 3:8 does not
exist.
And there are people who are being scoffed even now, they are being
persecuted. To them, i would still quote this verse to them. Why can't it
be that the times that Peter was in is the same times we are in, which is
waiting for Jesus to come.
>
> Let's do that now, okay?
>
> The thing to do with any doctrine, is to submit it to Scripture, which
> is the ruler by which we measure all doctrines and to pray for guidance.
> We must NEVER filter the Bible through our doctrine, but rather, we are
> COMMANDED to do the opposite. In Acts, the Bereans are noted as being
> "more noble" because they did NOT automatically believe Paul, but
> rather, as he reasoned with them from Sabbath to Sabbath, they "searched
> the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:10-12).
>
> But first, it must pass the logic and reason test. God gave us these
> things and asked us to use them, even when talking to Him.
>
> "Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord" - Isaiah 1:18
>
> So frankly, if it doesn't pass the logic test, there is no reason to
> bother God with it. Does that sound "anti-Christian" to you?
See above, there can be other explanations, which will also pass the logic
test.
PS let us leave the futurist out off this discussion. I do not consider
myself a futurist. Let us just talk scripture.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>
>No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule",
>not the totality. :)
I'm not quite clear, but think what you are ultimately implying is
that there is a rule that Revelation must primarily use symbolism to
describe events in heaven and the first century church. This is
because if it is allowed that these prophecies use a lot of symbolic
comparisons to describe primarily literal events that will occur, it
would quickly dissolve the idea they were already fulfilled in the
first century church.
If Revelation is just symbolic, then you cannot dogmatically assert it
is referring to the first century church, and it could all just be an
allegory to describe good verses evil, and the ultimate victory of
good, or whatever else someone might fancy it to mean.
On the other hand, if you allow it is using symbolic language to help
us understand literal events, then we are in agreement, and it then
becomes a point by point issue of what event is the book talking
about, and when and where it is literally fulfilled.
So this is not a case of symbolism vs. literalism, where you can
simply say Revelation mainly uses symbolic language, and they say it's
literal, so they're wrong. The two go hand in hand, and what you have
is a lot of symbolic comparisons to help us understand the nature of a
lot of literal events Revelation predicts.
Revelation, as a rule, uses symbolic COMPARISONS to explain things
which are literally going to happen, to help us understand the nature
of those events, not to leave us with the idea that it is all just a
difficult allegory best interpreted as having been fulfilled in the
first century church. For example, how would you describe the nature
of a demonic assault on mankind, without using things that people
could compare it to?
So, Revelation says the demons will assault mankind "like" locusts,
and inflict men with misery "like" the tail of a scorpion. This is
clearly a use of symbolic COMPARISONS, to help us understand the
nature of a literal, demonic assault on mankind, and not just an
allegory that means something like that the first century church will
go through hard times.
The vast majority of the times when Revelation uses symbolic speech,
it clearly shows it is a symbolic COMPARISON to help us understand a
literal event ("like unto", or "as"), or else it directly states what
the symbolic "mystery" (e.g. stars and candlestick, or the "beast")
is. It wants us to conclude it is using these symbols to help us
understand literal things and events, and not to conclude that it is
using symbols to talk about symbolic things that can mean whatever we
fancy.
There are a few expressions, here and there, such as that the sword
will come out of Christ's mouth, which are already explained in places
like Ephesians and Hebrews, and which are not, therefore indicated as
symbolic comparisons with statements such as "like" and "as", because
it is understood already it is speaking of the word of God from
Ephesians and Hebrews.
Since you quote a reference here and there that doesn't have the
symbolic comparison indicators, and present it as if it clearly shows
the normal rule or pattern of the book is for the reader to understand
that it is talking about symbols, instead of just using symbolic
comparisons to help us understand literal truths, I will now attempt
to put it in perspective. The overwhelming mass of data shows the
normal rule is for Revelation to use symbolic comparisons to help us
understand a literal fact, and to indicate it is a symbolic comparison
to describe a literal fact by phrases like "like", or "as", or by
plainly explaining a "mystery":
Re 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a
great voice, as <5613> of a trumpet,
Re 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like <3664>
unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt
about the paps with a golden girdle.
Re 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like <5616> wool, as white
as <5613> snow; and his eyes were as <5613> a flame of fire;
Re 1:15 And his feet like <3664> unto fine brass, as <5613> if they
burned in a furnace; and his voice as <5613> the sound of many waters.
Re 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his
mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as <5613>
the sun shineth in his strength.
Re 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as <5613> dead. And he
laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first
and the last:
Re 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These
things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like <5613> unto a
flame of fire, and his feet are like <3664> fine brass;
Re 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as
have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan,
as <5613> they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Re 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as <5613> the
vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as <5613> I
received of my Father.
Re 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold
fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on
thee as <5613> a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come
upon thee.
Re 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my
throne, even as <5613> I also overcame, and am set down with my Father
in his throne.
Re 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven:
and the first voice which I heard was as it were of <5613> a trumpet
talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee
things which must be hereafter.
Re 4:3 And he that sat was to look upon like <3664> a jasper and a
sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in
sight like <3664> unto an emerald.
Re 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like <3664>
unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the
throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
Re 4:7 And the first beast was like <3664> a lion, and the second
beast like <3664> a calf, and the third beast had a face as <5613> a
man, and the fourth beast was like <3664> a flying eagle.
Re 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the
four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as <5613> it
had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven
Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Re 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard,
as it were <5613> the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying,
Come and see.
Re 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was
said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until
their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as
<5613> they were, should be fulfilled.
Re 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo,
there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as <5613>
sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as <5613> blood;
Re 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as <5613> a
fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty
wind.
Re 6:14 And the heaven departed as <5613> a scroll when it is rolled
together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their
places.
Re 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in
heaven about the space of <5613> half an hour.
Re 8:8 And the second angel sounded, and as it were <5613> a great
mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part
of the sea became blood;
Re 8:10 And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from
heaven, burning as it were <5613> a lamp, and it fell upon the third
part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;
Re 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out
of the pit, as <5613> the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and
the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
Re 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and
unto them was given power, as <5613> the scorpions of the earth have
power.
Re 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as
<5613> the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Re 9:7 And the shapes of the locusts were like <3664> unto horses
prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were <5613> crowns
like <3664> gold, and their faces were as <5613> the faces of men.
Re 9:8 And they had hair as <5613> the hair of women, and their teeth
were as <5613> the teeth of lions.
Re 9:9 And they had breastplates, as it were <5613> breastplates of
iron; and the sound of their wings was as <5613> the sound of chariots
of many horses running to battle.
Re 9:10 And they had tails like <3664> unto scorpions, and there were
stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
Re 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on
them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and
the heads of the horses were as <5613> the heads of lions; and out of
their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Re 9:19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for
their tails were like <3664> unto serpents, and had heads, and with
them they do hurt.
Re 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed
with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it
were <5613> the sun, and his feet as <5613> pillars of fire:
Re 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he
shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as <5613>
he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Re 10:9 And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the
little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall
make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as <5613>
honey.
Re 10:10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate
it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as <5613> honey: and as soon as I
had eaten it, my belly was bitter.
Re 11:1 And there was given me a reed like <3664> unto a rod: and the
angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the
altar, and them that worship therein.
Re 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as <5613> a
flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of
the flood.
Re 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like <3664> unto a leopard, and
his feet were as <5613> the feet of a bear, and his mouth as <5613>
the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat,
and great authority.
Re 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were <5613> wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered
after the beast.
Re 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the
beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like <3664> unto
the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Re 13:11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and
he had two horns like <3664> a lamb, and he spake as <5613> a dragon.
Re 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as <5613> the voice of many
waters, and as <5613> the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the
voice of harpers harping with their harps:
Re 14:3 And they sung as it were <5613> a new song before the throne,
and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn
that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were
redeemed from the earth.
Re 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud
one sat like <3664> unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden
crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
Re 15:2 And I saw as it were <5613> a sea of glass mingled with fire:
and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his
image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on
the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
Re 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it
became as <5613> the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died
in the sea.
Re 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like <3664> frogs come out
of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out
of the mouth of the false prophet.
Re 16:15 Behold, I come as <5613> a thief. Blessed is he that
watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see
his shame.
Re 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every
stone about <5613> the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God
because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was
exceeding great.
Re 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which
have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as <5613> kings one
hour with the beast.
Re 18:6 Reward her even as <5613> she rewarded you, and double unto
her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled
fill to her double.
Re 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying,
What city is like <3664> unto this great city!
Re 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like <5613> a great
millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall
that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at
all.
Re 19:6 And I heard as it were <5613> the voice of a great multitude,
and as <5613> the voice of many waters, and as <5613> the voice of
mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent
reigneth.
Re 19:12 His eyes were as <5613> a flame of fire, and on his head
were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he
himself.
Re 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to
battle: the number of whom is as <5613> the sand of the sea.
Re 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from
God out of heaven, prepared as <5613> a bride adorned for her husband.
Re 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like <3664> unto
a stone most precious, even like <5613> a jasper stone, clear as
crystal;
Re 21:18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the
city was pure gold, like <3664> unto clear glass.
Re 21:21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate
was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were
<5613> transparent glass.
Re 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as
<5613> crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right
hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the
angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou
sawest are the seven churches.
Re 17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I
will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that
carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
Here are over sixty references where symbolism is used, throughout
almost every single chapter in the book, not to describe a symbol, but
to describe the appearance, or nature of a literal thing or event.
Then you produce two or three where it uses symbolic speech, but
doesn't specify it is using a symbolic comparison (like the sword
coming out of the Lord's mouth), and you want us to abandon all that
to conclude the norm for the book is that it is just giving symbols
that don't have a literal, historical fulfillment. The pattern is
clearly that Revelation uses symbolic comparisons to help us
understand the nature of the literal prophecies, and not that it is
primarily using symbolic language to lead us to the conclusion it is
primarily only talking about symbols.
No, you misrepresent their arguments on the fly, to make it seem like
they are being ridiculous, then act like they are the ones being
dishonest. For example, I'm arguing from Revelation 19, that Christ
comes to earth to battle the armies of earth that will be gathered
before (against) Him. You then propose a ridiculous exaggeration of
this view, as if it necessitates that there is a small spot in front
of the Lord's horse where the whole earth has to be compressed, in
order for the event to be understood in a literal sense, and then
blast this straw-man view as ridiculous and dishonest.
It is you who can't admit the plain truth that the Lord comes to earth
and engages in battle with the armies of the earth, and who is
prepared to deny it, on the fly, at the expense of your opponents
reputation, and the truth, if necessary.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>[part 2 of the reply]
>
>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:16:48 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>...
>>The reality is, that you believe in this huge, huge
>>army of the nations (isn't the popular quote at
>>200 million?) going out to fight, so that statement
>>above doesn't work and the kings would not expose
>>themselves that way. Not too many kings would say,
>>"Hey, there's Jesus, with a huge army! C'mon,
>>fellow kings, let's go by ourselves and face Him!". :)
>
>>Not only this, but after I pointed out that it isn't
>>possible that all of the nations' armies could be
>>in that one spot, you said that it only says "the
>>kings". Okay, so now you have the kings coming
>>without any army, to face Jesus and His host.
>>
>>I DON'T THINK SO!!! :)
>
>Actually, it says He will smite the nations with the sword of His
>mouth (v. 15), and that He will rule these nations with a rod of iron.
The rod of iron statement ends up equating to the word
of God, as I showed. You demand literalism here. So
where is the rod???
>Then, verse 19 says the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered
>together to make war against Him who sat on the horse. It doesn't say
>how many kings, or how many armies, but it does say they are the kings
>"of the earth", and that they have gathered their armies against Him
>who sat on the horse.
>
>Talking about this, as if the whole lot of them must be compressed in
>front of the Lord's horse, and then dismissing it as ridiculous on
>that basis, seems itself to be a ridiculous attempt to avoid the
>obvious statements of this passage.
No, you said there is a huge army. I showed that it
could not be happening in that spot. You then said
that it only says "the kings". Now that I have shown
that the kings would not trot out there to try to take
on Jesus, you tell me about some magical "compression"
of these armies. Then you tell me that I'm avoiding
the obvious statements of Scripture???
MUST BE COMPRESSED??? Are they using PKZip? :)
You mean, you saw the logic of what I said and have now
created some "compression", to suit your doctrinal
need. You've changed your statement TWICE now,
on the fly, to keep the doctrine, instead of chucking
the doctrine, when it doesn't make sense. (:
>>Jesus is not there physically seen!
>
>>You make so little of this! Do you REALLY think
>>that ANY earthly king would stand up to Jesus
>>Himself, appearing that way?!?!?! PLEASE!!! :)
>>
>>THEY'D RUN, SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS!!! :)
>
>>Here's Jesus, with His Heavenly Host and now,
>>the kings are just trotting on up to Him, to face
>>Him in battle?! NO WAY!!! :)
>
>[I guess, when you run out of exegetical arguments, this kind of bold
>speculation is all that's left to sustain your views. :)]
This is what you call a response?! You come up with
a magical compression of armies, when I state the
logical fact that they wouldn't all fit there and then
you tell me I'm speculating, because I said that this
is obviously symbolic???
You admit that the beast is symbolic and is not a
literal beast and yet, IN THE SAME SENTENCE,
IN THE SAME VERSE, you demand that the armies
are literally standing before Jesus and that they are,
magically "compressed" in front of Him!!!
The reality is, that in your responses, you have
changed your position about the armies and
the kings, which is in front of Jesus, twice,
after reading my comments. In other words,
you're changing your doctrine on the fly, so
you won't have to admit to the problems it
presents, which are very obvious!
First you said all of the armies were there.
I pointed out the problem with that.
Then you said it only says the kings are in front
of Jesus.
I pointed out the problem with that.
Now you have all of the armies in front of Jesus
again, "compressed".
You take the chapter (19) and you tailored it to suit
your personal desires.
There are two main characters there and some kings and
some armies. Now while I have said that they all
symbolize something literal, you have said the
following...
The beast is symbolic.
Jesus is literally there.
The kings are literal.
The armies are literal.
So now I will review the chapter and show what you
have said and ask some questions along the way...
Revelation 19:11-21
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.
You believe Jesus is literally riding a white horse.
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.
Do His eyes literally look like a flame of fire?
Does He literally have a name written?
13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.
Is He no longer called "Jesus", but is not called,
"The Word of God"?
14) And the armies which were in heaven followed him
upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and
clean.
You believe this army is literal and that it is seen
by the human eye. It must be, if the armies of the
Earth are going to fight them.
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.
Here you claim that the sword is not a literal sword.
Thus, it must symbolize something.
You do believe however, that He will rule, from Earth,
with "a rod of iron".
16) And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Does He here have a name literally written on
His thigh?
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;
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.
Does the angel literally call to the birds?
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.
Now here, John says that he saw both the beast
and the armies. Yet you claim that it is only
the armies that are literal and that they are
fighting against Jesus.
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 worshiped his image. These both were cast
alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Here it says that the beast is cast into the lake
of fire and you say that it is not a literal beast.
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.
Now here, you said that the sword symbolizes something
else, since you stated that you are not saying that
Jesus swings His head back and forth, to use the sword
which it says is in His mouth.
But here, since you take His presence as literal,
wouldn't it have to be a literal sword here, since
you claim they are literally fighting?
>>See further down and note: "Historical Evidence".
>>
>>And note the example I gave from 2 Kings. It shows
>>that God's army is not seen by the human eye. :)
>
>Oh my...this is getting sad :). The army Revelation 19 talks about
>apparently consists of the "saints" who are the wife of Christ, and
>who are dressed in clean, fine, white linen. Even if they were
>angels, angels can and have appeared visibly to men, and we would not
>therefore be bound to understand them as being invisible at this time.
Apparently consists of the saints? Where does it say
that? It says that the saints, which is the bride (the
church), is prepared for the supper. You seem to
think that because they are wearing white, they are
the army. That goes against the instructions that
the church has to let God handle the vengeance.
Are the saints the only ones that the Bible ever
describes as wearing white?
And why do you recognize the bride here as the saints
and yet, claim that there is a literal physical city
called "New Jerusalem", when the angel said he was
showing John the bride and then showed him the
city, in chap 21?
>>>Re 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
>>>number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is
>>>Six hundred threescore and six.
>>
>>You haven't answered as to which beast this is
>>and if it is the same beast that is in Rev 13.
>
>>Also see below.
>
>Yes, the beast with seven heads and ten horns, described in Revelation
>13, seems to be the same beast Revelation 17 explains the mystery of,
>and which then gathers against the Lord in Revelation 19. It is a
>king/kingdom which was, and is not, and yet is. Daniel's vision shows
>an image that represents the successive kingdoms of the earth, from
>Babylon to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome. The kingdom of a stone
>made without hands is Christ's kingdom, and smashes the feet of iron
>and clay, which represents the Roman Empire that was divided into ten
>kingdoms. Since this empire was, and is not, and yet is, and is said
>to recover from it's mortal wound, I believe it is talking about the
>revived Roman Empire. It sits on seven mountains, has ten kings who
>ally with it, etc.
You're assuming that that statement was written
yesterday. That fourth kingdom existed in the
time in which Jesus lived on Earth and Nero/Rome
was the beast and it doesn't say that the KINGDOM
was and is not and then is. It says the KING was
and is not and is again.
The beast itself is a dual reference to a man and
a kingdom/empire. Even the heads have a dual
reference. Mountains/Kings.
The beast itself is not fatally wounded. You people
have this backwards. It is not the kingDOM that
is fatally wounded. It is the KING that is fatally
wounded, but it is the kingDOM that survives
anyway. Now the end result, is that the kingDOM
suffers and appears that it will die. But the physical
wound is to the KING.
"And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all
the world wondered after the beast." - Rev 13:3
It is one of the heads that is fatally wounded.
It also later says that HE (a person) who kills
with the sword, must die by the sword. Nero
committed suicide by his aide, who thrust him
through the throat with his own sword.
Rome was in its death throes after that and the
people and other nations thought Rome was done
for. This is all documented history.
Revelation 17:9-20
9) And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven
heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10) And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one
is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh,
he must continue a short space."
Thus, five kings have passed, one is (Nero) and one
is yet to come and will only rule for a short period of
time, which was true.
No one disputes that the first actual emperor of the
Roman Empire in the line of Caesars, was Julius Caesar.
Thus, we have the line as follows...
1) Julius Caesar
2) Augustus
3) Tiberius
4) Gaius (Caligula)
5) Claudius
6) Nero
7) Galba.
Now remember, five had passed. They were in the past
to the prophecy. One IS. Thus, Nero was ruling when
Revelation was written. One was still future and would
only reign for a short time. Galba reigned for only
six months. These things are historical fact.
Read the words of Revelation carefully. One IS.
That tells you when it was written, because the
kings MUST line up. In history, we see that they
DID, perfectly!
>Having said that, however, there are three prominent figures, in
>connection with the beast (antichrist, the false prophet, and the
>revived Roman empire itself). Then there is the economic, religious,
>and political systems of the beast, which is also described in
>Revelation 17-18.
You call the beast the AntiChrist, but that isn't a
word used by John. And you are adding "economic",
etc. and Revelation doesn't say, "economic system",
although it mentions buying and selling and it doesn't
say, "religious system". You are taking YOUR BELIEF
about a "one world government", etc., adding it to
the writing and then thinking that I am supposed
to argue against your belief, by first assuming those
things are true! You haven't proved any of it!
>>>Now where is the similar explanation that the supposed "mystery" of
>>>the King of Kings on the horse is actually Christ reigning from heaven
>>>where His armies "followed" Him from to engage in battle with the
>>>"kings" "of the earth"? Why would Revelation suddenly stop using
>>>symbolic modifiers like "as" or "like unto", or the explanations of
>>>the mystery (like it does with the stars, clandlesticks, and beast),
>>>as it normally does when describing symbolic comparisons?
>>>
>>>This is where your view has to throw a blanket of mysterious symbolism
>>>over the whole event, to subject it to a meaning which supports your
>>>view. Once we allow that principle, you can basically make the book
>>>mean whatever you want it to, with impunity.
>>
>>Okay, first of all, you have not proved your time line.
>>You are jumping back and forth between chapters 19
>>& 20 as it is convenient for your view. According to
>>you, they come to Earth in chap 19, so why are you
>>taking the passages in chap 20 as coming before
>>chap 19, which you are forced to do, considering
>>that chap 20 has souls in Heaven?
>
>Notice it says John saw the souls that "were" beheaded, and that "had
>not worshipped the beast" (these are things that happened before
>Christ returned to earth in Revelation 19), and that they now "lived",
>and reigned with Christ a thousand years", until Satan was released
>and the nations of the four quarters of the earth compass the camp of
>the saints.
If anything, you have just proved that 20 comes after
19, yet you are placing 20 before 19 in your time line.
>>So you have four facets of your view left to be
>>explained, before I can even consider it to be
>>accurate, since in considering it just as you
>>have stated it thus far, leaves me with the
>>problems I listed above, until you can prove
>>that they are not problems. It's your view,
>>so it's up to you to demonstrate that they
>>aren't problems. So "Na, na na, naaa na!". :)
>
>Ok, put like that, I can accept that.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Talking about this, as if the whole lot of them must be compressed in
>>front of the Lord's horse, and then dismissing it as ridiculous on
>>that basis, seems itself to be a ridiculous attempt to avoid the
>>obvious statements of this passage.
>
>No, you said there is a huge army. I showed that it
>could not be happening in that spot. You then said
>that it only says "the kings". Now that I have shown
>that the kings would not trot out there to try to take
>on Jesus, you tell me about some magical "compression"
>of these armies. Then you tell me that I'm avoiding
>the obvious statements of Scripture???
>MUST BE COMPRESSED??? Are they using PKZip? :)
I said the kings of the earth and their armies gather together before
(against) the Lord, to engage in battle, which is nearly a verbatim
quote of what Revelation 19 says.
You are the one who then proposed the ridiculous idea that if we are
to understand this passage literally, it requires that the whole
population of earth be gathered in one "spot" (your words, not mine)
in front of the Lord's horse. You then blast this straw-man version
of what was said as too ridiculous to be taken literally.
Then, when I say the whole world doesn't have to be compressed in one
small "spot" in front of the Lord's horse, in order to gather itself
in battle against Him, you act like it was all my idea that they all
be compressed to fit into a "spot" too small to be understood
literally.
You can literally have the whole world of armies gathering itself
before/against a group of opposing armies, in an area of earth that is
big enough to sustain the troops, and it doesn't have to all fit into
a small "spot" in front of the Lord's horse (as you ridiculously
proposed our view would require), in order to be literal.
Then you have the audacity to go around acting like we are changing
our doctrine on the fly, are the ones who are being dishonest, and who
just can't admit the truth, when you are the one apparently trying to
play shell-games, to escape dealing with the plain truth that the Lord
comes to earth and battles the armies of the earth, just as the text
and I plainly said.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:08:31 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>>
>>No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule",
>>not the totality. :)
>
>I'm not quite clear, but think what you are ultimately implying is
>that there is a rule that Revelation must primarily use symbolism to
>describe events in heaven and the first century church.
I'm not saying what it must do. I don't set the rules.
I'm saying that it does do that. And whether you
believe in first century, or 21st century, it doesn't
matter.
>This is
>because if it is allowed that these prophecies use a lot of symbolic
>comparisons to describe primarily literal events that will occur, it
>would quickly dissolve the idea they were already fulfilled in the
>first century church.
>
>If Revelation is just symbolic,
You keep saying that I'm claiming "just symbolic".
I didn't say that. I said that the book uses a lot of
symbolism and that symbolism represents something.
You on the other hand, are taking whatever you want
literally and whatever you want symbolically. You've
got a real Jesus, with a symbolic sword and a symbolic
beast with real armies, all in the same verse!
<snip>
>Here are over sixty references where symbolism is used,
Irrelevant, since I never said what you're claiming and
in fact I cleared it up previously and here you are,
making the same claim again!
Ananias917
<Mr...@no-email.org> spake thusly:
Caps and exclamation marks used for emphasis
and not shouting.
>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:24:04 +0000, Ananias917 wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:26:01 GMT, MrEye <Mr...@no-email.org> spake
>> thusly:
>>
>>
>>>>>I think here you would be making a similar mistake that the
>>>>>dispensationalists make. You assume that the whole book is symbolic.
>>>>
>>>> No, not the whole book. I said it is "the rule", not the totality. :)
>>>
>>>You are making a distinction here between "the rule" and "totality". Can
>>>you explain it clearly. I do not think i see the distinction yet.
>>
>> Revelation is a book of symbolism. That is why it is the hardest book
>> in the Bible to understand. If it were not a book of symbolism, then
>> there wouldn't be so much written on it. :)
>>
>> The rule in Revelation, is that unless something is clearly "physically
>> seen with the human eye as it worded" literal, then it should be
>> considered symbolic.
>
>You know if this rule were clearly stated in scripture, i would have no
>problem excepting it. But for now it remains a man made rule.
They all are then. :) We have a few facts, one of
which, is that it is a vision. That tells you right
there that you're going to have symbolism, especially
when you have beasts and Jesus with a sword sticking
out of His mouth, vials being poured out, a number
for a name and other symbolic numbers, etc..
You are also grouping the part of the instruction
about the seven churches together with the vision
(you had menti0oned the literal seven churches).
The part about the seven churches, although it has
some symbolism, is clearly before the actual vision.
Thus, it is not really fair to say that it isn't a book
of symbols and mention the seven churches.
I find it amazing that when people can't plainly
prove their views, all of the sudden, they would
claim the book doesn't use a bunch of symbolism,
yet acknowledge this in other conversations. (:
>> For example, the beast and even the sea it rises out of, are symbolic.
>> The sword in Jesus' mouth is symbolic. The 144,000 is a symbolic
>> number. Chances are the mark is not an actual mark that can be seen on
>> the skin. Etc., etc..
>
>This example does not prove the rule above. I agree more with your
>interpretation than that of the futurists, but i think we need to be
>cautious on how far we take this symbolism.
I gave more above.
I don't say that every time is a symbol and as I said,
there is common sense involved.
For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
considering that the term is always used symbolically
in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
>>>Here is where I differ with you. You use common sense to decide what is
>>>symbolic and what is literal. Dispensationalists, do exactly the same
>>>thing. I would rather only use scripture to interpret scripture and
>>>things which i cannot interpret, i leave it open, since scripture gives
>>>us enough evidence that it could go either the literal or the symbolic
>>>way.
>>
>> I am not saying that I don't use Scripture. I am saying that Scripture
>> shows a common sense realization. For example, by looking through
>> Scripture, we see that the "sea" has been used to describe the nations
>> (not Israel) before. Thus, it becomes common sense that the beast is
>> rising up out of the Gentile nations and that is what the sea represents
>> in Revelation, rather than a literal sea. :
>
>By the way, I have certain post-modern inclinations. So this idea of
>"common sense" really does not sound like a good argument. If two people
>use "common sense" and come to different conclusions, then they really do
>not have a "common" "sense". In the end i think there is no common sense.
>It was a creation of people who all thought and reasoned alike, which is
>no more the case.
So in other words, instead of recognizing that maybe
one of them isn't using common sense, you want to
eliminate common sense?
In other words, common sense is not a rule, because it
doesn't fit your personal doctrine. (: I always
thought that if something doesn't make Scriptural sense
then it should be thrown out, not common sense.
Think about what you just said... "I think there is no
common sense". How does one even have a conversation
with you then? :)
>I know that scripture gives us possible ways of interpretation. It gives
>us both symbolic and literal ways of interpretation. The problem comes
>when we start extrapolating. Do we do that extrapolate literally or
>symbolically? I have not easy answer. I try not to extrapolate.
>
>Considering i am uneasy with "common sense" and with "extrapolating", i
>tend not to make conclusions where the Bible does not. So though I agree
>more with you than I do with futurist, i am not all the way with you. Does
>the explanation of my hermeneutic make sense? Or is my babble filled with
>madness? (Don't worry, you will not be the first person to think i am
>crazy)
Okay, that's good to know, because I do think
you are crazy. <laugh> :)
>>>> For example, if a prophecy says, "And the sky will open" and the Bible
>>>> says this must happen within the life time of the hearer, then it is
>>>> obviously symbolic, if it didn't physically happen and it's 2,000
>>>> years later. :)
>>>>
>>>> But as I said, I highly stress being intimately familiar with the OT,
>>>> since that is what Christ came to fulfill.
>>>
>>>Yet the Jews who were intimately aware of the OT could not reconcile
>>>what they saw Jesus to what they wanted him to do. Even Jesus had to
>>>teach his disciples how he would fulfill scripture. It was not obvious
>>>to them. We need Jesus' words to understand how he fulfills the OT. Or
>>>better stated, we need scripture to interpret scripture, as opposed to
>>>common sense or man's wisdom.
>>
>> They could not see it, because the Jews demanded a physically
>> established kingdom. Jesus told them that that wasn't going to happen.
>>
>> However, that does not mean that they didn't get anything. For example,
>> they knew what Jesus meant, when He said the Sun and Moon would go dark.
>> That is why they didn't turn to Him and say, "Huh?".
>>
>> It is disingenuous to try to filter Scripture through a 21st century
>> Gentile view. It is a collection of Jewish writings, written by Jews
>> and almost all of it, was written to Jews.
>
>I agree, but the point i was getting at was that their human wisdom did
>work for the Jews of Jesus day. We need to take that as an example and not
>come to conclusions which the Bible does not state clearly.
I am not saying that they were right about everything,
obviously. What I am saying though, is that we can't
throw out their way of speaking and writing altogether,
when reading what are Jewish writings, just because
they didn't recognize their Messiah. That would be
like throwing out the rules of science when reading
Einstein's work, because Einstein found a different
conclusion. :) Now you may say that Einstein did throw
out some science, but in reality, no, he didn't. He
threw out some CONCLUSIONS, but science itself and
the method of science remained intact. While he may
of showed some new CONCLUSIONS, he did not say,
"Let's abandon the method of doing science" and in
kind, we cannot throw out the method of reading an
ancient Jewish work, because their basic rules did not
change. However, we reached a different CONCLUSION
about WHO the Messiah was. Do you understand what
I'm saying? The rules of their language stay intact.
If the cloud is used as a symbol of God's presence in
Isaiah 19:1, which was fulfilled, then it is symbolic
when Jesus, a Jew says it in Matthew 24:30, especially
when God used it to symbolize coming into a land in
judgment and Jesus did the same thing! We can also
apply this to Revelation, which is a book chock full of
symbolism.
Revelation uses symbols that mean something.
They represent literal events. But to have, for
example, Jesus really there, but the sword in
His mouth symbolic, while the earthly armies
are actually there fighting the spiritual armies
of Jesus, but the beast there leading the armies
is symbolic and this is all in the same verse, to me,
is ridiculous! It means that two spiritual leaders
are there and you're just picking which one you
want to have literally there, in the same passage(s),
because it suits YOU to do so and NOT Scripture! (:
It shows NO RULES and where you have NO RULES,
you cannot even begin to have a conversation about
Revelation, nor any other Scripture! (:
>> So then you think that Peter was saying to ignore every time statement
>> made, because he was really saying nothing? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't
>> work that way. (:
>
>The context of Peter making that claim was the promise of Jesus coming. So
>it is legitimate to use that scripture for Jesus coming. Scripture
>interprets scripture. So why should not this verse be used to interpret
>what scripture means by "soon".
No, that is not true at all. In fact, no offense, but
that is ridiculous! Peter's statement is no different
than me saying that "I've been standing in line
forever". It was an exaggeration to make the point
that it may seem like forever, but it isn't and He is
coming soon.
And to use YOUR rule, why aren't YOU taking the
multitude of imminence statements and interpreting
Peter's ONE statement by the MULTITUDE of Scriptural
statements, instead of what you ARE doing, which is to
take the MULTITUDE of imminence statements and then
interpreting them by the ONE statement of Peter, which
is an OBVIOUS EXAGGERATION to make a point about
THOSE PEOPLE being patient??? And I showed that it
was about them, because Peter said that those in the
last days would be the first to experience this
scoffing about Jesus' return and he was answering
to the fact that they were experiencing it.
Who between us, is the one using the sound approach?
Hint: It isn't you. :)
You are trying to stretch it until now, by saying that
we're still experiencing it. But that is because of
your view that a world wide destruction would take
place. Not don't get caught up in this portion and
forget about the paragraph above. The point I'm
making, is that you are trying to interpret a multitude
of statements by one obvious exaggeration, instead of
the other way around.
It is ridiculous to take one figure of speech, which
is all it is and then try to erase every concept of
imminence in Scripture, because of ONE STATEMENT
that couldn't even possibly be taken literally, as I
will demonstrate further down!
What did the people think, who never saw Peter's
statement? What did they think of His coming,
not having that statement? Not everyone had every
letter and by your own admission, this is the only
place that this type of thing is stated. The Apostles
mislead everyone with their imminent statements?
You are trying to tell me, that if I make one statement
which exaggerates the time, that every time you hear
me speak, you are going to assume that I am speaking
of something far off.
I.e., If we're at a work site and something is about to
fall and I say, "head's up", you are going to assume
that I mean something is going to fall a thousand years
from now. That is what your logic states. (:
That doesn't make sense and there is no common sense
attached to that and I'm sorry, but I am not going to
play your game of saying that common sense has to
be thrown out the window, to read Scripture. (:
And if that is the case, then nothing in Scripture
makes sense. It is common sense to say that Jesus is
the only way to the Father, because He said so. But if
we can't apply common sense, then that means that
anyone can say that any way is a valid way to get to
the Father. The truth is, you're only throwing common
sense away and saying it can't be applied, in this one
case and for this one subject, because it doesn't suit
your END TIMES doctrine. (: We both know that in
every other area, you don't do that! :)
The fact is, 1,000 years does not actually equal 1 day.
And if you read through what I wrote (pasted in at
bottom), BEFORE RESPONDING, you will see that
I did indeed cover these points.
>> Why would Jesus and the Apostles consistently use terms that means the
>> OPPOSITE of what they are trying to express? That doesn't make any
>> sense at all! Using that logic, we can take ANY word we want to and
>> claim it means the opposite!
>
>Just because it does not make sense to us, does not mean it did not make
>sense to them.
That's a copout! You are arguing that it made sense to
them to take imminent statements and think they meant
thousands of years! Do you realize what you're doing
to language here? How did these people get anything
across to each other, when what they said would mean
the opposite? Apply that rule to the rest of Scripture
and see what happens! There is no excuse for having
an opposite set of rules for language in end times
stuff and then claiming to be consistent in Scriptural
interpretation! (:
Is it not more logical to realize that when we see one
statement that is obvious hyperbole, that we take it
that way, instead of trying to redefine every other
time statement in the Bible with it?
>> When Jesus said "this generation", He meant "that generation".
>>
>> When Jesus said that He was returning in judgment before they all died,
>> He meant after they all died.
>>
>> No, sorry, I'm not buying it. (:
>
>For now quote a verse to prove that Jesus said he would come before they
>died.
Read the following and note that there is no word
"generation" there for anyone to play games with...
Matthew 16:27-28
27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
This is not Jesus ascending. He doesn't "reward
every man according to His works" at that point.
This is Him coming to judge.
Now read Revelation 22:12, when He is in already
in Heaven and which is definitely talking about His
Second Coming and see if the wording doesn't match.
"And, behold, I COME quickly; and my REWARD is with me,
to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE."
- Revelation 22:12
Same wording. Same thing.
28) Verily I say unto you, There be some STANDING HERE,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
of man coming in his kingdom.
No word "generation". He said some "STANDING HERE".
Note: He said *SOME* of His disciples would be alive
when it happened. That means at least one, but NOT
MOST.
Note: It is not His ascension, since all but one of
them were alive when that happened. Unless you
think that Jesus didn't have a clue that all but one
would be alive when He ascended? :) Of course,
the following passage would contradict that...
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them
in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept,
and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
that the Scripture might be fulfilled." - John 17:12
Note: It isn't discussing the Transfiguration. That
was six days later and they were all still alive. And
there was no "coming with the Father's angels"
and there was no, "rewarding every man according
to his works".
Note: It isn't talking about Pentecost. All but one
were alive and there was no "coming with the Father's
angels" and no, "rewarding every man according to
his works".
It is clear here, that Jesus said He would be coming
back in judgment before all of them died.
And remember what He said in Luke and remember
that He told THEM that THEY would see it...
Luke 21:20-22
20) And when YE shall see JERUSALEM compassed
with armies, then know that the desolation THEREOF
is nigh.
21) Then let them which are IN JUDEA flee to the
mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it
depart out; and let not them that are in the countries
enter thereinto.
22) For *THESE* be the days of vengeance, that ALL
THINGS which are WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED.
Now will you acknowledge this and at least begin to
question what you have been taught?
Was Jesus just walking around, talking right past
those in front of Him, just to tell YOU something?
He didn't care that He would be confusing everyone
He spoke to, that He was sending out to spread
the Gospel? And God sent His Son to talk to a
generation that had nothing to do with it anyway,
instead of sending Him to the generation that those
things applied to?
What if Jesus came today and said the things He said?
We both know that everyone would take it as applying
to our generation, here and now and that's what they
did. Not because they were mistaken. But rather,
because THAT'S WHAT HE SAID!!!
In Matthew 12:33-46, we see that Jesus clearly told
them that the ones who killed the Son would experience
the judgment. Not some generation of their descendants
that lived thousands of years later.
What could any generation possibly do on Earth,
that would be worse than killing the Son of God?
Think about that. And don't say that rejecting
Him is worse, because they did that too back
then AND THEY KILLED HIM!
What you should do, is to read what I write all the way
through. I answered this further down. When you don't
read it through first and you interject here, you will
tend to lose the train of thought that I am bringing
out here. I will snip the rest for now and you it
appears that you snipped the main thrust of it and
didn't even respond to the actual point I was making
with it anyway. Here it is again, with almost all of
it snipped out. I left in only what is pertinent and
I also added a couple of points about what Peter said
and how that would work out, if we took it as he said.
Also bear in mind that you haven't told me exactly
what you believe, so I can only argue against the
common beliefs. :)
The reality is, that while you're claiming that you
want to be consistent, that what you are doing, is
ignoring every statement of imminence and applying
ONE VERSE and saying that all of the statements of
imminence mean thousands of years, because this
ONE VERSE says what it says, instead of just saying
instead, the more logical approach, which states that,
"All of these other passages state imminence and say
a return within their life time, so this one verse,
which is obviously an exaggeration, should be taken
to mean that Peter is telling them to be patient and
this is logical, because when you're waiting 40 years
for something, that seems like forever, considering
that I get impatient waiting for my coffee to heat up
in the microwave.". :)
If they meant "any amount of time", they would not
have consistently expressed an "any moment imminent"
return. (:
Many quote Peter, regarding the last days and scoffers,
as proof that WE are THE generation that is in the
"last days" and that "soon" and "quickly" can mean
"thousands of years". But they only quote part of it.
The following is one example, that I copied from
someone's message...
2 Peter 3:1-4
Here Peter gives one of the signs that they were
in the last days.
Hebrews 1:1-2
Peter said 1,000 years is as a day to the Lord, right?
Well, let's see how that works out, shall we?
1) When you make a specific amount of time mean any
amount of time, then you make it mean nothing at all.
Did Jesus really walk around, saying nothing at all?
2) If you want to make the Peter claim, then that means
that God created it all in 6,000 years, not 6 days.
After all, we have to be consistent in Scripture. :)
The fact is, if you're going to whip this verse out
and try to use it, then we must use it as a ruler for
all the Scriptures and not just the ones YOU choose.
And we can especially apply it to Jeremiah's prophecy,
since Jeremiah's prophecy was coming to a close
when Daniel made his "70 weeks" prophecy. But
according to you, Jeremiah stated a lie that he
received from God.
You don't get to say, "But Peter was talking about
the Messiah.", because so was Daniel and Daniel
based his 70 weeks of years an Jeremiah's 70 years,
so it all ties together.
And if it's not just hyperbole as I said, then it must
be literal. I.e., if it means thousands of years, then
we have to apply that and ignore every other statement
of imminence. As I said (above), the reality is, that
while you're claiming that you want to be consistent,
that what you are doing, is ignoring every statement
of imminence and applying ONE VERSE and saying
that all of the statements of imminence mean thousands
of years, because this ONE VERSE says what it says,
instead of just saying instead, the more logical
approach, which states that, "All of these other
passages state imminence and say a return within
their life time, so this one verse, which is obviously
an exaggeration, should be taken to mean that Peter
is telling them to be patient and this is logical,
because when you're waiting 40 years for something,
that seems like forever, considering that I get
impatient waiting for my coffee to heat up in the
microwave.". :)
So let's see how it works out. Since you guys love
to quote Peter, we are now bound to see where
that logic leads us. According to this method, it will
actually take much longer than 70 years, for Jeremiah's
prophecy to complete, even though Daniel shows us that
Jeremiah's prophecy was coming to and end while Daniel
is writing. But that can't be true, because a thousand
years equals one day. So let's calculate it out and
see how long Jeremiah's prophecy is really going
on for.
1 yr = 365 days.
365 days X 1,000 yrs = 365,000 thousand yrs, p/yr
365,000 yrs X 70 yrs = 25,550,000 yrs
Well, it looks like we have a long wait for Jeremiah's
prophecy to end, huh?
The bottom line is, that when God gives man a time
frame, while time may mean nothing to God, it does
mean something to man and God knows that and we
can trust that when God gives man a time frame and
uses man's conception of time, which God gave to
man, btw, then man can trust that God will be faithful
to it.
Jesus said "soon" and there's no way you're going
to convince me of the following two things...
1) Soon means thousands of years.
2) That while in Daniel's Messianic prophecy, he was
told TO seal the book, because the time was not yet
(which referred to the Messiah) in Daniel 12:4, that
John was told NOT to seal his book, because the time
was at hand (Revelation 22:10) and that meant
at least 2,000 years.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>If Revelation is just symbolic,
>
>You keep saying that I'm claiming "just symbolic".
>I didn't say that. I said that the book uses a lot of
>symbolism and that symbolism represents something.
And I'm not saying Revelation is ONLY literal. I know you said
something to the effect it was symbolic as a primary rule, and not
that it was only symbolic. I think what is happening here, is that
the easy thing to do is try to associate someone's view with a big,
ridiculous, category, to make it easier to dismiss.
What I'm doing, when you proceed on with the quote, is setting up a
hypothetical situation ("If"), to show why, in reality, we both really
agree Revelation is using symbolic language to explain literal truths,
and that this is NOT, a broad, ridiculous issue of symbolic vs.
literal, where you can flee to a sparse example, here and there, where
it is using a symbolic term, and thereby dismiss whatever literal
interpretations you wish, as ridiculous.
We're not bound to an either-or method of interpretation, where
everything is either all literal, or all symbolic, and I think we both
agree on that. We have to determine, from the text, context, and
language, what is symbolic, and what is literal.
>You on the other hand, are taking whatever you want
>literally and whatever you want symbolically. You've
>got a real Jesus, with a symbolic sword and a symbolic
>beast with real armies, all in the same verse!
So what is it, a symbolic Jesus with a symbolic sword? It seems plain
to me, it's a literal Jesus with the two edged sword of God's word
proceeding out of His mouth.
I think this whole issue has gone on a big, long, unnecessary rabbit
trail, that avoids the topic we were discussing, which is, where does
Christ reign for 1,000 years? "Where does it say He is on earth in
Revelation 20?", you ask. So my reply is, right where chapter 19 says
He came: to earth, where He battled the fleshly kings of the earth,
and where the nations of the earth then rose again to compass the camp
of the saints after the 1,000 years were over.
1. Christ comes with the saints to earth, and battles the kings of the
earth (19). 2) The souls which "had been" beheaded (during the
Tribulation before Christ came) now "lived again", as they were a
"blessed" part of the "first resurrection" (their physical bodies
which were sown in the ground when they were beheaded, now come back
to life as glorious, immortal bodies, capable of interacting with
physical elements, just as Christ ate with the disciples after He
rose), and now reign with Christ for 1,000 year on earth! (20), where
3. The nations of the "four quarters of the earth" are again deceived
by the released Satan, and compass the camp of the saints, etc.
So, that's my answer, it plainly says they are on earth, else where
did Christ battle the kings of the earth, and why did the nations of
the earth compass the camp of the saints on earth, at the end of the
1,000 years they reigned with Christ? What's your answer?
><snip>
>
>>Here are over sixty references where symbolism is used,
>
>Irrelevant, since I never said what you're claiming and
>in fact I cleared it up previously and here you are,
>making the same claim again!
If quoting one verse that refers to a symbolic sword constitutes a
general "rule" that the whole book is primarily symbolic, then sixty
references that show symbolic language is primarily designed to help
us understand a literal truth (and not to leave us with a symbolic
conclusion) disproves that notion, and shows what the primary rule
really is.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You on the other hand, are taking whatever you want
>literally and whatever you want symbolically. You've
>got a real Jesus, with a symbolic sword and a symbolic
>beast with real armies, all in the same verse!
Regarding the beast, as I said, Revelation clearly explains the
mystery of the beast in chapters 13 and 17. It refers to an earthly
king/kingdom, and this corresponds to the images Daniel saw of the
four beasts and the man made of four metals, which represent the
successive world kingdoms from Babylon to the Roman empire. The
fourth kingdom of two legs of iron, and feet of iron and clay, with
ten toes, represents the Roman empire, and is the kingdom which will
be destroyed by the rock made without hands (i.e. Christ's kingdom).
Therefore, the beast that comes from the sea is the Revived Roman
empire. The beast that comes from the earth is the false prophet who
does false miracles and directs people to worship the beast. The
beast of Revelation 19, which battles against the Lord, is the revived
Roman empire and the antichrist who leads it, because it specifically
states in 19:20 that the beast AND the false prophet who wrought
miracles before him were cast into the lake of fire.
Now then, since Revelation specifically states who the beast is, and
it is a literal, earthly king/kingdom, it is not a ridiculous
confusion of symbolism and reality to conclude that a beast which is
the literal revived Roman empire, will have literal armies. Nor is it
ridiculous to believe that a literal Christ, who literally spoke man
into existence with the words of His mouth, will likewise slay them,
and that this is symbolized by a sword.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
Ah, I see! I misread it! Okay, I apologize!
I THOUGHT that YOU said they had to be compressed.
Again, I apologize for that.
But you have not answered however, to the issue of what
you take literal and what you don't in Rev 13 and of
the issue of the fatal wound being as I laid out.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>But you have not answered however, to the issue of what
>you take literal and what you don't in Rev 13 and of
>the issue of the fatal wound being as I laid out.
Well, I explained this in my last post. Daniel's vision of the beasts
and the image of a man represent the successive world kingdoms from
Babylon to the Roman empire. The legs of iron, and feet of iron and
clay, with the ten toes, correspond to the Roman empire. The stone
made without hands is said to smash the legs and feet of the image,
which means Christ's kingdom will smash the Roman empire.
The beast from the sea, then, is a literal kingdom/king: the revived
Roman empire, led by anti-christ.
The beast from the earth is the false prophet who does false miracles
and gets people to worship the beast. So this refers to a literal,
world kingdom (revived Roman empire), with literal armies.
The beast in Revelation 19 is the Roman empire, led by anti-christ,
and their literal armies. We know this is not a reference to the
beast which came out of the earth, because 19:20 says the beast AND
the false prophet who wrought miracles before him, were cast into the
lake of fire.
The fatal wound that was healed, could be a reference to the fact that
the Roman empire seemed to be dead and gone, and then was revived, or
it could literally refer to the anti-christ having some kind of wound
that seemed to be miraculously healed.
MrEye
Yes i agree. Rather than saying a rule for the book, it is better to say
that since it is a vision it must be symbolic. I do not know of any vision
where people saw things and described them as they were. But there are
other books with symbols and literalism. Daniel being a good example.
>
> You are also grouping the part of the instruction
> about the seven churches together with the vision
> (you had menti0oned the literal seven churches).
> The part about the seven churches, although it has
> some symbolism, is clearly before the actual vision.
> Thus, it is not really fair to say that it isn't a book
> of symbols and mention the seven churches.
How about this ... we cannot stereo type the whole book and say that it is
symbolism or literal. Agreed?
>
> I find it amazing that when people can't plainly
> prove their views, all of the sudden, they would
> claim the book doesn't use a bunch of symbolism,
> yet acknowledge this in other conversations. (:
For now all i am talking about is our approach to the book or the
description of its genre or genres. Interpretation is different, which is
affected by the approach.
Eliminate it? I am saying it was never really there. It was a creation of
modernism or enlightenment. But i do agree with you that what we need is
"scriptural common sense" which can look very different from what we call
common sense. By "scriptural common sense", I mean thinking the way the
authors of the Bible thought. This may be a difficult task, it is worth
the work.
>
> In other words, common sense is not a rule, because it
> doesn't fit your personal doctrine. (: I always
> thought that if something doesn't make Scriptural sense
> then it should be thrown out, not common sense.
Well, common sense it a concept which i question. Do not jump to the
conclusion i do that because of doctrine. I do that with all things in
life.
>
> Think about what you just said... "I think there is no
> common sense". How does one even have a conversation
> with you then? :)
I do not think you understand what I am saying. When i say "common sense"
i mean thought patterns. Different people have different thought patterns.
Especially today with the world getting more integrated and us coming in
contact with people who think differently. What may seem "common sense" to
you may not be common sense to someone from China! A good example is that
you think it is common sense to drive on the right side of the road. But
people from Britain think of driving on the left side of the road as
common sense. Am i making sense to you or are you still having a
difficult time understanding what i am saying?
I agree.
>
> Revelation uses symbols that mean something.
> They represent literal events. But to have, for
> example, Jesus really there, but the sword in
> His mouth symbolic, while the earthly armies
> are actually there fighting the spiritual armies
> of Jesus, but the beast there leading the armies
> is symbolic and this is all in the same verse, to me,
> is ridiculous! It means that two spiritual leaders
> are there and you're just picking which one you
> want to have literally there, in the same passage(s),
> because it suits YOU to do so and NOT Scripture! (:
First off, i have not come to any conclusion on that scripture. All i am
talking now of is the hermeneutic or the method of approach. True we
cannot just pick what we want to be literal but neither can we pick what
we want to be symbolic. How far do we take symbolism? We can say when it
mentions Jesus, that it really is not talking of the person Jesus but
rather of the forces behind Jesus or thoughts about Jesus or anything
else. Now do not take it that i believe that, i am trying to make a point
of not taking symbolism too far.
>
> It shows NO RULES and where you have NO RULES,
> you cannot even begin to have a conversation about
> Revelation, nor any other Scripture! (:
How about this rule, do not take symbolism too far!
>
>
>>> So then you think that Peter was saying to ignore every time statement
>>> made, because he was really saying nothing? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't
>>> work that way. (:
>>
>>The context of Peter making that claim was the promise of Jesus coming. So
>>it is legitimate to use that scripture for Jesus coming. Scripture
>>interprets scripture. So why should not this verse be used to interpret
>>what scripture means by "soon".
>
> No, that is not true at all. In fact, no offense, but
> that is ridiculous! Peter's statement is no different
> than me saying that "I've been standing in line
> forever". It was an exaggeration to make the point
> that it may seem like forever, but it isn't and He is
> coming soon.
It could also mean that would that one day would be a thousand years or
more than the lifetime of the person alive at that time. Peter's statement
is no different than me saying that "it would take forever to count the
grain of sands!" Though counting the grain of sands is finite, i would not
be able to do it in my lifetime. Now is it possible that you cannot except
this meaning of what Peter said because of your doctrine?
>
> And to use YOUR rule, why aren't YOU taking the
> multitude of imminence statements and interpreting
> Peter's ONE statement by the MULTITUDE of Scriptural
> statements, instead of what you ARE doing, which is to
> take the MULTITUDE of imminence statements and then
> interpreting them by the ONE statement of Peter, which
> is an OBVIOUS EXAGGERATION to make a point about
> THOSE PEOPLE being patient??? And I showed that it
> was about them, because Peter said that those in the
> last days would be the first to experience this
> scoffing about Jesus' return and he was answering
> to the fact that they were experiencing it.
If the multitude of scriptures are talking of Jesus coming and so is
Peter's statement, then it would be legitimate to interpret those other
multitudes of scriptures with Peter's.
>
> Who between us, is the one using the sound approach?
>
> Hint: It isn't you. :)
Let's not get into that.
>
> You are trying to stretch it until now, by saying that
> we're still experiencing it. But that is because of
> your view that a world wide destruction would take
> place. Not don't get caught up in this portion and
> forget about the paragraph above. The point I'm
> making, is that you are trying to interpret a multitude
> of statements by one obvious exaggeration, instead of
> the other way around.
>
> It is ridiculous to take one figure of speech, which
> is all it is and then try to erase every concept of
> imminence in Scripture, because of ONE STATEMENT
> that couldn't even possibly be taken literally, as I
> will demonstrate further down!
I agree it is a figure of speech, but what it means really is where i
differ with you.
>
> What did the people think, who never saw Peter's
> statement? What did they think of His coming,
> not having that statement? Not everyone had every
> letter and by your own admission, this is the only
> place that this type of thing is stated. The Apostles
> mislead everyone with their imminent statements?
What if there were groups that only had the gospel of John, Acts, Romans
and all those other books which do not mention return? Wouldn't they think
there is no return? But I am saying that is what happened, I am just
trying to point that not everyone had all the books, is not a good
argument. We have all the books now, so we will be held responsible for
what we believe now.
>
> You are trying to tell me, that if I make one statement
> which exaggerates the time, that every time you hear
> me speak, you are going to assume that I am speaking
> of something far off.
Or something far off could be something near.
I thought you accepted the idea of "scriptural common sense"? Why does it
seem odd to you that what does not make sense to us can make sense to them?
>
> Is it not more logical to realize that when we see one
> statement that is obvious hyperbole, that we take it
> that way, instead of trying to redefine every other
> time statement in the Bible with it?
And it could still be hyperbole and also getting the message that it is
not necessarily in their lifetime.
>
>
>>> When Jesus said "this generation", He meant "that generation".
>>>
>>> When Jesus said that He was returning in judgment before they all died,
>>> He meant after they all died.
>>>
>>> No, sorry, I'm not buying it. (:
>>
>>For now quote a verse to prove that Jesus said he would come before they
>>died.
>
> Read the following and note that there is no word
> "generation" there for anyone to play games with...
>
> Matthew 16:27-28
>
> 27) For the Son of man shall COME in the glory of his
> Father with his angels; and then he shall REWARD
> EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS.
>
> This is not Jesus ascending. He doesn't "reward
> every man according to His works" at that point.
> This is Him coming to judge.
>
> Now read Revelation 22:12, when He is in already
> in Heaven and which is definitely talking about His
> Second Coming and see if the wording doesn't match.
>
> "And, behold, I COME quickly; and my REWARD is with me,
> to give EVERY MAN ACCORDING AS HIS WORK SHALL BE."
> - Revelation 22:12
>
> Same wording. Same thing.
Again the dating of Revelation plays a key role here. So honestly I have
not done my homework on the dating of revelation.
>
> 28) Verily I say unto you, There be some STANDING HERE,
> which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son
> of man coming in his kingdom.
>
> No word "generation". He said some "STANDING HERE".
>
> Note: He said *SOME* of His disciples would be alive
> when it happened. That means at least one, but NOT
> MOST.
>
> Note: It is not His ascension, since all but one of
> them were alive when that happened. Unless you
> think that Jesus didn't have a clue that all but one
> would be alive when He ascended? :) Of course,
> the following passage would contradict that...
>
> "While I was with them in the world, I kept them
> in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept,
> and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
> that the Scripture might be fulfilled." - John 17:12
>
> Note: It isn't discussing the Transfiguration. That
> was six days later and they were all still alive. And
> there was no "coming with the Father's angels"
> and there was no, "rewarding every man according
> to his works".
The rewarding of good works could be over a period of time. So it could
still be the transfiguration. And your yourself said the Jesus' words are
like a judgment. Peter also claims that he was a witness of Jesus majesty
and based on this he preaches of Jesus coming. the gospel of Mark connects
it even closer with the transfiguration. Right after Jesus makes the
statement in Mark, he talks of the transfiguration.
>
> Note: It isn't talking about Pentecost. All but one
> were alive and there was no "coming with the Father's
> angels" and no, "rewarding every man according to
> his works".
Why not Pentecost? Could not be the gifts of the Holy Spirit a reward? Are
not gifts given according to a person's faith?
<< snipped the rest >>
Sorry, but honestly i did not have the time to go through it all. So we do
have to break down our discussions into smaller bits.
Pulpitfire
>>
>> They all are then. :) We have a few facts, one of
>> which, is that it is a vision. That tells you right
>> there that you're going to have symbolism, especially
>> when you have beasts and Jesus with a sword sticking
>> out of His mouth, vials being poured out, a number
>> for a name and other symbolic numbers, etc..
>
>Yes i agree. Rather than saying a rule for the book, it is better to say
>that since it is a vision it must be symbolic. I do not know of any vision
>where people saw things and described them as they were. But there are
>other books with symbols and literalism. Daniel being a good example.
What was God supposed to do to show them a picture of what was going
to happen, give them a t.v. monitor? And how are people supposed to
describe things nobody has ever seen before, without using symbolic
comparisons?
The vision is the mode of revelation, not the subject matter. It's
not a vision about a vision, it's a vision about a literal thing that
is going to happen. It uses symbolic speech to give us comparisons
for things we couldn't otherwise understand. You try to tell someone
about something they've never seen before, without using comparisons.
Saying anything revealed in a vision means it is primarily an
allegory, would be like saying anything revealed on a television is
primarily CGI.
>> You are also grouping the part of the instruction
>> about the seven churches together with the vision
>> (you had menti0oned the literal seven churches).
>> The part about the seven churches, although it has
>> some symbolism, is clearly before the actual vision.
>> Thus, it is not really fair to say that it isn't a book
>> of symbols and mention the seven churches.
>
>How about this ... we cannot stereo type the whole book and say that it is
>symbolism or literal. Agreed?
That's exactly correct. I haven't done an exact calculation, but
would estimate about 98% of Revelation uses symbolic comparisons
(identified as "like unto", or "as"), to give us a frame of reference
for something we could not otherwise understand. The symbolic
comparisons are not designed to represent a mystery, but to explain a
literal event. Almost every time Revelation uses symbolism, it says
"like unto", or "as" (e.g. "His feet were like unto fine brass").
Then, in addition to that, other "mysteries", like the candlestick and
the stars, are plainly explained to refer to the testimony of the
church, and the messengers of the churches.
Thus, were are not left with an allegory, that we have to determine
what it means, but with symbolic language to help us understand
literal events and things. There are, however, references to things
which the readers would have clearly understood, that use symbolism,
without indicating it by the use of "like unto", etc. For example, it
says the sword goes out of the mouth of the Lord. This same exact
concept is used in Ephesians, and Hebrews, where the two-edged sword
is identified as the word of God.
Now, then, to try and generally characterize the book as primarily a
mystery or an allegory, would be wrong. It is primarily referring to
literal things and events, but constantly uses symbolic language to
help explain the nature of those things. Try to tell someone from the
past what a television is, without using symbols they can understand,
to describe it.
You know, I heard a story about a missionary who went to some remote
tribe, and tried to communicate the gospel to them. The problem, in
giving them the Bible, was that they didn't have anything in their
language that utilized the concept of comparisons (e.g. "like", "as",
etc.). So every time he tried to tell them what the Bible said, if it
contained any comparisons, they would shout "Liar!, Liar!". That's
what this situation reminds me of, where you have people implying we
are liars, if we interpret the book as primarily consisting of literal
events that are described with comparisons.
The fact is, people cannot comprehend things properly if you don't
give them something to compare it to, especially when you are
predicting things far into the future, when technology and things will
include things they've never even imagined before. To confuse
symbolic comparisons with symbolic allegory, will lead you to a vague,
confusing view of Revelation, and open the door for it to basically
mean whatever you think it does.
Further, you cannot maintain the idea of a literal, first century
fulfillment of Revelation, unless you allow it to describe at least
some literal events. It's dishonest to say, when you want something
to support an exclusive, first century fulfillment of prophecy, that,
Oh yes, I admitted there are some literal things in the book of
Revelation, but then, whenever it disproves a first century
interpretation of the events, say that it is primarily a symbolic
allegory.
We admit Revelation uses a ton of symbolic comparisons, but it is not
to lead us to the conclusion that this is all just an allegory to
describe good vs. evil. God wants us to understand the prophecies,
and uses symbolic comparisons to help us understand the nature of the
literal events which must take place.
>> I find it amazing that when people can't plainly
>> prove their views, all of the sudden, they would
>> claim the book doesn't use a bunch of symbolism,
>> yet acknowledge this in other conversations. (:
I find it amazing that you can look at a verse that says Christ comes
to battle the armies of earth, seated on a horse, conquers them, then
reigns with the saints for 1,000 years, after which the nations of the
four quarters of the earth compass the "camp of the saints", where
they reigned from, and boldly deny it happens on earth. Then, to
create a distraction, you have to play shell games with the concept of
symbolism to divert people from the plain understanding the events
will happen on earth, just as they say, and make it look like THEY are
the ones who are dishonest, or are employing ridiculous and
inconsistent methods of interpretation, and desperately trying to
avoid the plain truth.
>For now all i am talking about is our approach to the book or the
>description of its genre or genres. Interpretation is different, which is
>affected by the approach.
>>>> For example, the beast and even the sea it rises out of, are symbolic.
>>>> The sword in Jesus' mouth is symbolic. The 144,000 is a symbolic
>>>> number. Chances are the mark is not an actual mark that can be seen on
>>>> the skin. Etc., etc..
But see, Revelation doesn't leave us with a symbolic, allegorical
interpretation of the beast. It plainly says, in chapters 13 and 17,
what the beast is (the king/kingdom described in the visions in
Daniel). To continue to confuse people with this, as if it shows we
are dishonestly trying to avoid the symbolic nature of the book, is
itself a dishonest, and deceitful tactic, that leads people astray
from the truth. You string together a few places that refer to things
like a beast and go "see, this is plainly symbolism, so we cannot
generally interpret it literally", when, in reality, Revelation does
give a literal explanation for the symbolic expression "beast".
>>>This example does not prove the rule above. I agree more with your
>>>interpretation than that of the futurists, but i think we need to be
>>>cautious on how far we take this symbolism.
>>
>> I gave more above.
>>
>> I don't say that every time is a symbol and as I said,
>> there is common sense involved.
>>
>> For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>> literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>> to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>> Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>> considering that the term is always used symbolically
>> in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>> they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>> acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
>>>>>Here is where I differ with you. You use common sense to decide what is
>>>>>symbolic and what is literal. Dispensationalists, do exactly the same
>>>>>thing. I would rather only use scripture to interpret scripture and
>>>>>things which i cannot interpret, i leave it open, since scripture gives
>>>>>us enough evidence that it could go either the literal or the symbolic
>>>>>way.
Exactly. For example, Scripture says the two-edged sword is the word
of God, in Ephesians and Hebrews. We are not speculating, or using
common sense, when we understand the sword of Christ's mouth, in
Revelation 19, to refer to the word of God.
In the same way, we do not rely on common sense when we interpret the
meaning of the beast, because Revelation 13 and 17 plainly explain it
refers to a literal, earthly king/kingdom, and the visions of Daniel
show it refers to the Roman empire.
And when we see the mystery of the candlesticks and the stars of the
churches, we do not rely on common sense to interpret these, as
Revelation plainly explains the mystery as referring to the testimony
of the churches and their messengers.
Almost every other symbolic expression in the book, is used as a
comparison, to help us understand the nature of a literal thing or
event. If you use a Bible program, look up the phrases "like" and
"as", and look at the verses one by one. It's clear, when you do
that, that it's using the symbols as comparisons to describe what the
events or things will be like, and not to lead us to the conclusion
it's just referring to an allegory.
For example, it says the demons were like unto scorpions, in their
ability to afflict men with misery. So we are not left with some
symbol of scorpions, and we have to figure out what it means. We
understand it is using the symbolic comparison to scorpions, to help
us understand the nature of misery the literal demons will inflict on
men.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>considering that the term is always used symbolically
>in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
You know, if I remember correctly, it seems like, in the beginning,
someone (maybe you, I'm not sure), said something to the effect the
Bible nowhere says Christ will reign for 1,000 years. Then, when
faced with Revelation 20, where it says the saints will reign with Him
for 1,000 years, someone (maybe you) said it doesn't say Christ will
reign, only that the saints will reign.
Then, when it was said how can the saints reign "with" Christ for
1,000 years, and it doesn't mean Christ is also reigning for 1,000
years?, and how it only underscores this reign is different from
Christ's universal reign indicated in Colossians, the next thing is,
well it isn't reigning from earth for 1,000 years.
Then when we show where it says the nations of the four quarters of
the earth will compass the camp of the saints at the end of the 1,000
year reign, now the argument is that it must be a symbolic 1,000
years.
Then, we will be the ones accused of changing our doctrine on the fly,
of picking and choosing what to interpret literally, etc. I think the
bottom line is, you will only allow Revelation to be literal where it
could refer to the first century church, and everything else must be
just an allegory that refers to the first century church.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>considering that the term is always used symbolically
>in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
You know, you blasted our view, because we say the sword in Christ's
mouth is a symbol to represent the word of God, but maintain that
Christ literally comes to earth. You acted like it was dishonest and
an inconsistent principle of interpretation to have a symbolic sword,
mixed with a literal Christ, and as if we were desperately trying to
avoid the truth, if we interpret a passage to contain both symbolism
and literal events at the same time. Then, here you are, saying
Revelation 20 refers to literal saints, but the 1,000 years they reign
must not be literal. Now, if you are going to attack our integrity
based on that principle of interpretation, then you must abide by it
also. Either it's all literal, or it's all symbolic.
However, I don't agree it's either-or. Revelation uses a ton of
symbolic comparisons, and a few mysteries, but usually gives the
literal explanation for the mysteries, and mainly uses symbolic
comparisons to help us understand the nature of literal events/things.
These go hand in hand, so there's nothing inconsistent about
understanding Revelation 19 to show Christ literally comes to earth
with a sword (of the word of God) in His mouth.
Ananias917
<Mr...@no-email.org> spake thusly:
>>>You know if this rule were clearly stated in scripture, i would have no
>>>problem excepting it. But for now it remains a man made rule.
>>
>> They all are then. :) We have a few facts, one of
>> which, is that it is a vision. That tells you right
>> there that you're going to have symbolism, especially
>> when you have beasts and Jesus with a sword sticking
>> out of His mouth, vials being poured out, a number
>> for a name and other symbolic numbers, etc..
>
>Yes i agree. Rather than saying a rule for the book, it is better to say
>that since it is a vision it must be symbolic. I do not know of any vision
>where people saw things and described them as they were. But there are
>other books with symbols and literalism. Daniel being a good example.
Okay, I can accept that. :)
>> You are also grouping the part of the instruction
>> about the seven churches together with the vision
>> (you had menti0oned the literal seven churches).
>> The part about the seven churches, although it has
>> some symbolism, is clearly before the actual vision.
>> Thus, it is not really fair to say that it isn't a book
>> of symbols and mention the seven churches.
>
>How about this ... we cannot stereo type the whole book and say that it is
>symbolism or literal. Agreed?
Stereotype? No, we should not stereotype anyone,
nor anything. :)
>> I find it amazing that when people can't plainly
>> prove their views, all of the sudden, they would
>> claim the book doesn't use a bunch of symbolism,
>> yet acknowledge this in other conversations. (:
>
>For now all i am talking about is our approach to the book or the
>description of its genre or genres. Interpretation is different, which is
>affected by the approach.
I am saying that it is not an honest approach to claim
a lack of symbolism, because of a view and then, in
conversations to others, acknowledge that it is a book
that deals heavily in symbolism.
>> So in other words, instead of recognizing that maybe
>> one of them isn't using common sense, you want to
>> eliminate common sense?
>
>Eliminate it? I am saying it was never really there. It was a creation of
>modernism or enlightenment. But i do agree with you that what we need is
>"scriptural common sense" which can look very different from what we call
>common sense. By "scriptural common sense", I mean thinking the way the
>authors of the Bible thought. This may be a difficult task, it is worth
>the work.
No, common sense is not an invention of modernism.
God told us in Scripture to use our common sense
about this very thing... the end times.
"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white
as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall
be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
Of course that is "Scriptural common sense", but even
Scriptural common sense requires that one be able to
use their God given common sense. That has nothing
to do with whether or not one is naturalistic in
approach. That's like the evolutionists saying that
science is naturalistic, because they don't want to
involve God in the process. But science does not
demand a naturalistic answer. Science is a method,
not a conclusion. :) So is common sense a method
and not a conclusion and is not automatically a
natural conclusion. Common sense is God given,
as is logical and yes, it can be entirely logical to
assume, for example, that the supernatural exists.
For example, scientists exist that test for the
supernatural, using scientific means. Now I am not
stating a belief in ghosts, etc., but just to make a
point, if an object keep getting moved across the room
and all natural methods have been scientifically ruled
out, then COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC AND SCIENCE
dictate that one must conclude the supernatural. What
is NOT SCIENTIFIC, is to demand that it cannot be and
that it must be natural, because science is natural.
Science is the method and the conclusion is whatever
it turns out to be. God invented science, not man. :)
>> In other words, common sense is not a rule, because it
>> doesn't fit your personal doctrine. (: I always
>> thought that if something doesn't make Scriptural sense
>> then it should be thrown out, not common sense.
>
>Well, common sense it a concept which i question. Do not jump to the
>conclusion i do that because of doctrine. I do that with all things in
>life.
You do poorly to question it, because you have confused
naturalism with common sense. :) Common sense tells
you that if you're the only person in the room and an
object levitates and you have scientifically
demonstrated that there is nothing physical going on,
that only one conclusion is left.
I.e., If we don't have common sense, then we cannot
even conclude that God exists, since our thoughts
are a jumble of nonsensical whimsy. :)
Didn't Paul say that those without the Law, who didn't
know God as the Jews did, should have BY COMMON
SENSE known God, even by looking at the NATURAL
and that they were without excuse, for not concluding
He exists using their common sense, even though He
is a Spirit?
"For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
What are "the things that are seen"? Didn't Paul say
it is the Creation and that by the Creation, they
should have been able to conclude that God exists?
So no, I am not posing natural against spiritual
and saying we should seek the natural. I am saying
that common sense is a God given tool, that we are
supposed to use and that He instructed us to use
in spiritual matters (see again Isaiah 1:18).
>> Think about what you just said... "I think there is no
>> common sense". How does one even have a conversation
>> with you then? :)
>
>I do not think you understand what I am saying. When i say "common sense"
>i mean thought patterns. Different people have different thought patterns.
And those thought patterns are either ruled by logic
and common sense, or they are not. As I said, you
are confusing humanist wisdom, with the definition
of common sense, only because they use that term
and claim it for themselves. But they can't have it,
as long as I'm here. :)
This is no different than the word "gay". I take that
word back and I tell them I'm taking that word back.
I call them homosexual and I tell them that gay means
happy. :)
>Especially today with the world getting more integrated and us coming in
>contact with people who think differently. What may seem "common sense" to
>you may not be common sense to someone from China! A good example is that
>you think it is common sense to drive on the right side of the road. But
>people from Britain think of driving on the left side of the road as
>common sense. Am i making sense to you or are you still having a
>difficult time understanding what i am saying?
I tell you the following, because I think that you are
more sincere than they are about discussing things
and about seeing what the Scripture says.
You are speaking of doctrines. Doctrines are
conclusions that may or may not make sense.
I am talking about a method.
The problem here, is that people are taught this end
times stuff and they are shown out of context snippets
of Scripture and BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO LAZY
to search the Scriptures for themselves and know their
Old Testaments as well as their New Testament, they
buy into the CONCLUSIONS.
And they are INTIMIDATED by the modern church
and they refuse to "go against the flow", because being
accepted by people, is more important to then than
truth. This is borne out by what we see. How many
people in these news groups know their end time
doctrine and yet, when I offer one rebuttal, they
immediately turn to personal insults and run away
and start threads about me, for the purpose of
gathering others to insult me and then claim to have
beat me badly, while never admitting that they ran away
and then we see them using bits and pieces of what I
showed them, that they cannot deny and then just trying
to force fit it into their doctrine? Is this not true?
I was not necessarily quoting your belief. I was just
making a point. :) You was "whomever says it".
>>>> So then you think that Peter was saying to ignore every time statement
>>>> made, because he was really saying nothing? No, I'm sorry, it doesn't
>>>> work that way. (:
>>>
>>>The context of Peter making that claim was the promise of Jesus coming. So
>>>it is legitimate to use that scripture for Jesus coming. Scripture
>>>interprets scripture. So why should not this verse be used to interpret
>>>what scripture means by "soon".
>>
>> No, that is not true at all. In fact, no offense, but
>> that is ridiculous! Peter's statement is no different
>> than me saying that "I've been standing in line
>> forever". It was an exaggeration to make the point
>> that it may seem like forever, but it isn't and He is
>> coming soon.
>
>It could also mean that would that one day would be a thousand years or
>more than the lifetime of the person alive at that time.
You see, now you are just speculating on how you can
keep that one statement by Peter and then get to claim
that all of the other time statements don't mean what
they say.
>Peter's statement is no different than me saying that
>"it would take forever to count the grain of sands!"
>Though counting the grain of sands is finite, i would
>not be able to do it in my lifetime. Now is it possible
>that you cannot except this meaning of what Peter
>said because of your doctrine?
You are ignoring everything everyone else said about
the time involved and you are interpreting a multitude
of time statements that are clear and direct, by one
statement that is obviously hyperbole and exaggeration
by Peter, instead of interpreting Peter's one statement
by the multitude of clear and direct time statements.
There are three approaches to this...
1) Say that 1,000 years = 1 day literally and that is
what Peter meant (and many say this).
2) Speculate about what Peter said, to try to keep it
to mean a great amount of time would pass and then
do not count all of the time statements which were
direct and without exaggeration, as what they say
(this is what you are doing).
3) Take the multitude of time statements that are plain
and direct as what they say and take Peter's obvious
exaggeration as his way of saying, "Be patient" (this
is what I do).
You have picked your approach. I have picked mine.
As for the rest, you completely ignored what I said.
I gave specific reasons for why it couldn't be
Pentecost, for example and right after that, you ask,
"Why couldn't it be Pentecost?".
I would suggest that you read it again, carefully.
I answered that question directly and to tell you
the truth, I feel like I'm talking to the air. (:
I don't mind someone reaching a different conclusion.
That is your right. What I do mind, is spending all of
that time, typing for nothing, answering questions
that, when I'm done, you, immediately below the
specific answer to the specific question, ask me
the same question again. (:
Here is an example...
*****************************************************
> Note: It isn't talking about Pentecost. All but one
> were alive and there was no "coming with the Father's
> angels" and no, "rewarding every man according to
> his works".
Why not Pentecost? Could not be the gifts of the Holy
Spirit a reward? Are not gifts given according to a
person's faith?
*****************************************************
I just finished showing you the comparison between
Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:12 and it is the
same wording. He is talking about His return in
judgment. Now you can try to weasel around that
if you want to, but the wording is there and you are
trying to reword it, because it doesn't suit your
desire to have it be in the future still.
In other words, when the wording of Scripture is
getting in your way, you are claiming it means
something else. You would not look at Rev 22:12
and say that it isn't the Second Coming. Do you
think it's just a funny coincidence that it is the
same wording in Mat 16:27? But since the time
statement bothers you, you don't mind at all
trying to make it say something else. (:
This approach is never honest to the wording of
Scripture and it seeks to claim that the doctrine
must be held on to and that the Scriptures must
be sifted through the doctrine.
They claim that they do this, because the doctrine
is true. Yet the fact is, that the very Scriptures
they claim it is built on, do indeed show the opposite
of what the doctrine claims and when that is pointed
out, all of the sudden, the very doctrines that they
claim show the Second Coming, now show something
else, because the TIME STATEMENT portion of that
Scripture is pointed out to them. So they are faced
with either losing that support of that passage, or
rewording it, then not bringing that one up anymore
and turning to other passages, which we see the same
thing happen with and then, when they are eventually
left without the famous "end times passages", they
demand that I be considered evil and the insults fly.
So unless you can get honest with the wording here,
let's just stop this now, because I don't wish to go
through that again and the only step left for me,
is to tell you flat out that you are readily twisting
Scripture to keep a doctrine, instead of sitting back
and saying that since the passages don't say what
you want them to say, maybe it's the doctrine that
is false and not the wording of the passage, which btw,
the end timers have no problem with said wording,
until the time statement that they missed within it
is pointed out to them. Then all of the sudden, it
says something different. So here we end up sitting,
with my statements remaining the same and your
statements about specific passages being forced to
change on the fly, to accommodate a future appearing
and yet, you won't consider that your approach is
problematic.
So all of the things said by Jesus, telling THEM that
THEY would see it and telling THEM that it would be
before THEY all died and the teachings of the Apostles,
that said the same things, all mean nothing, because
Peter made ONE EXAGGERATED STATEMENT!
I'm sorry, but that's just flat out RIDICULOUS and it
not only twists Scripture and cuts it up, but it takes
a HUGE blade to it and SLAUGHTERS it!
The following is a list of some New Testament verses
demonstrate the Christian dilemma. Jesus told His
apostles and first century church they were living in
the end time and some would live to see the Son of Man
come gather His elect. You do what you want with them.
I won't go around in circles with this.
Note the "YOU"; the "WE"; the direct time statements.
(All Scripture taken from the NASB.)
* Jesus to His disciples: ...until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass
away from the Law, until all is accomplished. (Mt.5:18)
* Jesus to His twelve apostles: ...you shall not
finish going through the cities of Israel, until the
Son of Man comes. (Mt.10:23)
* Jesus to His disciples: ...there are some of
those who are standing here who shall not taste death
until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
(Mt.16:27,28)
* Jesus to His disciples: ...this generation will
not pass away until all these things take place.
(Mt.24:34, See Lk.21:32)
* Jesus to the high priest: ...hereafter you shall
see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Mt.26:64)
* Jesus to His disciples and the crowd: ...there
are some of those who are standing here who shall not
taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it
has come with power. (Mk.9:1)
* Jesus to the disciples: ...there are some of
those standing here who shall not taste death until
they see the kingdom of God. (Lk.9:27)
* Jesus to His disciples and the crowd: ...there
are some of those who are standing here who shall not
taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it
has come with power. (Mk.9:1)
* Jesus to His disciples: ...there are some of
those who are standing here who shall not taste death
until they see the kingdom of God. (Lk.9:27)
* Jesus to Nathaniel: ...you shall see the heavens
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending
on the Son of Man. (Jn.1:51)
* Jesus to Peter: If I want him (John) to remain
until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!
(Jn.21:22,23)
* Paul to all who were beloved of God in Rome:
...it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep;
for now salvation is nearer to us than when we
believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at
hand. (Ro.13:11,12)
* Paul to the church of God at Corinth: ...you are
not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the
revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also
confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our
Lord Jesus Christ. (1Cor.1:7,8)
* ...the time has been shortened. (1Cor.7:29)
* ...the form of this world is passing away.
(1Cor.7:31)
* Now these things ... were written for our
instruction, upon whom the ends of the
ages has come. (1Cor.10:11)
* ...we shall not all sleep, but we shall be
changed... (1Cor.15:51)
* ...I hope you will understand until the
end...(2Cor.1:3)
* Paul , Timothy and bond-servants of Christ, to
all the saints who were in Philippi: ...so that you may
approve the things that are excellent, in order to be
sincere and blameless until the day of Christ...
(Phil.1:10)
* ...we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ... (Phil.3:20
* The Lord is near. (Phil.4:5)
* Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the church of
the Thessalonians: ...we are of the day...
(1Thes.5:8)
* Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you
entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be
preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ. (1Thes.5:23)
* Faithful is He who calls you and He also will
bring it to pass. (1Thes.5:24)
* ...Now we request you, brethren, with regard to
the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, our gathering
together to Him...(2Thes.2:1,2)
* Paul to Timothy: I charge you ... that you keep
the commandment without stain or reproach until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ... (1Tim.6:13,14)
* ...I am convinced that He is able to guard what I
have entrusted to Him until that day. (2Tim1:12)
* ...The Lord may grant to him (Onesiphorus) to
find mercy from the Lord on that day..(2Tim.1:18)
* If we endure, we shall also reign with Him...
(2Tim.2:12)
* I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and
of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the
dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: (2Tim.4:1)
* ...in the future there is laid up for me the
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous
Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to
me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.
(2Tim.4:8)
* Paul to Titus: For the grace of God has appeared,
bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny
ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly,
righteously and godly in the present age, looking for
the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our
great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave Himself
for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed
and purify for Himself a people for His own possession,
zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:11-14)
* To the Hebrews: God...in these last days has
spoken to us in His Son... (Heb.1:1,2)
* For we have become partakers of Christ, if we
hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the
end; (Heb.3:14)
* But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old
is ready to disappear. (Heb.8:13)
* For Christ did not enter a holy place made with
hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;...
(Heb.9:24)
* ...you see the day drawing near. (Heb.10:25)
* For yet in a very little while, He who is coming
will come, and will not delay. (Heb.10:37)
* James to the twelve tribes who were dispersed
abroad: Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the
coming of the Lord. (James 5:7)
* ...the coming of the Lord is at hand. ...the
Judge is standing right at the door.
(James 5:7-9)
* ..the Judge is standing right at the door.
(James 5:9)
* Peter to those who resided as aliens:
...according to His great mercy has caused us...who are
protected by the power of God through faith for a
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
(1Pet.1:3,5)
* ...you...may be found to result in praise and
glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(1Pet.1:6,7)
* ...grace to be brought to you at the revelation
of Jesus Christ. (1Pet.1:13)
* He...has appeared in these last times for the
sake of you... (1Pet.1:20)
* Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles,
so that in the thing in which they slander you as
evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as
they observe them, glorify God in the day of
visitation. (1Pet.2:12)
* ...but they shall give account to Him who is
ready to judge the living and the dead. (1Pet.4:5)
* The end of all things is at hand...(1Pet.4:7)
* For it is time for judgment to begin with the
household of God... (1Pet.4:17)
* Therefore I ... a partaker also of the glory that
is to be revealed, (1Pet.5:1)
* And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will
receive the unfading crown of glory. (1Pet.5:4)
* Peter to those who had received the faith: But
according to His promise we are looking for new heavens
and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
(2Pet.3:13)
* Therefore, beloved, since you look for these
things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace,
spotless and blameless,... (2Pet.3:14)
* John to those who believed in the name of the Son
of God: ...the darkness is passing away, and the true
light is already shining. (1Jn.2:8)
* And the world is passing away... (1Jn.2:17)
* Children, it is the last hour...from this we know
that it is the last hour. (1Jn.2:18)
* We know that, when He appears, we shall be like
Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. (1Jn.3:2)
* ...we may have confidence in the day of
judgment...(1Jn.4:17)
* The revelation of Jesus Christ communicated
through John to His bond-servants: The Revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His
bond-servants, the things which must shortly take
place... (Rv.1:1)
* ...for the time is near. (Rv.1:3)
* ... He is coming with the clouds, and every eye
will see Him, even those who pierced Him...(Rv.1:7)
* I am coming quickly...(Rv.3:11)
* Because you have kept the word of My
perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of
testing, that hour which is about to come upon the
whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.
(Rv.3:10
* ...things which must shortly take place.
(Rv.22:6)
* ...I am coming quickly. (Rv.22:7)
* ...Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of
this book, for the time is near. (Rv.22:10)
* Behold, I am coming quickly...(Rv.22:12)
* Yes, I am coming quickly. (Rv.22:20)
III. The Paradox
Clearly, Jesus taught that he would return a second
time in the first century. His disciples also believed
He would return again in their own generation.
Clearly, those were the last days.
http://members.tripod.com/~Lynnish/
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:45:40 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>But you have not answered however, to the issue of what
>>you take literal and what you don't in Rev 13 and of
>>the issue of the fatal wound being as I laid out.
>
>Well, I explained this in my last post.
>
>Daniel's vision of the beasts
Daniel also said that Christ would reign before the
fourth kingdom ended and the Roman Empire did
end centuries ago and Daniel also makes sure to
note it plural, by saying, "the days of the kings",
plural, so he is discussing the time before the
succession of the four kingdoms ends and not
some future, revived kingdom.
So as to WHEN He reigns, what does Daniel say,
when discussing the four empires (and does not
mention any break)?
"And IN THE DAYS OF THESE KINGS shall the God
of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
- Daniel 2:44
Thus, His reign would be set up IN THE DAYS OF THESE
KINGS" and not thousands of years after that.
Also note WHEN He takes His throne. Is it when
He descends, or when He ascends? I pointed this
out already, but it is good to review it again,
because this "switching of thrones" is your doctrine,
but Scripture never says, "He will rule forever, but
will switch His throne three times."!
Ancient of Days = God the Father
Son of Man = Jesus Christ
Daniel 7:13-14
13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like
the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,
and came *_TO_* to the Ancient of days, and they
brought him near before him.
14) 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.
Note that He received His Kingdom when He ASCENDED.
He was not waiting to one day receive it.
The Father (Ancient of Days) is in Heaven and it says
that He came *_TO_* the Ancient of Days and received
His dominion and glory, etc. and it says that His
dominion *IS* an everlasting dominion, thus proving
that it is a present tense statement at the time of
His ascension.
We should also take a look at Stephen's response,
when they were stoning him...
Acts 7:55-56
55) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up
steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and
Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56) And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the
Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Now while you claim some victory for Jesus in
Jerusalem, as I pointed out to you, that doesn't
happen.
So while the futurists try to quote Zech 14, claiming
that Jesus would win the battle and be seated in
Jerusalem, to rule for 1,000 years, what does Zech
actually say about this?...
Zechariah 14:1-4
1) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil
shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2) For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to
battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses
rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city
shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the
people shall not be cut off from the city.
Note that the city IS TAKEN and the women
ARE RAPED! Jerusalem does NOT WIN!
This is the same desolation that Daniel is
speaking of!
Thus, the victory in the next two verses, cannot be
by Jesus, physically fighting these nations and
winning an earthly battle!
3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against
those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Note: THEN He would fight and is it just another
coincidence that after Jerusalem was defeated,
the Roman Empire began its descent to nothingness?
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.
This cannot be a physical statement, because it would
require a "Gumby Jesus", whose legs start stretching as
the mountain separates! Or is He hopping from side
to side? Or do we have a "Giant Jesus" here?
It might interest you to know, that if this mountain
were actually split apart, that geographically, what
it would do, would be to open a direct path for the
Gentile nations to come into Jerusalem.
That bring up two points...
1) If Jesus were doing that, He would be HELPING
the attacking nations, NOT defeating them, so this
passage actually CONDEMNS the futurist doctrine
that He is winning a war here on Earth!
2) If God wanted to show that He had opened the
way to the Gentiles in Scripture, what better
symbolism than this? The mountain that made
it hard to just flood in with Gentile people, is now
split apart, giving easy access!
Thus, this is a symbolic statement of the way
to God's Holy City, which is in Heaven and was
represented on Earth by Jerusalem, is opened
to all. Just as "the veil was rent in two", so is
this mountain opened. Opening this mountain,
even if it were literal, would have helped the
Gentiles, not the Jews. :)
Note the PRESENT TENSE of the statement...
"But ye ARE come unto mount Zion, and unto the city
of the living God, THE HEAVENLY JERUSALEM,
and to an innumerable company of angels,"
- Hebrews 12:22
Look at Jesus' words, while in the temple, when He
was blasting the Pharisees...
Matthew 23:36-38
36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come
upon this generation.
37) O JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM, THOU that killest
the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
THEE, how often would I have gathered THY children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and YE would not!
38) Behold, YOUR house is left unto YOU *DESOLATE*.
He says specifically, "Jerusalem". And He says
specifically that it is "their house" that is to be
"left to them desolate".
I wrote a detailed explanation of Daniel 9:24-27,
which is directly related to this and can be found
here...
http://Daniel-Explained.notlong.com
>and the image of a man represent the successive world kingdoms from
>Babylon to the Roman empire. The legs of iron, and feet of iron and
>clay, with the ten toes, correspond to the Roman empire. The stone
>made without hands is said to smash the legs and feet of the image,
>which means Christ's kingdom will smash the Roman empire.
>
>The beast from the sea, then, is a literal kingdom/king: the revived
>Roman empire, led by anti-christ.
>
>The beast from the earth is the false prophet who does false miracles
>and gets people to worship the beast. So this refers to a literal,
>world kingdom (revived Roman empire), with literal armies.
>
>The beast in Revelation 19 is the Roman empire, led by anti-christ,
>and their literal armies. We know this is not a reference to the
>beast which came out of the earth, because 19:20 says the beast AND
>the false prophet who wrought miracles before him, were cast into the
>lake of fire.
>
>The fatal wound that was healed, could be a reference to the fact that
>the Roman empire seemed to be dead and gone, and then was revived, or
>it could literally refer to the anti-christ having some kind of wound
>that seemed to be miraculously healed.
Isn't that what I said, but I applied it to Nero? The
Scripture doesn't say anything about "AntiChrist",
so you are inserting personal doctrine there, although
it does mention the beast. The point is, this happened
in the first century, so why isn't that fulfillment?
First of all, let me dispense of the argument that this
couldn't be, because Revelation was written in the
first century, since if that is not likely, then the
whole argument crumbles. And in fact, if it is likely
that it was written prior to 70 AD, then the kings,
as I will show, would line up perfectly with what
Revelation says and that means that a first century
fulfillment CANNOT BE DENIED and it would be
TO KNOWINGLY LIE, to continue to try to force
it into our future!!!
Revelation was not written in 95-96 AD and that claim
is based on one third party quote. This guys says that
this guy says that this guy said...
And it is a quote of Greek which could be translated
two entirely different ways and is more likely to be
that which opposes the late date.
You can read about it here...
http://Revelation-Dating.notlong.com
Now as I said previously (mostly quoted from my other
response, but trimmed back and then new, relevant
information added)...
You're assuming that that statement was written
yesterday. That fourth kingdom existed in the
time in which Jesus lived on Earth and Nero/Rome
was the beast and it doesn't say that the KINGDOM
was and is not and then is. It says the KING was
and is not and is again.
The beast itself is a dual reference to a man and
a kingdom/empire. Even the heads have a dual
reference. Mountains/Kings.
The beast itself is not fatally wounded. You people
have this backwards. It is not the kingDOM that
is directly fatally wounded. It is the KING that
is directly fatally wounded, but it is the kingDOM
that survives anyway, because the fatal wound of
the KING, obviously affects the kingDOM. :)
So the end result is indeed that the kingDOM suffers
and appears that it will die. But the physical wound
is to the KING.
Note that it is one of THE HEADS that are wounded.
"And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to
death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all
the world wondered after the beast." - Rev 13:3
It also later says that HE (a person) who kills
with the sword, must die by the sword.
Nero committed suicide by his aide, who thrust
him through the throat with his own sword.
Rome was indeed in its death throes after that
and the people and other nations thought Rome
was done for. This is all documented history.
Revelation 17:9-20
9) And here is the mind which hath wisdom.
The seven heads are seven mountains, on which
the woman sitteth.
10) And there are seven kings: five are fallen,
and one is, and the other is not yet come; and
when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
Thus, five kings have passed, one is (Nero) and one
is yet to come and will only rule for a short period
of time, which was true.
No one disputes that the first actual emperor of
the Roman Empire in the line of Caesars, was
Julius Caesar. Thus, we have the line as follows...
1) Julius Caesar
2) Augustus
3) Tiberius
4) Gaius (Caligula)
5) Claudius
6) Nero
7) Galba.
Now remember, five had passed. They were in
the past to the prophecy. That is clearly stated.
It is also clearly stated that "ONE IS". Thus,
Nero was ruling when Revelation was written.
One was still future and would only reign for a
short time. Galba reigned for only six months.
These things are historical fact.
Read the words of Revelation carefully. One IS.
That tells you when it was written, because the
kings MUST line up. In history, we see that they
DID, perfectly!
******************************************************
Thanks for your comments! I appreciate that
you laid it out for me. Of course, I'll have to
kill you anyway. :)
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Daniel also said that Christ would reign before the
>fourth kingdom ended and the Roman Empire did
>end centuries ago and Daniel also makes sure to
>note it plural, by saying, "the days of the kings",
>plural, so he is discussing the time before the
>succession of the four kingdoms ends and not
>some future, revived kingdom.
>So as to WHEN He reigns, what does Daniel say,
>when discussing the four empires (and does not
>mention any break)?
>"And IN THE DAYS OF THESE KINGS shall the God
>of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
>destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
>people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
>these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
>- Daniel 2:44
>
>Thus, His reign would be set up IN THE DAYS OF THESE
>KINGS" and not thousands of years after that.
Well, if you consider that there will be seven years of air-strikes,
when Christ pours judgments on the inhabitants of the earth (chapters
4-18), before He takes it to the ground war of Revelation 19, then
this doesn't present a problem to our view.
The promises in the OT that God would pour out his blessing on the
Gentiles, didn't foresee a 2,000+ year church age, either. So just
because Daniel doesn't mention the Roman empire will be temporarily
disbanded, and then reconstituted, doesn't eliminate that as a
possibility. We both agree Christ's kingdom destroys the Roman
empire, and that's what Daniel predicted.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:34:05 GMT, MrEye <Mr...@no-email.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> They all are then. :) We have a few facts, one of
>>> which, is that it is a vision. That tells you right
>>> there that you're going to have symbolism, especially
>>> when you have beasts and Jesus with a sword sticking
>>> out of His mouth, vials being poured out, a number
>>> for a name and other symbolic numbers, etc..
>>
>>Yes i agree. Rather than saying a rule for the book, it is better to say
>>that since it is a vision it must be symbolic. I do not know of any vision
>>where people saw things and described them as they were. But there are
>>other books with symbols and literalism. Daniel being a good example.
>
>What was God supposed to do to show them a picture of what was going
>to happen, give them a t.v. monitor? And how are people supposed to
>describe things nobody has ever seen before, without using symbolic
>comparisons?
Copout. You assume they were completely stupid.
God is showing them attack choppers and they come up
with locusts, instead of "flying metal machines", when
they already had complex war machines in that time?
Please. (:
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:58:37 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>>literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>>to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>>Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>>considering that the term is always used symbolically
>>in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>>they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>>acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
>
>You know, if I remember correctly, it seems like, in the beginning,
>someone (maybe you, I'm not sure), said something to the effect the
>Bible nowhere says Christ will reign for 1,000 years.
That is correct. Nowhere does the Bible say that.
>Then, when faced with Revelation 20, where it says the saints will reign with Him
>for 1,000 years, someone (maybe you) said it doesn't say Christ will
>reign, only that the saints will reign.
>
>Then, when it was said how can the saints reign "with" Christ for
>1,000 years, and it doesn't mean Christ is also reigning for 1,000
>years?, and how it only underscores this reign is different from
>Christ's universal reign indicated in Colossians, the next thing is,
>well it isn't reigning from earth for 1,000 years.
Uh, no, you have it all messed up.
Revelation 20 speaks of how long the saints reign with
Christ and not how long Christ reigns.
The fact that they are reigning with Christ, shows that
Christ is reigning. I have clearly shown that Christ
began to reign when He ascended and if you were honest,
you would admit that that is something that you did not
know and that you were surprised when you saw it!
I have made this as clear as I can and that shows me
that all that time, you never even read what I wrote
to you and repeatedly showed to you.
Just because Christ the sints begin to reign with
Christ, that does not mean that Christ starts reigning
at that moment and just because the saints reign with
Him for 1,000 years, which is not a literal 1,000
anyway, that does not mean that Christ ends His reign
after that 1,000 years. It only means that at a given
period of time, the saints are reigning with Christ.
And NOWHERE does Scripture say that Christ keeps
switching from where He reigns! NOWHERE!
>Then when we show where it says the nations of the four quarters of
>the earth will compass the camp of the saints at the end of the 1,000
>year reign, now the argument is that it must be a symbolic 1,000
>years.
"Now"? No, I have always said that it is a symbolic
number. Thank you for ONCE AGAIN showing in
the same message, that no, you did not read what
I wrote and yet, told me it was wrong. (:
The term thousand is always used symbolically
in SCripture! That's a statement that you keep
ignoring, because it is not convenient for you!
People and things:
Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10; Ecc 7:28
Time and generations:
Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalm 90:4
There are more examples.
>Then, we will be the ones accused of changing our doctrine on the fly,
>of picking and choosing what to interpret literally, etc. I think the
>bottom line is, you will only allow Revelation to be literal where it
>could refer to the first century church, and everything else must be
>just an allegory that refers to the first century church.
And here, ONCE AGAIN, YOU FALSELY ACCUSE ME
of saying it is an "allegory", WHICH I DID NOT SAY!!!
Are you ever going to stop lying about what I have said
to you?
You keep INVENTING something that you WISH
I responded with, because you can't argue against
what I actually said!
And don't tell me that you're not lying, because I have
corrected you ABOUT THESE VERY THINGS already,
on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS!!!
Now here again, is what I said.
Try reading it CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY!
You claim that you don't read it, because it's too
long. Yet you seem to be happy to MAKE UP
things that I didn't say and try to slam me for
YOUR INVENTIONS of what I said!
If you're going to claim I'm wrong...
THEN AT LEAST READ WHAT I WROTE FIRST !!!!!!!
Christ's reign is eternal.
Luke 1:31-33
31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son
of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him
the throne of his father David:
33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever;
and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Thus, the Bible proves that Christ received His Kingdom
when He ascended and that His reign is eternal. And
nowhere and I mean nowhere, does the Bible teach that
Christ will rule from Earth.
Now you will say; "But wait! It says right there in
Revelation 20:4 that Christ will rule for 1,000 years
from Earth!". No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come
close to saying that.
Revelation 20:1-8
1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven,
having the key of the bottomless pit and a great
chain in his hand.
2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent,
which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a
thousand years,
3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut
him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should
deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years
should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed
a little season.
4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped
the beast, neither his image, neither had received his
mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the
thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection.
6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
resurrection: on such the second death hath no
power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ,
and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan
shall be loosed out of his prison,
8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are
in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to
gather them together to battle: the number of whom
is as the sand of the sea.
The fact is, that the term, "the thousand year reign
of Christ" does not appear anywhere in the Bible.
That is a misconstruction of what it actually says.
In that scenario, you have Jesus reigning here for
a thousand years and then getting booted off of His
own throne. Has that ever occurred to you? Have
you ever realized what your belief means? :)
You can keep denying it, by saying that He switches
His thrones, but that's a load of crap and you still
have Jesus being booted off of His supposed earthly
throne, so that Satan can rule!
Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus plays
musical thrones with Satan and then again
by Himself!
Now, to address the issues, since there are a few
points to make regarding Revelation 20...
1) It does not say, "1,000 years". It says,
"thousand years". There is a difference.
Numbers are meaningless when said in numerical
form like that, since they aren't written that
way in the Bible.
2) Revelation 20:3-8 is the ONLY basis for this
"thousand year reign of Christ on Earth" argument.
That is important to remember, since, if it can be
shown that the text is not saying that, you MUST,
MUST give up that belief, or admit to believing in
something the Bible doesn't teach. The problem is,
the futurists always fail to acknowledge the facts
and then after seeing and knowing the truth, throw
insults and then go on and believe it anyway, because
it strokes their ego and it increases their vanity. (:
3) The Bible does not say that Christ reigns for
a thousand years. What it actually says, is...
"...and I saw the souls of *them* that were
beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the
word of God... and *they* lived and reigned
*with* Christ a thousand years."
Note that it talks about how long those who were
beheaded reigned with Christ and not how long Christ
reigned. Since when is Christ's reign temporary?
Again, do you see what it is you're preaching here?
Christ leaving His throne that was promised to Him
by God, to sit on Earth for a thousand years and
then get booted, so Satan can take over again?
Please! As I said, since when is Christ's reign
temporary? Right? :)
The Bible clearly says that Christ's reign would
be forever...
Luke 1:31-33
31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the
throne of his father David:
33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob FOREVER;
and of his kingdom there shall be NO END.
You have Scripture contradicting itself. As I said,
the passage discusses when those beheaded begin
to reign WITH Christ and not when Christ Himself
reigns. Do you not understand what the word "WITH"
means???
"...and THEY lived and reigned WITH Christ a thousand
years." - Revelation 20:4
It does not address when Christ began to reign, nor
for how long Christ reigns, but rather, only the reign
of the beheaded, WITH CHRIST.
If I say that I reigned with King Joey for one year,
does that mean that King Joey only reigned one year?
Better yet, if a woman marries a king who has held
the throne since he was 20 years old and that king
is now 40 years old when they marry and she reigned
with him for 40 years, until he died, does that mean
that her husband the king only reigned for 40 years,
or that SHE reigned WITH him for 40 years?
No, it certainly does not mean that Christ began
to reign at that point. It only discusses when
the beheaded began to reign WITH HIM.
Can you not understand this SIMPLE example?
Why do the rules of language go out the window
when you end timers read the Bible?!
Read Rev 20:4 again...
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped
the beast, neither his image, neither had received his
mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
4) Revelation 20 does not mention the Second Coming
of Christ.
5) Revelation 20 does not mention a reign on Earth.
In fact, it doesn't even mention Christ on Earth.
6) Revelation 20 does not mention a bodily
resurrection.
7) Revelation 20 does not even mention us. It says
that *THEY* lived and reigned with Christ for a
thousand years. Who are *THEY*? Those who
were beheaded for witnessing about Christ.
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls
of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,
and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped
the beast, neither his image, neither had received his
mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
8) It does NOT say they were BODILY resurrected.
John said he saw, "THE SOULS of them who were
beheaded for the witness of Jesus".
John saw *_THE SOULS_* NOT physical bodies!
9) John does not see them on Earth. His is still
viewing events IN HEAVEN at the point he says
this.
John saw them *_IN HEAVEN_* NOT on Earth!
I.e., John saw SOULS of THE BEHEADED reigning
WITH CHRIST for "a thousand years". He did NOT
see "Christ BEGIN HIS OWN 1,000 year reign from
the planet Earth".
10) Since none of what the futurists claim
is mentioned in Revelation 20:1-8, there is
no way for them to support their doctrine with
Scripture and not imagination, which, with all
due respect, is all that has been provided by them
thus far.
11) The beheaded are in Heaven, not on Earth
and have spiritual bodies, not physical bodies
and this demonstrates that the victory is in
the spiritual world, not the physical world.
The Pharisees were waiting for a physical victory,
but guess what? Jesus said it was not going to
happen.
Let us see what Jesus said about a physical
Kingdom on Earth, noting that the Pharisees
believed in a physical kingdom and that if
we study our history, we will know this and
even their current wait for a physically
ruling Messiah bears this out.
And frankly, the futurists should learn that
this is the whole reason they missed the boat
when Jesus was here. Because they did not see
that the Messiah was not coming to rule physically.
They interpret Isaiah 53 as being about THEM,
as a nation. Were you aware of that? Thus,
once again, PRIDE is the cause of a fall. (:
Yet here the futurists are, waiting for a
physical Kingdom, because it has to be all
about THEM and their pride, ego and vanity
get in the way of sound Scriptural teaching
and their enjoyment of the Kingdom, just as
it did for the Pharisees then and the Jews,
even today. (:
I believe that the futurists also have another
reason. Fear. Fear of physical death. This
is why the Rapture is so popular, which is also
not Biblical. But they get to escape death.
So while they claim to be born again Christians,
loving their fellow man, they are really wanting
Jesus to come and help them escape and they cheer
on the destruction of the planet, so that THEY
can live in some fantasy paradise. That is
selfishness and no one who claims to love their
fellow man as Jesus instructed, should be rooting
for the end of the world. (: All they do now, is
basically to say, "To Hell with the world, it's
doomed anyway.". And then they wonder why
the world is so bad off. (:
Anyway, enough of that.
So knowing that they, like the futurists today,
await a physical Kingdom, why don't we take
a look at what Jesus said to them, since they
asked Him directly about the supposed physical
Kingdom that was supposed to be set up by the
Messiah. And there is no getting around this.
This is what Jesus said about it, period and I will
not entertain word twisting that tries to make say
something else, or claims, "partial fulfillment".
Jesus DID NOT SAY THAT! (:
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when he was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the kingdom of God should come, he answered
them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation:
21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!
for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
Now let us look at what happened there.
The Pharisees asked when the Kingdom of God would
arrive and yes, they were asking about a physical
kingdom.
Jesus responds by telling them clearly, that it
would not be a physical kingdom.
He told them that they would not be able to point
at it and say, "There it is!". He said it can't
be seen with the eye.
Now given this clear statement by Jesus about
the Kingdom of God not being physical, in response
to those who were demanding to know when it would
come onto Earth, does it not make sense that when
we read other statements which may appear to be
literal, but do not actually say "literal and
physical", that we take them in the light of Jesus'
clear statement in Luke 17:20-21, instead of
automatically taking them as literal and then
trying to find a way to twist Jesus' words in
Luke 17:20-21, trying to make it so that He didn't
say what He clearly did say? Of course it does. :)
So why do you take the Kingdom that Jesus said
is within us and that we would NOT be able to see
and point at and try to make it a physical kingdom
on Earth, where Jesus just begins to reign and only
does so, for a thousand years, before being booted
by Satan? Is that the Jesus YOU worship? (: It
isn't the one I worship, that's for sure!
Why is it that the futurists immediately believe in the
physical literalism of the fantastic statements by
Jesus and yet, try to invent entire doctrines in order
to get around the simple things He said?
Think about this...
They make up this doctrine about the fantastic
statement of Jesus being physically literal and
then, when His simple time statements are read,
they dismiss them, by twisting His words to mean
something else, because they do not fit the doctrine
about the fantastic statements being physically
literal, THAT THEY JUST MADE UP!!! UGH!!! :)
12) The term "thousand" is always used symbolically,
when dealing with time and large numbers of people
or things, in the Scriptures. Reference the following
examples...
People and things:
Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10; Ecc 7:28
Time and generations:
Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalm 90:4
There are more examples.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:58:37 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>>literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>>to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>>Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>>considering that the term is always used symbolically
>>in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>>they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>>acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
>
>You know, if I remember correctly, it seems like, in the beginning,
>someone (maybe you, I'm not sure), said something to the effect the
>Bible nowhere says Christ will reign for 1,000 years.
That is correct. Nowhere does the Bible say that.
>Then, when faced with Revelation 20, where it says the saints will reign with Him
>for 1,000 years, someone (maybe you) said it doesn't say Christ will
>reign, only that the saints will reign.
>
>Then, when it was said how can the saints reign "with" Christ for
>1,000 years, and it doesn't mean Christ is also reigning for 1,000
>years?, and how it only underscores this reign is different from
>Christ's universal reign indicated in Colossians, the next thing is,
>well it isn't reigning from earth for 1,000 years.
Uh, no, you have it all messed up.
Revelation 20 speaks of how long the saints reign with
Christ and not how long Christ reigns.
The fact that they are reigning with Christ, shows that
Christ is reigning. I have clearly shown that Christ
began to reign when He ascended and if you were honest,
you would admit that that is something that you did not
know and that you were surprised when you saw it!
I have made this as clear as I can and that shows me
that all that time, you never even read what I wrote
to you and repeatedly showed to you.
Just because Christ the sints begin to reign with
Christ, that does not mean that Christ starts reigning
at that moment and just because the saints reign with
Him for 1,000 years, which is not a literal 1,000
anyway, that does not mean that Christ ends His reign
after that 1,000 years. It only means that at a given
period of time, the saints are reigning with Christ.
And NOWHERE does Scripture say that Christ keeps
switching from where He reigns! NOWHERE!
>Then when we show where it says the nations of the four quarters of
>the earth will compass the camp of the saints at the end of the 1,000
>year reign, now the argument is that it must be a symbolic 1,000
>years.
"Now"? No, I have always said that it is a symbolic
number. Thank you for ONCE AGAIN showing in
the same message, that no, you did not read what
I wrote and yet, told me it was wrong. (:
The term thousand is always used symbolically
in SCripture! That's a statement that you keep
ignoring, because it is not convenient for you!
People and things:
Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10; Ecc 7:28
Time and generations:
Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalm 90:4
There are more examples.
>Then, we will be the ones accused of changing our doctrine on the fly,
>of picking and choosing what to interpret literally, etc. I think the
>bottom line is, you will only allow Revelation to be literal where it
>could refer to the first century church, and everything else must be
>just an allegory that refers to the first century church.
And here, ONCE AGAIN, YOU FALSELY ACCUSE ME
Luke 1:31-33
Revelation 20:1-8
Luke 1:31-33
Anyway, enough of that.
Luke 17:20-21
Think about this...
People and things:
Time and generations:
There are more examples.
--
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:58:37 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For example, I believe that the souls in Heaven are
>>literal souls. However, I believe it is common sense
>>to take the thousand years as a symbolic term (the
>>Hebrew doesn't have an actual numeric system),
>>considering that the term is always used symbolically
>>in Scripture. Thus, rules have been enforced and
>>they were done by, to phrase it in a way more
>>acceptable to you, "Scriptural common sense". :)
>
>You know, you blasted our view, because we say the sword in Christ's
>mouth is a symbol to represent the word of God, but maintain that
>Christ literally comes to earth.
I did not say, "Christ literally comes to Earth".
You are twisting what I said and this comes
from two things.
1) You do not read everything I write about it
and so, make ignorant assumptions based on
your ignorance of what I have said and yet,
tell me it's wrong.
2) Your brainwashing that you have received,
that doesn't allow you to apply common sense
when you open your Bible.
The sword is symbolic of the word of God.
It is the "rod if iron". I also proved that,
but since you don't read through what
I write, you don't believe that, yet tell me
my view is wrong.
Christ returned. He did not return visibly and
physically in the sky and He never preached
that He would.
I will not bother discussing this with you, because
when I do, you will not read it all, or if you promise
to, it will be very quickly and you won't study what
I actually said.
Ananias917
<altbi...@pulpitfire.org> spake thusly:
>On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:18:46 GMT, Ananias917
><_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Daniel also said that Christ would reign before the
>>fourth kingdom ended and the Roman Empire did
>>end centuries ago and Daniel also makes sure to
>>note it plural, by saying, "the days of the kings",
>>plural, so he is discussing the time before the
>>succession of the four kingdoms ends and not
>>some future, revived kingdom.
>
>>So as to WHEN He reigns, what does Daniel say,
>>when discussing the four empires (and does not
>>mention any break)?
>
>>"And IN THE DAYS OF THESE KINGS shall the God
>>of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be
>>destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
>>people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all
>>these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever."
>>- Daniel 2:44
>>
>>Thus, His reign would be set up IN THE DAYS OF THESE
>>KINGS" and not thousands of years after that.
>
>Well, if you consider that there will be seven years of air-strikes,
>when Christ pours judgments on the inhabitants of the earth (chapters
>4-18), before He takes it to the ground war of Revelation 19, then
>this doesn't present a problem to our view.
No, not when your view is whatever you can imagine up.
And here, you snip what I said and then insert
YOUR IMAGINATION into it and yet, you try
to tell me that you're making a Biblical argument.
>The promises in the OT that God would pour out his blessing on the
>Gentiles, didn't foresee a 2,000+ year church age, either. So just
>because Daniel doesn't mention the Roman empire will be temporarily
>disbanded, and then reconstituted, doesn't eliminate that as a
>possibility. We both agree Christ's kingdom destroys the Roman
>empire, and that's what Daniel predicted.
No, it doesn't matter what Daniel actually said.
It doesn't matter that he discussed the four
kingdoms one succeeding the other and said
Christ would reign in the days of those kingdoms,
plural. No, none of that matters.
It also doesn't matter that the late dating of
Revelation is built on a third party quote
which is a mistranslation and all other evidence
shows a date prior to 70 AD. Evidence which
the end timers, as you proved by snipping it,
don't dare to look at and when they see it,
they run away from it and try to make it
go away, as you just did.
It also doesn't matter that I gave clear, historical
proof that the prophecies line up perfectly with
what happened, right down to the reign of the
Caesars, how many there were and even the short
reign of the one right after Nero and it doesn't
matter that Nero died exactly as Revelation says
would happen and that the king after him, was
the one with the short reign, as Scripture also
prescribes.
All that matters, is what you can imagine up
about air strikes and ground wars, using
equipment that no one mentioned.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You know, you blasted our view, because we say the sword in Christ's
>>mouth is a symbol to represent the word of God, but maintain that
>>Christ literally comes to earth.
>
>I did not say, "Christ literally comes to Earth".
>You are twisting what I said and this comes
>from two things.
>1) You do not read everything I write about it
>and so, make ignorant assumptions based on
>your ignorance of what I have said and yet,
>tell me it's wrong.
No, it is not an ignorant assumption. You did indeed complain that we
have a "real Jesus, with a symbolic sword" "all in the same verse!"
As if it would be such a ridiculous method of interpretation to
conclude that we could have a real Jesus bearing a symbolic sword, all
in the same passage. Here is a direct quote:
>From: Ananias917 <_-_Anania...@gmail.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.bible,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian
>Subject: Re: Revelation 20 & the souls of them...
>Message-ID: <aet2q11q67iti421i...@4ax.com>
...
>You on the other hand, are taking whatever you want
>literally and whatever you want symbolically. You've
>got a real Jesus, with a symbolic sword and a symbolic
>beast with real armies, all in the same verse!
...
Then you turn right around and tell us it's literal souls with a
non-literal 1,000 year reign, all in the same passage. You casually
call people ignorant, and here, it is apparently you who are ignorant
of what you just wrote, and do the very thing you complained we do.
>2) Your brainwashing that you have received,
>that doesn't allow you to apply common sense
>when you open your Bible.
>The sword is symbolic of the word of God.
>It is the "rod if iron". I also proved that,
>but since you don't read through what
>I write, you don't believe that, yet tell me
>my view is wrong.
What common sense? The passage says Christ comes to earth with the
sword (of God's word) in his mouth. That's the correct understanding,
and the one I've admitted to at least four times, before you accused
me of being ignorant that you wrote it. Go ahead, bet me $100.00 that
I didn't already agree with that, and I'll prove it's you who are
ignorant of what I've been writing, while I take my family out to
dinner!
>Christ returned. He did not return visibly and
>physically in the sky and He never preached
>that He would.
What passage are you referring to here, because that's not what my
Revelation 19 says.
>I will not bother discussing this with you, because
>when I do, you will not read it all, or if you promise
>to, it will be very quickly and you won't study what
>I actually said.
You accuse me of not reading what you wrote, when you are 1)
apparently not aware of what you wrote, which I proved by quoting it
above, and 2) not aware that I already agreed with you that the sword
of Christ's mouth is the word of God at least 3 times, while you go on
and on accusing me of being ignorant for not reading that you talked
about it. Clearly, you are the one not reading what I wrote.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>>What was God supposed to do to show them a picture of what was going
>>to happen, give them a t.v. monitor? And how are people supposed to
>>describe things nobody has ever seen before, without using symbolic
>>comparisons?
>
>Copout. You assume they were completely stupid.
>
>God is showing them attack choppers and they come up
>with locusts, instead of "flying metal machines", when
>they already had complex war machines in that time?
>
>Please. (:
The copout is, that you are trying to dismiss Revelation as a
"vision", as if that is a clear indication it is primarily symbolic.
A vision is simply the method of delivery for the truth, and how else
could God have possibly shown him the future in any other way? The
vision was not a vision of a vision, it was a vision of the future.
You still aren't answering all the points about how the book is loaded
with symbolic comparisons to describe literal things, which is not the
same thing as being loaded with mysterious allegories that describe
general principles.
You can't deal with Revelation, because it chews your first century
view of eschatology up, and spits it out. All you can do is try to
throw a cloud of mystery over it, and make us think it's some
allegorical fog. Your view can only allow Revelation to be literal
insofar as it supports your first century view. That's the copout.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Then, when faced with Revelation 20, where it says the saints will reign with Him
>>for 1,000 years, someone (maybe you) said it doesn't say Christ will
>>reign, only that the saints will reign.
>>
>>Then, when it was said how can the saints reign "with" Christ for
>>1,000 years, and it doesn't mean Christ is also reigning for 1,000
>>years?, and how it only underscores this reign is different from
>>Christ's universal reign indicated in Colossians, the next thing is,
>>well it isn't reigning from earth for 1,000 years.
>
>Uh, no, you have it all messed up.
>
>Revelation 20 speaks of how long the saints reign with
>Christ and not how long Christ reigns.
>
>The fact that they are reigning with Christ, shows that
>Christ is reigning. I have clearly shown that Christ
>began to reign when He ascended and if you were honest,
>you would admit that that is something that you did not
>know and that you were surprised when you saw it!
No, if you were honest, or if you even read my reply, you would know
that you did not amaze me with your exegetic prowess, and that I
responded to your statement by showing that Hebrews 10:12-13 says that
even after Christ sat down at the right hand of God (which I assume
you'll be honest enough to admit was after His ascension), He is still
waiting (present tense) until his enemies be made his footstool:
"12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."
>I have made this as clear as I can and that shows me
>that all that time, you never even read what I wrote
>to you and repeatedly showed to you.
I can tell you are the one not reading what I wrote, or you would have
known that 1) I did indeed read and respond to your statement, and 2)
that you did not read my reply.
>Just because Christ the sints begin to reign with
>Christ, that does not mean that Christ starts reigning
>at that moment and just because the saints reign with
>Him for 1,000 years, which is not a literal 1,000
>anyway, that does not mean that Christ ends His reign
>after that 1,000 years. It only means that at a given
>period of time, the saints are reigning with Christ.
I'm going to save this quote, and put it on my wall. This is classic.
See? What kind of shell-game, double-talk theology is this? This is
typical of the kind of BS you have to invent to avoid the plain truth
of the book of Revelation. Go ahead, tell me I'm too stupid to deal
with your IQ. This is BS.
YES. You admit it while you are denying it. It means the saints are
reigning with Christ for 1,000 years, on the same planet where the
nations of the four quarters of the earth compass their camp at the
end of the 1,000 years. That's what the passage says, and that's what
it means. And you have the audacity to accuse us of going to great
trouble to deny the plain truth?
>And NOWHERE does Scripture say that Christ keeps
>switching from where He reigns! NOWHERE!
He doesn't have to switch from where He reigns. When you're the
Master of the Universe, you reign all the time, wherever you may be.
He doesn't cease reigning when He makes a transition from one place to
another. In this instance, He reigns from literal planet earth for
1,000 years. This doesn't necessitate that He stops reigning anywhere
else.
>>Then when we show where it says the nations of the four quarters of
>>the earth will compass the camp of the saints at the end of the 1,000
>>year reign, now the argument is that it must be a symbolic 1,000
>>years.
>"Now"? No, I have always said that it is a symbolic
>number. Thank you for ONCE AGAIN showing in
>the same message, that no, you did not read what
>I wrote and yet, told me it was wrong. (:
You seem to most boldly accuse people of what you are guilty of doing.
I can go back and dig up quotes of where I read and responded to the
very points you keep accusing me of ignoring.
>The term thousand is always used symbolically
>in SCripture! That's a statement that you keep
>ignoring, because it is not convenient for you!
>People and things:
>
>Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10; Ecc 7:28
>
>Time and generations:
>
>Deut 7:9; 1 Chron 16:15; Psalm 90:4
>
>There are more examples.
Ok...doing a quick search of every occurrence of "a thousand" [first I
tried "thousand", but there were 395 of them, and a lot of them were
to show numbers like six hundred thousand and such] in the entire
Bible...ah...there are 87 of them! Let's see what it says [and
remember, you have to read through each one of them, and respond, or
I'll accuse you of being ignorant of what I wrote]...
ok...first reference to "a thousand" is here:
Ge 20:16 And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a
thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the
eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was
reproved.
Oh, yep...you're right. Clearly that is a symbolic thousand pieces of
silver. Next...
Ex 38:25 And the silver of them that were numbered of the
congregation was an hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and
threescore and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary:
There's that pesky, metaphorical thousand raising it's head
again...now we'll never know how many shekels of silver there were!
Nu 3:50 Of the firstborn of the children of Israel took he the money;
a thousand three hundred and threescore and five shekels, after the
shekel of the sanctuary:
Nu 26:51 These were the numbered of the children of Israel, six
hundred thousand and a thousand seven hundred and thirty.
Nu 31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of
Israel, shall ye send to the war.
Of course, they only numbered a metaphorical 1,000 men to send them to
war. Actually, it just means they were opposed to Satan.
Nu 31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a
thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
Yep...another symbolic 1,000.
Nu 31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe,
them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the
holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
And again...clearly not a literal 1,000...
Nu 35:4 And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the
Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand
cubits round about.
De 1:11 (The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so
many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!)
Ok, now here's one that could possibly be symbolic...although, then
again, maybe he really did want that person to have 1,000 times more
people in his family...
De 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful
God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep
his commandments to a thousand generations;
Alright...that one's probably symbolic...
De 32:30 How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to
flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them
up?
Jos 23:10 One man of you shall chase a thousand: for the LORD your
God, he it is that fighteth for you, as he hath promised you.
Could be symbolic, but could also be literal, because Sampson slew
1,000 men with the Jawbone of an ass...
Jud 8:26 And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was
a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold; beside ornaments, and
collars, and purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian, and
beside the chains that were about their camels’ necks.
Clearly symbolic weights of measurement...
Jud 9:49 And all the people likewise cut down every man his bough,
and followed Abimelech, and put them to the hold, and set the hold on
fire upon them; so that all the men of the tower of Shechem died also,
about a thousand men and women.
Of course, this is symbolic...it just means about a large number of
people died.
Jud 15:15 And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his
hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.
Jud 15:16 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon
heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men.
Yep, there it is...guess that promise God made that one man would
chase a thousand turns out to be literal after all...
Jud 20:10 And we will take ten men of an hundred throughout all the
tribes of Israel, and an hundred of a thousand, and a thousand out of
ten thousand, to fetch victual for the people, that they may do, when
they
More symbolism...
NOT!
Ok, I've read enough to see that the term "a thousand" is NOT "always"
symbolic, in the Bible, as you claim.
>>Then, we will be the ones accused of changing our doctrine on the fly,
>>of picking and choosing what to interpret literally, etc. I think the
>>bottom line is, you will only allow Revelation to be literal where it
>>could refer to the first century church, and everything else must be
>>just an allegory that refers to the first century church.
>
>And here, ONCE AGAIN, YOU FALSELY ACCUSE ME
>of saying it is an "allegory", WHICH I DID NOT SAY!!!
>Are you ever going to stop lying about what I have said
>to you?
>You keep INVENTING something that you WISH
>I responded with, because you can't argue against
>what I actually said!
>
>And don't tell me that you're not lying, because I have
>corrected you ABOUT THESE VERY THINGS already,
>on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS!!!
And once again, you overlook the statement "I think". "I think the
bottom line is", is different that "the established fact is". I do
indeed think this is the case, so it is not a false accusation.
...
[here is where you are going to spend another 10 minutes trying to
convince me that Christ's reign is eternal, after I've acknowledge it
at least two or three times, in response to what you wrote. But go
ahead, don't let me stop you...rant on, and then accuse me of not
reading it again, even though I can document that I read and responded
to it already]
And the phrase "the first century fulfillment of all prophecy" doesn't
occur in the Bible either, so it must be a false doctrine! I'm not
going to waste any more time with this B.S. It says the saints will
reign 1,000 years with Christ, and that the nations of the four
quarters of the earth will compass the camp of the saints at the end
of the 1,000 years. Therefore, Christ will reign with the saints for
1,000 years, on planet earth. That's what it says, that's what it
means.
>Now, to address the issues, since there are a few
>points to make regarding Revelation 20...
Ok. Now we are getting into some stuff that I want to spend more time
on, so I'll pick up at this point tomorrow, Lord willing. Expect
another reply that will finish answering this, a little later.
Pulpitfire
accuse me of not reading this one.
Pulpitfire
<_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Well, if you consider that there will be seven years of air-strikes,
>>when Christ pours judgments on the inhabitants of the earth (chapters
>>4-18), before He takes it to the ground war of Revelation 19, then
>>this doesn't present a problem to our view.
>
>No, not when your view is whatever you can imagine up.
>And here, you snip what I said and then insert
>YOUR IMAGINATION into it and yet, you try
>to tell me that you're making a Biblical argument.
You are saying Christ does not pour judgment on the inhabitants of the
earth for seven years before the events of chapter 19, and that this
is something I made up?
>>The promises in the OT that God would pour out his blessing on the
>>Gentiles, didn't foresee a 2,000+ year church age, either. So just
>>because Daniel doesn't mention the Roman empire will be temporarily
>>disbanded, and then reconstituted, doesn't eliminate that as a
>>possibility. We both agree Christ's kingdom destroys the Roman
>>empire, and that's what Daniel predicted.
>No, it doesn't matter what Daniel actually said.
>It doesn't matter that he discussed the four
>kingdoms one succeeding the other
The vision shows the kingdoms succeed each other. Rome succeeded
Greece, and if Rome is reconstituted, well, it will still be the Roman
empire Christ destroys when He returns.
Just for reference, look at a similar example
In 2 Samuel 7, God promised David:
16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever
before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
How many years was it from the time Judah was carried away captive,
until Christ fulfilled this promise? God didn't prophecy, in this
passage, that there would be an interruption in the kingdom of David,
did He?
...
>and said
>Christ would reign in the days of those kingdoms,
>plural. No, none of that matters.
Well, not that it matters, but is the Hebrew plural? The phrase "And
in the days" means, according to Strong, "corresponding to", and
doesn't have to mean "during". Also, when it says "shall the God of
heaven set up a kingdom", the tense of the verb is imperfect. The
imperfect tense expresses an action or process which is not yet
complete. So the meaning could be understood as "Corresponding to
those days", God will begin setting up a kingdom".
Or then, again, if the Roman empire is revived, it will still
correspond to the days of the Roman empire, so I just don't see that
the language or grammar, locks us into the idea that there cannot be a
gap in the kingdom.
[by the way, are you suggesting Christ is changing His thrones, since
you are saying He would reign in those days? I thought you said He
always reigns, and has an eternal reign (which I agree with, by the
way).]
>It also doesn't matter that the late dating of
>Revelation is built on a third party quote
>which is a mistranslation and all other evidence
>shows a date prior to 70 AD. Evidence which
>the end timers, as you proved by snipping it,
>don't dare to look at and when they see it,
>they run away from it and try to make it
>go away, as you just did.
Why was John exiled on Patmos then?
>It also doesn't matter that I gave clear, historical
>proof that the prophecies line up perfectly with
>what happened, right down to the reign of the
>Caesars, how many there were and even the short
>reign of the one right after Nero and it doesn't
>matter that Nero died exactly as Revelation says
>would happen and that the king after him, was
>the one with the short reign, as Scripture also
>prescribes.
I can tell you with complete certainty, that if I skip over something
you wrote, it wasn't because I was afraid of it. In fact, when I find
something you write that does actually make me question my view,
that's usually the one that I spend the most time studying, and then
addressing head on. If you think I skip it, it's most likely because:
1) I actually did respond to it, and you didn't read it
2) I ran out of time to respond
3) I felt it more important to respond to another point with the time
available
>All that matters, is what you can imagine up
>about air strikes and ground wars, using
>equipment that no one mentioned.
Does Revelation 4-18 not say that Christ will pour judgment from
heaven upon the inhabitants of the earth? Is this not like air
strikes before a ground invasion?