Book of Revelation conflicts...amillenial,pre...

[justvisiting]

I trust you realize that you need to actually make a case that this tribulation lies in our future and is not constituted by the tumult of the events of the first century. Otherwise, you are begging the very question at issue. Why would Jesus tell people that "this generation" - clearly implying their generation unless he has otherwise made it clear that He is talking about another generation - would not pass away till all these things occur. If your assertion is correct, He would have likely said "that generation"

I take it, that if you think the tribulation has already passed. You have someone in mind that you think was the beast (anti-Christ). Nero? I guess the false prophet must have raised him from the dead again? Another thing. The time of the tribulation is so bad that almost NO flesh is saved. Doesn't look to me like the population suffered much of a loss at all. Also, the beast doesn't destroy the temple. He goes into it and sets himself up as God. If you are talking about a tribulation for the Jews...Hitler probably killed more than Nero.
What about Armageddon? The anti-Christ has to have a fight with the Lord? I guess that will just have to fit into another appropriate heresy box.
As for the millenium (and Mike Blume's ...partial preterist thinking.)
There are other kinds of judgement that happens on the earth...hailstones, fire... and if this is the millenium now...you must live on a different planet than I do, because wars are not diminishing at all.
At least Blume believes in a final rapture or physical resurrection. His views are way off the mark though. Another pet theory guy in my estimation. He is right though. We are spiritual Israel.
I never viewed everything about him on youtube because it was getting nauseating.

When the tribulation happens. If we are alive. You can be sure, without a doubt...it's THE tribulation.

 

[researcher]

The time of the tribulation is so bad that almost NO flesh is saved.

The Matthew 24 tribulation was a local one. Jesus was talking about the province of Judaea (which Jerusalem is in), and the destruction of the temple etc.


Mar 13:14 But when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains:
Mar 13:15 and let him that is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything out his house:
Mar 13:16 and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak.
Mar 13:17 But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days!
Mar 13:18 And pray ye that it be not in the winter.
Mar 13:19 For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be.
Mar 13:20 And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the elect's sake, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

Get out of Judaea Jesus told them. That's because the Roman armies would be there, slaughtering everyone, which was a fulfillment of Mat 23:34 & 35.

And the wrath of God was upon the Jews

Luk 21:23 Woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people.

Local tribulation, local wrath. According to Jesus of course. ;)

 

[justvisiting]

Drew
I wonder if you could give a short summary of what you believe has occurred so far in regards to your beliefs. As in... tribulation...resurrection...millenium...day of the Lord...final judgement (s)... etc.

I will give a very short answer (since I do not have a position on several of your questions)

1. I believe that Jesus will indeed return in the future

Agreed

2. I believe that the "tribulation" material in Matthew 24 (and its parallels) is about events of the first century - the tumult surrounding the 70 AD defeat of Jerusalem. I do not have an opinion on whether any kind of tribulation will precede the future return of Jesus;

Totally disagree. The anti-Christ does not destroy the temple. He goes into it and is worshipped as God...and no Nero was not resurrected by the false prophet...and yes, Hitler probably killed more Jews than Nero. Most definitely it precedes the final return. The Day of the Lord is both the destruction of the Anti-Christ, our resurrection and the ungodly resurrection.

3. I am not sure what the term "millenium" even refers to. I have a vague sense that I will likely come to see the "1000 years" as a kind of metaphor;

It's mentioned in Revelations. I have a problem with it too. It's after the anti-Christ is defeated.

4. I believe that the "day of the Lord" denotes events of the first century. I am open to the possibility of a double fulfillment.

There is only ONE Day of the Lord...just like there is only ONE...The Great Tribulation. There is only ONE Beast also.

5. I believe that the only person who has ever been resurrected is Jesus Christ, and that when He returns, all those who belong to him will be resurrected.

I would tend to agree. I do wonder about the thief on the cross. Christ said he would be with him on that very day. However, the rest of scripture seems to say ... all at once.
Acts 2:34  For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35  Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Also, Elijah and Enoch never died . They were taken up alive. .... not resurrected.

 

[justvisiting]

Sorry, have to run. Talk later

 

[parousia70]

2. I believe that the "tribulation" material in Matthew 24 (and its parallels) is about events of the first century - the tumult surrounding the 70 AD defeat of Jerusalem. I do not have an opinion on whether any kind of tribulation will precede the future return of Jesus;

Totally disagree. The anti-Christ does not destroy the temple. He goes into it and is worshipped as God...and no Nero was not resurrected by the false prophet...and yes, Hitler probably killed more Jews than Nero.

Hya JV.

Without question, Jesus promised his apostles that they would live to see Israel's great tribulation ("great distress in the land and wrath upon this people") and all those things come to pass in their generation (Matt 24:33-34; Luke 21:31-32).

And St John heralded it's then contemporary arrival:
Revelation 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,â€Â[f] and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia:[g] to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.â€Â

So rich this passage!
We find here that
1 - John is a current brother, partner and companion with his first century (and primary) audience in THE Tribulation of Jesus Christ!
2 - He was in the spirit on The Day of the Lord (The Lord's Day)!
3 -the loud voice commands him to write down everything he saw and send it to seven actual first century churches containing specific apocalyptic warnings FOR THEM!

[quote:2jluhc5i]3. I am not sure what the term "millenium" even refers to. I have a vague sense that I will likely come to see the "1000 years" as a kind of metaphor;

It's mentioned in Revelations. I have a problem with it too. It's after the anti-Christ is defeated.[/quote:2jluhc5i]

Again, no antichrist in Revelation. Never mentioned it even once.
The millennium is absolutely typological. 2 Peter demands it.

There is only ONE Day of the Lord...

Demonstrably false.
a simple keyword search on any reputable bible search site will reveal a myriad of uses of the term.
"The day of the lord", and it's synonyms (day of His wrath, Day of His anger, Day of the Lords vengeance, etc... ), are used throughout the OT to describe local judgments against nations that indeed took place in real history.

Scripture alone documents several past day of the lord events in Israels History. It's a common term actually.

just like there is only ONE...The Great Tribulation.

Agreed, and John testified it had come upon him and his contemporaries!

There is only ONE Beast also.

Correct. But the Beast of Revelation and antichrist of 1 & 2 John are not the same thing.
There is no biblical teaching that connects the two. The connection is a man made invention with no scriptural justification whatsoever.

JV, you also mentioned something I found interesting about the first century Christians all believing Christ was coming back in their lifetimes... how on earth could ALL Christians of the 1st century be wrong about something sooo important as to the timing of Christ's return?

 

[justvisiting]

For someone that is non-literal... you certainly are hung on every jot and tittle. You know I think the non-literalists are more literal than the literalists. If you pay more attention to the general jist of what is being stated you will be more accurate. There will also be something stated from the rest of scripture, if Christ or the Apostles considered it important.
The Lord's day is not the same as the DAY OF THE LORD. I thought that you would understand the general views of some of Christendom. ie. THE anti-Christ...commonly known as the BEAST, SON OF PERDITION, MAN OF SIN, ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. There are many anti-Christ's. This is the one almost all of Christendom calls THE anti-christ.
No, your arguments are not in the least convincing to me. You pick a word here and there and make like you are speaking of total context.
The rules for Bible interpretation are:
Stick to scripture
Read the context
Rightly divide the word of truth. Forget about Greek and Hebrew...you're not a scholar in it... and neither am I. More twists occur from Christians delving into Greek and Hebrew than normal misinterpretation. The reason why the King James is reliable is 47 Hebrew and Greek scholars spent 7 years to come up with a proper and accurate translation. Some Christians flippantly make like they understand the original manuscripts by looking in a Greek lexicon.
You obviously, will be hard to convince. You have predetermined opinions. I stick to scripture and take context and what the rest of the scriptures say on the subject.
Just look up DAY OF THE LORD in a concordance. It is a day of gloom, judgement upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Isaiah 13:9  Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10  For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.


In 2 Thessalonians it is referred to as the DAY OF CHRIST
2 Thessalonians 2:1  ¶Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3  ¶Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
If you paid attention to what the general jist of an epistle or gospel was saying, you would be more accurate.

 

[justvisiting]

As for early Christians believing Christ would or could come back in their lifetimes. It is the same today. We are admonished to look for that glorious hope and the appearing of the great God and our Savior.
It's just part of what goes with faith...HOPE.
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Romans 4:16  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17  ¶(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18  Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

 

[Drew]

There are other kinds of judgement that happens on the earth...hailstones, fire... and if this is the millenium now...you must live on a different planet than I do,....

And if you think that such language is to be taken literally, then you are reading a different bible than I am.

We have been through this before. Both researcher and I have provided clear Biblical evidence of the use of the such apocalyptic "end of the world" language to describe more "commonplace" events. One is not being true to Biblical tradition if you reason as follows "The hailstones and the fire from the sky hasn't happened, so the fulfillment of the prophecy must lie in the future."

I will get to your other points.

Please explain the "this generation" reference - why Jesus would point at the temple then standing, then look people in the eye and tell them that this generation" will see its destruction, and mean that some other temple will be destroyed in some other generation.

 

[Drew]

Just look up DAY OF THE LORD in a concordance. It is a day of gloom, judgement upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
Joel 2:30  And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Isaiah 13:9  Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10  For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Do you think that this "end of the world" language means a "day of the lord" has not yet occurred? Surely you know that solid evidence has been provided that such language is likely not to be taken literally.

It is has been repeatedly shown that precisely such apocalyptic language has been used in the Old Testament by prophets to invest changes in the socio-political order with their theological significance.

You simply cannot ignore this line of argument and doggedly stick to the position that, because such apocalyptic events have not occurred, then the prophecies that use such language have not come to pass.

 

[parousia70]

For someone that is non-literal... you certainly are hung on every jot and tittle.

You are no literalist JV.

The Lord's day is not the same as the DAY OF THE LORD.

Sure it is.
Otherwise you'd have to argue that "The Lord's Wrath" is something different than "The Wrath of the Lord" of "The Lords Grace" is something different from "The Grace of the Lord" or that "The Lords Mercy" is something different from "The Mercy of the Lord" or that "The Lords Vengeance" is different from "The Vengeance of the Lord"... the examples go on an on. The terms are SYNONYMOUS with one another.

I thought that you would understand the general views of some of Christendom. ie. THE anti-Christ...commonly known as the BEAST, SON OF PERDITION, MAN OF SIN, ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. There are many anti-Christ's. This is the one almost all of Christendom calls THE anti-christ.

Boy, for someone who claims that the BEST way is to stick to scripture, you sure are hanging you hat pretty heavily on Man made tradition when it comes to antichrist!

Stick to the scripture friend. There is very plain, SPECIFIC teaching on antichrist in 1 & 2 John. NOWEHRE in that plain teaching does The Beast, son of perdition, man of sin, etc, fit. NOWHERE. The scripture that you need to make this connection you rely so heavily on simply doesn't exist.

The rules for Bible interpretation are:
Stick to scripture
Read the context
You obviously, will be hard to convince. You have predetermined opinions. I stick to scripture and take context and what the rest of the scriptures say on the subject.

Exccept when it comes to man made opinions on antichtrist and the scriptural precedent for the interpretation of apocalyptic language!

Again, JV, you are NO literalist! and you rely HEAVILY on man mad tradition.

If you let go of those, you would be more accurate.

 

[justvisiting]

Oh, I'm a literalist. I don't think you really understand what that term means. Day of the Lord and the Lord's day are not the same thing...because they are not even referring to the same thing.The intent is to understand scripture properly. Not be stupid about it. Really what I do, is look for when the symbolism is not self-explanatory. There is no point deriving conclusions on symbolism if there aren't at least references to it somewhere, that clear it up.
You are probably referring to this.
1 John 2:18  ¶Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
2 John 1:7  ¶For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
John is talking about anti (against) Christ. Anyone that denies the Father and the Son.
I honestly don't know how you can miss what 2 Thess. 2 is talking about when it speaks of the man of sin, son of perdition...his credentials are given ...he exalts himself above God.
By the way 1 John 2:18 may very well be a reference to the Anti-Christ (singular). Doesn't matter though.
There is so much scripture on this man of sin...antichrist,Rev. 13 (beast), Daniel (abomination of desolation), as well as Mat.24, mark 13, luk 21 that everything is cleared up regarding him, that if your eyes were opened you would see it. It obviously is an important subject. Don't you think God would let us know about it.
There is a rule in scripture. The more important something is...the more the topic will be repeated.
It's not the most important topic...but it ranks.
Anyway, I am totally satisfied that I understand it perfectly. You on the other hand...are preterist? I will just leave you to your opinion.
P.S. I spent two years in Bible College to learn how to study the Bible. It's not about pick a word here and there. It's about ...what is the topic. Who is the writer. Not...the word THIS showed up. Tenses are important and words are important, but understanding the jist or idea of what it's speaking about is the most important.
I guess your theology just doesn't allow for a physical antichrist in Revelation...so we will leave it at that.

 

[Drew]

Rightly divide the word of truth. Forget about Greek and Hebrew...you're not a scholar in it... and neither am I. More twists occur from Christians delving into Greek and Hebrew than normal misinterpretation. The reason why the King James is reliable is 47 Hebrew and Greek scholars spent 7 years to come up with a proper and accurate translation. Some Christians flippantly make like they understand the original manuscripts by looking in a Greek lexicon.

Christians are wise to look at the original manuscripts because translatations, even the KJV, can be deeply misleading.

Consider this one example: John 18:36. Here is the text in KJV:

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Note the “ofâ€Â, as in “my kingdom is not of this worldâ€Â. Jesus seems to be saying "My kingdom has nothing to do with earthly kingdoms, so there is no 'political' dimension to my kingdom".

As it turns out, there is a huge translation issue here. Here is the rendering of verse 36 as per the NET Bible:

Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being 1 handed over 2 to the Jewish authorities. 3 But as it is, 4 my kingdom is not from here

The NET version is, my sources indicate, true to the original Greek. The greek word that is rendered “from†(above in the bolded and underlined cases) has the following definition:

“a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote)â€Â

When the word is used properly, we see that the “not of this world†reading is misleading. The intended meaning is that the Kingdom that has been brought to earth is from Heaven - that is, Heaven is the point of origin for the Kingdom that has been initiated.

This is why we need to understand the original languages and not depend on translations.

 

[justvisiting]

Sorry, and that is why I do not use Hebrew and Greek. I trust the KJV more. I know what you are saying...now Christ has an earthly kingdom...no I do not agree with that at all. More errors come from non-scholars using Hebrew and Greek interpretations than from normal misinterpretations.
KJV was written by 47 Hebrew and Greek scholars...that understood the language. It took them 7 years to come up with a proper and accurate translation. It's true some words are a little out of of date... like "prevent" means "go before"... as in the dead rising before the living. I still trust it more, than some novice quoting something out of a Greek lexicon.
The other thing is I never base any strong belief on one word. Scripture always gives plenty of references when something important has to be established.
Simply put...His is the kingdom of heaven...however... God sets up and deposes who He wills.
Daniel 4:17  This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
The only time Christ will rule on this earth is when it's new... and all the sinners ...are saints.

 

[Drew]

Sorry, and that is why I do not use Hebrew and Greek. I trust the KJV more.

Well, I have just given a very specific and concrete example of how it is misleading to read the KJV. You ignore the intent of the original writer - who chose a word that should be translated as "from" but has been translated as "of" in the KJV. Saying you "trust" the misrepresentation in the KJV is hardly a good argument.

I know what you are saying...now Christ has an earthly kingdom...no I do not agree with that at all.

Well, that is what the Scriptures teach - Jesus is a sitting king. Here is just one of many Biblical arguments for this:

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Note the context: Peter and John are praying this prayer in response to the actions of the religious leaders. Now the content of the prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2. This is not “co-incidenceâ€Â. Here is the material from Psalm 2:

Note that the prayer quotes Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

It is important to think this through. Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares.

The scriptures are clear and consistent. Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established.

 

[Drew]

The only time Christ will rule on this earth is when it's new... and all the sinners ...are saints.

I am always surprised when I read statements like this. Do you not realize that the term "Messiah" means "king". If you believe that Jesus is Messiah, you should believe that He is a king already.

Caiaphus asks Jesus if He is the Messiah. Jesus answers "yes" and then gives a crucial qualifying statement that draws on two Old Testament texts - Daniel 7 and Psalm 110.

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and (COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

Here Jesus alludes to two Old Testament passages from Psalm 110 and, again, Daniel 7. From Psalm 110:

The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

Jesus is suggesting that Caiaphus will see Him enthroned at God’s right hand. So how can Jesus not yet be a ruling king? Is Caiaphus still alive, awaiting for the promised fulfilment? – remember, Jesus told Caiaphus that Caiaphus would see these things

From Daniel 7:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed

Now are you going to tell us that Jesus does not intend Caiaphus to understand that He (Jesus) is not claiming this role of the Son of Man – kingship over all peoples and nations – will shortly be His, and that Caiaphus will see it himself. How then, can you say that Jesus is not yet ruling on this earth?

 

[justvisiting]

I'll say one thing. You really take your liberties with adding your own little Greek or Hebrew "special" in.
Psalms 2:1  ¶Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3  Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4  He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6  Yet have I set (I guess this is where you add "INSTALL") my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7  ¶I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
This does still not even remotely suggest His earthly kingdom is established yet. New heaven and new earth first. Christ has always reigned with the Father. Before the earth ever was. That doesn't mean this earth is pure enough for Him to take total control of it, now.
God has a plan and your preterist nonsense and Mike Blume's is nothing different than the way any group that wants to pursue a belief starts searching for their own little key words and Hebrew and Greek sources to support their Theology. JW's included...which decided the best way was to make their own Bible.
His disciples had the same problem...
Luke 19:11  ¶And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. The implication is that the disciples were wrong.
Let's face it. We are not going to agree. You are stuck on preterism. I am a normal Evangelical believing Christian.
He is in heaven now. We are not in the millenium. I look for the glorious hope of His return...after the sun turns black and the moon turns blood red. I look for the physical resurrection of this body...which shall be changed into a spiritual body similar to the angels. I expect a judgement for rewards for all believers.1 Cor. 3 I also expect a judgement separating the sheep from the goats. I expect a new heaven and a new earth, because the former will pass away...
2 Peter 3:7  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8  ¶But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9  ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11  ¶Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13  Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
I ACCEPT THAT WE SHALL NOT AGREE...AND I HONESTLY CONSIDER THE PRETERIST VIEW HERETICAL. SORRY...THAT'S THE WAY IT IS WITH ME.

 

[Drew]

I'll say one thing. You really take your liberties with adding your own little Greek or Hebrew "special" in.

I am adding nothing - the text is what it is.

You should be careful in your misleading suggestion that I have "altered" anything - I am quoting a well-respected translation - the NASB:

6 Yet have I set (I guess this is where you add "INSTALL") my king upon my holy hill of Zion

I have "added" nothing! It is the NASB translators who use the word "install". Besides, the KJV makes the same point. The disciples are quoting a prayer in which it is stated that the King has been - past tense - "set" or "installed" in Zion.

The text is what it is - I am sorry that it does not match the theology you believe in.

Christ has always reigned with the Father.

It is important to understand the Biblical story of Israel and God's dealing with Her. At the time Daniel was writing, the Jews were in exile and were awaiting the return of YHWH to Zion. From Isaiah:

8Listen! Your watchmen lift up their (P)voices,
They shout joyfully together;
For they will see with their own eyes
When the LORD restores Zion.
9Break forth, shout joyfully together,

This is prophetic material. The people were eagerly awaiting the return of YHWH to Zion - so your statement implying that God and Jesus have always ruled is not really correct - at least not in the sense that prophets understood. The prophetic tradition is filled with expectation - God would return to Zion and be King. He was absent, but He would return. I would wear out the keyboard providing texts that show, in the time Israiah and Daniel wrote, God was not considered as truly ruling His people (even though I obviously agree that God is always “thereâ€Â).

The prophetic material from Daniel represents God as being enthroned as the results of the action of the son of man – Jesus – who then takes His place beside God. You are basically saying that Daniel is mistaken in prophecying this, since you assert that “God and Jesus have always reignedâ€Â. If you are right, then why is Daniel painting a picture of a future enthronement of YHWH and the son of man? Here is the text:

I kept looking
Until (M)thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;…..
I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a (W)Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14"And to Him was given (X)dominion,
Glory and (Y)a kingdom,
(Z)That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
(AA)His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
(AB)And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

Daniel represent YHWH as taking his seat – implying an act of enthronement. So it is simply not scriptural to argue that “God has been reigning forever with Christ†– that is not the story the prophets tell. They tell a story of a God who will return to Zion.

 

[Drew]

God has a plan and your preterist nonsense and Mike Blume's is nothing different than the way any group that wants to pursue a belief starts searching for their own little key words and Hebrew and Greek sources to support their Theology. JW's included...which decided the best way was to make their own Bible.

The scriptural arguments are clearly against you on the specific matters we are discussing.

Let's face it. We are not going to agree. You are stuck on preterism. I am a normal Evangelical believing Christian.

What an outrageous blatant use of rhetoric - sugesting that I am not "normal Christian". Why? Because I take Daniel and Isaiah seriously and know my Old Testament?

He is in heaven now.

I agree entirely.

I look for the glorious hope of His return...

Me too.

after the sun turns black and the moon turns blood red.

We have been over this again and again - you simply ignore the detailed and comprehensive arguments about how we to are to understand such language. Do you think readers will not notice that you have not engaged my (and researcher's) arguments about this?

 

[parousia70]

Oh, I'm a literalist. I don't think you really understand what that term means. Day of the Lord and the Lord's day are not the same thing...because they are not even referring to the same thing.

Says who? you?
beacuse of two years at Bible school?

Are "the Lords Wrath" and "the Wrath of the Lord" not the same thing then?
They'd have to be different for your view to be consistent. (although I would not, at this point,think of accusing you of being consistent)

The intent is to understand scripture properly. Not be stupid about it.

agreed

Really what I do, is look for when the symbolism is not self-explanatory. There is no point deriving conclusions on symbolism if there aren't at least references to it somewhere, that clear it up.

So why is it then that you ignore the scriptural precedent for the usage of language such as "Sun darkening, moon turning to blood", etc.....

In the OT these terms are frequently used to describe judgments against individual nations by the means of human armies... why is it then, with these abundant references do you choose to apply polar opposite interpretations when you see this language used in the NT??

You are probably referring to this.
1 John 2:18  ¶Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

OK mister literalist, what did John Mean by "the Last time" here? as you said, if it's important, it's repeated, and John repeats "the last time" twice in this one verse alone!...what did he want his ORIGINAL audience to understand when he said "IT IS THE LAST TIME?"
What did it mean to those who FIRST received his letter?
How were THEY supposed to understand what John meant here?

John is talking about anti (against) Christ. Anyone that denies the Father and the Son.
I honestly don't know how you can miss what 2 Thess. 2 is talking about when it speaks of the man of sin, son of perdition...his credentials are given ...he exalts himself above God.

antichrist was a first century spirit that affected MANY, not a 21st century world ruler/despot
your man made traditions don't trump scripture

There is a rule in scripture. The more important something is...the more the topic will be repeated.

Little children, it is the last time....
The teaching of the "soon, imminent, about to be, will not tarry, near, at hand" coming of Christ is repeated a hundredfold in the NT, yet you brush it off.......indeed you "spiritualize" it away to suit your previously held bias that it can't be so.... If I were you I'd ask for my money back from that Bible school of yours!

I guess your theology just doesn't allow for a physical antichrist in Revelation...so we will leave it at that.

no, it's SCRIPTURE ALONE that is devoid of ANY teaching on ANTICHRIST in the Book of Revelation.
Your clinging to man made tradition is the only thing that demands an antichrist in revelation... you have no scripture to support it.

 

[parousia70]

Christ has always reigned with the Father. Before the earth ever was. That doesn't mean this earth is pure enough for Him to take total control of it, now.

Interesting.
perhaps you could elaborate on some aspect of the earth that Jesus Christ does not have current dominion over?
What (or who) on earth currently has authority ABOVE Jesus Christ in your view?

You are stuck on preterism. I am a normal Evangelical believing Christian.

That's about the funniest thing I have ever read on any Christian Forum!
Are you for real?
Normal?
LOL...c'mon..really?

I expect a new heaven and a new earth, because the former will pass away...
2 Peter 3:7  But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8  ¶But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9  ¶The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11  ¶Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13  Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Perhaps you can explain why there is no millennium in Peters' view here?
It's the thief's coming and POW! New heavens and earth arrive immediately! no millennium here JV....!?

AND I HONESTLY CONSIDER THE PRETERIST VIEW HERETICAL. SORRY...THAT'S THE WAY IT IS WITH ME.

JV, ALL Christians are preterist (even you).
We only vary by degree.