What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, or Two Tribs?

Sam21 said:
Something else,just like preterism,we try to have it both ways when both ways are not possible. The truth is that God told Adam that on the day he ate from the tree he would SURELY die,the truth is also that after eating the fruit Adam lived for over 900 years before he actually died. Both of those statements are facts from the bible, to deny either is to deny the bible. If we believe both of them then we see Adam beginning to die on the day he ate from the tree but not coming to complete death until years later.
Click to expand...
How long was Christ in the grave?
 
reba said:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God is very direct in this verse... the point of argument/discussion IMO is not the day of death but which death. God said in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:


This is the death God was speaking of

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



God or the serpent? which was correct?
Click to expand...
God was correct, death by Gods definition was seperation from him, not an end to our physical existance. Thus with christ we can have life, and have it more abundantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stormcrow said:
{54} "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:54 (NASB)

Can people literally eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ today?

If we can't, how do we have eternal life?

See the problem with taking these things literally?

Why mention that people had to eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood while He was on earth with them? Was He advocating cannibalism?

Doesn't the tree of knowledge of good and evil represent the very first and most basic of God's Laws: "Obey me or die."?

And what did that law teach? "Believe what I say and live." "Have faith in my words and live." "Believe that what I'm saying is best for you."

Aren't these lessons that are taught consistently throughout the Bible?

Finally, what did Paul say of the Law?

{13} For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. {14} For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; {15} for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. Romans 4:13-15 (NASB)

So what does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represent?

God's first commandment: the most basic law given to Adam and Eve to teach them about trusting in God's word. Without that law, there would have been no violation: no sin. Breaking it did what? It produced God's wrath.

God wanted Adam and Eve to live by faith as He wants all of us to live by faith: trusting in His Word. And His Word is Jesus. Therefore, the lesson of the fall is as important to us today as it was when Moses first wrote it.

In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...


yes but the tree of forbidden fruit was real or was it not? think about eat this one an die, but not this one?


i have never heard jesus as a tree or leaves for the healing of nations. i think you are confusing spiritual with natural needs which seems to be your whole problem.

you see that is why i said if we take the kingdom as the way the preterists do(he doesnt need to return! its all spiritual) theres no physical manifestation or physical bodies. what adam and eve didnt eat? whose to say that God wanted them to do something to keep themselves going physically(ie eat soemthing) why not have a tree of pure fruit or something to keep them healthy.

it makes sense given what commands were given to the animals and man. why not go back to that.

let me ask you this. what will me do for eternity in new age. sit there and praise God forever. or actually do what God originally wanted be fruitful and multiply?


and catholics believe that literal they consume christ during the eucharist, that is odd for you to say that.

jesus isnt a tree. spiritual life is different from physical life. so i can read my bible pray and not die:lol that is where you are confused.
 
i take that you didnt believe that adam lived 969 yrs, or even in the creation account. after all animals(predators) dont eat plants.

i could do that with the cross, i have seen that. methodists are doing that.
 
Genesis - Chapter 3 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org

adam clarke from a preterist site seems to think otherwise that both the tree of life and tree of knowledge were real but we dont have full idea(to wit i agree).

and also the serpent is a bad translation but rather a crocodile.

read the commentary. snakes can swim. but i dont fully buy his views on that.clarke says that on the hebrew word is closer to a gator or croc.

its possible and a lengthy read.and i merely glanced
 
{5} "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. John 15:5 (NASB)
Click to expand...
Jesus said here He is a vine. Was He literally a vine?
 
Stormcrow said:
Jesus said here He is a vine. Was He literally a vine?
Click to expand...
i know that but, again read the commentary that i posted from adam clarke a preterist!

so adam and eve didnt eat?

we dont need healing.
so i guess because you dont take the creation account literally then we shouldnt take the bible literally at in any forms. the cross didnt happen as well what man dies and comes back to life?

i know where the figures of speech are but, why mention the idea of animals eating plants in the genesis account and that coming back?

or the tree there(which isnt JESUS ) so adam or man didnt have acess to christ of God after the fall?

seth did, able did, cain talked to him(though he didnt listen)

we do!!

so i guess to you we dont need to ever have christ come this hell at present of death, sickness and sorrows will continue for ever.

a vine isnt a tree. spiritually the kingdom is here but the kingdom in on the earth physically.

its like this. if i as american go to japan and represent american as ambassador and tell the japan prefecture this is what america will do for you. am i in america while i'm doing that???

NOPE. just like NOW we are subjects to the king and a member of his kingdom but not located in the kingdom. we are at present on the earth which is still reigned(albietly, restrained by satan).
 
from a preterist

adam clarke. studylight org.

his commentary on genesis 3

suppose that his removal from the tree of life was in mercy, to prevent a second temptation. He before imagined that he could gain an increase of wisdom by eating of the tree of knowledge, and Satan would be disposed to tempt him to endeavour to elude the sentence of death, by eating of the tree of life. Others imagine that the words are spoken ironically, and that the Most High intended by a cutting taunt, to upbraid the poor culprit for his offence, because he broke the Divine command in the expectation of being like God to know good from evil; and now that he had lost all the good that God had designed for him, and got nothing but evil in its place, therefore God taunts him for the total miscarriage of his project. But God is ever consistent with himself; and surely his infinite pity prohibited the use of either sarcasm or irony, in speaking of so dreadful a catastrophe, that was in the end to occasion the agony and bloody sweat, the cross and passion, the death and burial, of Him in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Colossians 2:9.
 
yes but the tree of forbidden fruit was real or was it not?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see what the Bible says:

{9} Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:9 (NASB)

The trees of life and knowledge of good and evil appear to be as real as the other trees, however, while the other trees were said to be good for food, these had a different quality about them: they were not just "good for food" or "pleasing to the sight" but possessed qualities that differentiated them from the other trees.


Now, this is the critical point:


{22} Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— Genesis 3:22 (NASB)

So if Jesus is "the life", does the "tree of life" represent a different way to gain eternal life, or is it a metaphor for Christ, the "true vine?"

Might be better to start another thread on this since this is way off topic now.
 
An allusion to Genesis 2:9. As this tree of life is stated to be in the streets of the city, and on each side of the river, tree must here be an enallage of the singular for the plural number, trees of life, or trees which yielded fruit by which life was preserved. The account in Ezekiel is this: "And by the river, upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade-it shall bring forth new fruit, according to his months-and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine;" Ezekiel 47:12.

and his comments on revalation 22
 
Stormcrow said:
Please cite the post where I even insinuated such a thing.
Click to expand...

the tree of life statement. it can be literal in one and not in the other.

that doesnt make sense. you have stated with consistency on that the jews used literal devices, if they took the genesis account being a literal with figurative meanings, why not in the end times?
 
jasoncran said:
the tree of life statement. it can be literal in one and not in the other.

that doesnt make sense. you have stated with consistency on that the jews used literal devices, if they took the genesis account being a literal with figurative meanings, why not in the end times?
Click to expand...

It would be best to deal with one issue at a time instead of assuming what I believe and attributing meaning to words I've never written.

And, with that, I'm done discussing this on this thread. Let's start a new one on this topic if you feel so inclined to discuss this further.

And, by the way, I am not a preterist, so appeals to preterist authority (Adam Clarke) mean nothing to me.

Thanks.
 
Stormcrow said:
It would be best to deal with one issue at a time instead of assuming what I believe and attributing meaning to words I've never written.

And, with that, I'm done discussing this on this thread. Let's start a new one on this topic if you feel so inclined to discuss this further.

And, by the way, I am not a preterist, so appeals to preterist authority (Adam Clarke) mean nothing to me.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Soooo... you dont believe that Jesus has returned and that we now live in a post-millineal kingdom?
 
Hitch said:
This is the first time I've hear the term 'post-millennial kingdom'.
Click to expand...
surely you jest,
Premillinial meaning the return of christ is prior to the millinial kingdom (primarily held by futerist faiths dispy and nondispy),
amillinial meaning there in no millinial kingdom at all (those who tend to spiritualize all scripture, Preterists, etc),
postmillinial meaning the return of christ is after his milinial kingdom (typical of cathlics, those who lean toward man made works, hystoricists, etc).
 
Stormcrow said:
I believe what the Word says. Truth needs no label.
Click to expand...
Your right but the truth still has a name, it is Jesus the christ. Sometimes we humans, assign labels incorrectly and that causes problems. So it helps if we choose our own labels, cuts down on the confusion and a lot of words describing those truths we hold so dear. But then if that label is apt to shut off any discussion i can see why one wouldnt want to reveal those labels right off the bat.
 
warhorse said:
surely you jest,
Premillinial meaning the return of christ is prior to the millinial kingdom (primarily held by futerist faiths dispy and nondispy),
amillinial meaning there in no millinial kingdom at all (those who tend to spiritualize all scripture, Preterists, etc),
postmillinial meaning the return of christ is after his milinial kingdom (typical of cathlics, those who lean toward man made works, hystoricists, etc).
Click to expand...

Enlighten me with a published quote using 'post millennial kingdom'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top