Debate-the Millennium

[Ltanner09]

First I want to say that discussing issues with CoreIssue here is a blessing, to me and hopefully to the community here.

Only good can come from sharing ideas, theories and various biblical positions, The important thing is that we come away from such discussions with a clearer understanding of God's Word, regardless of which position(s) we hold to end time prophecies.

Core and I agree that the written word, the Word of God is inerrant.

Our differences center on the interpretation of His word.

As opposed to Core, my views have changed drastically over the course of the past 7 years mainly due to watching debates, visiting other boards and taking selected information and comparing those views to scripture.

Not saying Core hasn't done the same, actually he'd likely say that studying other views have cemented his belief in the pre mill doctrine.

This debate will, unavoidably, touch on dozens of issues and I ask Core to work with me to try resolving one issue at a time. Of course that's not always feasible as addressing several issues at once is a common (and necessary) hazard when debating, especially a Millennial topic.

To those unaware of the common Millennial views out there, my next post will simply be a list of them. I think Core and I will agree to bypass Historic Pre Mill and Post Mill.views at this time.

Core will be defending his Dispensational pre mill view, I will be on the amill side of the debate. ( I haven't written off the post mill view but am still in the studying stages on it).

Off we go:

[Ltanner09]

A. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensationalists usually divide God's dealings with humanity into seven distinct "dispensations": Innocence (Gen. 1:28-3:6), Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 4:1-8:14), Human Government (Gen. 8:15-11:32), Promise (Gen. 12:1-Ex. 18:27), The Law (Ex. 19:3-Acts 1:26), The Church (Acts 2:1-Revelation 19), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20). A dispensation is defined as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."[4] In each of these periods, a distinct revelation of God's will is dominant and tests mankind's obedience to God.

What, then, are the key elements in dispensationalist eschatology? The Old Testament, it is said, promises to the Jewish people an earthly kingdom ruled by the Messiah. When Christ came, He offered this kingdom to the Jews. The Jews at that time, however, rejected Him and the kingdom. This kingdom, then, was postponed until some point in the future. In the meantime, Christ introduced the "mystery form" of the kingdom (Matthew 13) and established the church. This "parenthesis" of God's program will end at the "rapture" when all believers, exclusive of Old Testament saints, will go to heaven to celebrate with Christ "the marriage feast of the Lamb" for seven years. Then God's promised purpose for Israel resumes. During this seven-year period, a number of events will occur on earth (Revelation 6-19):

1. The "tribulation" begins, the latter half of which is called the "great tribulation."

2. The Antichrist begins his cruel reign and in the midst of the seven years he proscribes Jewish worship at the temple.

3. Terrible judgments fall on the earth.

4. A remnant of Israel (the 144,000 of Revelation 7) believes in Jesus as the Messiah and preaches the "Gospel of the Kingdom."

5. Through their witness a multitude of Gentiles is saved (Rev. 7:9).

6. Toward the end, a number of military battles take place leading up to the Battle of Armageddon.

At the end of this seven-year period, dispensationalists teach, Christ (together with the church) returns in glory and destroys His enemies. The vast majority of Israelites will be converted. Satan will be bound for 1000 years. Believers who die during the tribulation and Old Testament saints will be raised and join the church in heaven. Christ will judge the living Gentiles (Matt. 25:31-46). The "goats" will be cast into hell. The "sheep": and the believing Jews still living will enter the millennium in their natural bodies. They will marry, reproduce, and die. (The resurrected believers will live in the heavenly Jerusalem hovering above the earthly Jerusalem.) The millennium will be a golden age, a time of prosperity and peace, with worship centering around the rebuilt temple. Though at the beginning of the millennium only believers will live on earth, some of their children and grandchildren will not believe in Christ. These unbelievers Satan will gather in one last revolt (Rev. 20:7-9). Toward the end, all believers who die during the millennium will be raised. After Satan's "little season," all the unbelieving dead will then be raised and judged (Rev. 20:11-15). The final stage will now be ushered in, during which period there will remain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles.

Three presuppositions are critical for the dispensationalist system. These basic premises may be summarized in the following way:

1. The Distinction between Israel and the Church. According to the dispensationalist view, throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to earthly goals and an earthly people, that is, the Jewish people; and the other related to heavenly goals and a heavenly people, that is, the Christian church.[5] The church was not foreseen in the Old Testament and therefore constitutes a "parenthesis" in God's predicted plan for Israel. In the future, the distinction between Jew and Gentile will be reestablished and will continue through- out all eternity.

2. The Literal Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy. The Old Testament, dispensationalist writers argue, contains many promises that God will establish an earthly kingdom involving Israel. These promises are to be fulfilled literally. The central promise to Abraham was that Abraham's physical descendants would be given the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. The Davidic covenant contains the promise that a descendant of David (the Messiah) would rule over Israel forever from David's throne, i.e., from Jerusalem. The new covenant of Jer. 31:31-34, though containing features which also apply to believers in the present "church age," is essentially a covenant for Israel. A great many passages in the Psalms and prophets are interpreted to mean that Israel will be regathered in the land of Canaan under the perfect rule of the Messiah. These promises will be fulfilled literally during Christ's millennial reign. Similarly, much of Daniel and Revelation awaits a literalistic fulfillment in the future millennium.

3. The Manifestation of God's Glory as the Purpose of History While dispensationalists agree that human beings are reconciled to God by grace alone through the work of Christ in history, "the soteriological or saving program of God is not the only purpose but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself."[6] Thus, not salvation but the manifestation of God's glory is the main theme and broad purpose of His activity in human history in each of the dispensations.

B. Historic Premillennialism

In contrast to dispensational premillennialism, those who hold the historic premillennialist view argue that Christ's second advent will be a one-stage event after the tribulation. Either at this time or before, the vast majority of Jews will be converted. Believers who have died will be raised, those alive will be transformed, and all believers will meet Christ in the air and then descend with Him to earth. Christ will then slay the Antichrist, bind Satan, and set up His millennial kingdom on earth. Christ and His redeemed, both Jews and Gentiles as one people of God, will reign visibly over the unbelieving nations still on earth. People in resurrected bodies and natural bodies will live together on the earth. Sin and death will still exist, but external evil will be restrained. The 1000 years of the millennial kingdom will be a time of social, political, and economic justice and great prosperity. After these 1000 years, Satan will be loosed in order to deceive the unbelieving nations into making a final assault against the redeemed. Satan will be destroyed, and the resurrection of the dead unbelievers will occur. Then will come the judgment of all, both believers and unbelievers, and eternity.

C. Postmillennialism

In contrast to the above, the less common postmillennial view places Christ's second advent after (post) the millennium. Only then will the rapture, the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the eternal states occur. The millennium is not understood to involve a visible reign of Christ in the form of an earthly monarchy, nor is the millennial period to be taken literally as necessarily 1000 years long. In these respects postmillennialism corresponds closely to the amillennialist position (see below). But the postmillennial view does posit a recognizable millennial period, a golden age of prosperity and peace among all at the end of which Christ will return. The millennium will arrive gradually under the increasing influence of Christianity, leading to the pervasive reduction of evil and to greatly improved conditions in the social, economic, political and cultural spheres. In fact, the entire world will eventually be Christianized to the point that the Christian belief and value system will become the accepted norm for all nations. Matthew 28:18-20 will become a reality.

D. Amillennialism An eschatology which does not teach a literal thousand-year earthly reign of Christ may be called "amillennialist" (sometimes called "realized millennialism" because the period spoken of in Revelation 20 is now in the process of realization). Although the detailed exegesis of the pertinent texts may vary somewhat among amillennialist Christians, those who adhere to this position agree that the "thousand-year" reference in Revelation 20 is a figurative expression for the present reign of Christ which began upon His ascension into heaven and will be fully manifested at His second coming. Christ's second coming will be one event at which time He will, in the words of Martin Luther, "raise up me and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life"

The above is simply an overview of the Millennial positions, not an all encompassing, detailed view.

[CoreIssue]

A. Dispensational Premillennialism

Dispensationalists usually divide God's dealings with humanity into seven distinct "dispensations": Innocence (Gen. 1:28-3:6), Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 4:1-8:14), Human Government (Gen. 8:15-11:32), Promise (Gen. 12:1-Ex. 18:27), The Law (Ex. 19:3-Acts 1:26), The Church (Acts 2:1-Revelation 19), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20). A dispensation is defined as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God."[4] In each of these periods, a distinct revelation of God's will is dominant and tests mankind's obedience to God.
With allowance for variations, I agree.
What, then, are the key elements in dispensationalist eschatology? The Old Testament, it is said, promises to the Jewish people an earthly kingdom ruled by the Messiah.
And tasked Israel to become the beacon and teacher of the world. The idea that only Jews could be saved, as some think, is not accurate.
When Christ came, He offered this kingdom to the Jews.
Not quite. There are two sets of prophecies in the OT, which a number of Jews understood at the time of Christ. That being he would come first as Messiah and then as King.

Christ came as Savior, not ruling King, at his birth.
The Jews at that time, however, rejected Him and the kingdom. This kingdom, then, was postponed until some point in the future. In the meantime, Christ introduced the "mystery form" of the kingdom (Matthew 13) and established the church.
No. He spoke of the mystery of the Church that already long existed. The kingdom did become the Church. The Church is only one aspect of the Kingdom.
This "parenthesis" of God's program will end at the "rapture" when all believers, exclusive of Old Testament saints, will go to heaven to celebrate with Christ "the marriage feast of the Lamb" for seven years. Then God's promised purpose for Israel resumes. During this seven-year period, a number of events will occur on earth (Revelation 6-19):

1. The "tribulation" begins, the latter half of which is called the "great tribulation."

2. The Antichrist begins his cruel reign and in the midst of the seven years he proscribes Jewish worship at the temple.

3. Terrible judgments fall on the earth.

4. A remnant of Israel (the 144,000 of Revelation 7) believes in Jesus as the Messiah and preaches the "Gospel of the Kingdom."

5. Through their witness a multitude of Gentiles is saved (Rev. 7:9).
I reject the 144,000 evangelist belief. It is not Biblical. They are sealed away in a safe place, probably Petra, for 3.5 years.

The Gospel comes from those realizing the Rapture had occurred, the Two Witnesses and other sources.
6. Toward the end, a number of military battles take place leading up to the Battle of Armageddon.
Actually, the wars you are speaking of here are basically during the whole Trib, with the key ones Mid to the Second Coming.
At the end of this seven-year period, dispensationalists teach, Christ (together with the church) returns in glory and destroys His enemies. The vast majority of Israelites will be converted. Satan will be bound for 1000 years. Believers who die during the tribulation and Old Testament saints will be raised and join the church in heaven.
I believe the OT saints are in the Rapture Resurrection.
Christ will judge the living Gentiles (Matt. 25:31-46). The "goats" will be cast into hell. The "sheep": and the believing Jews still living will enter the millennium in their natural bodies. They will marry, reproduce, and die. (The resurrected believers will live in the heavenly Jerusalem hovering above the earthly Jerusalem.)
No way. That is not Pre-Mil teaching. The NJ remains in Heaven until the New Earth.
The millennium will be a golden age, a time of prosperity and peace, with worship centering around the rebuilt temple. Though at the beginning of the millennium only believers will live on earth, some of their children and grandchildren will not believe in Christ. These unbelievers Satan will gather in one last revolt (Rev. 20:7-9). Toward the end, all believers who die during the millennium will be raised. After Satan's "little season," all the unbelieving dead will then be raised and judged (Rev. 20:11-15). The final stage will now be ushered in, during which period there will remain a distinction between Jews and Gentiles.
Actually the saints will remain on the earth until the destruction of earth when Satan and his army attack Jerusalem. Peter says there will be another Rapture event, which concludes the First Resurrection.

After that will be the White Throne Judgment of the unsaved. The Second Resurrection.
Three presuppositions are critical for the dispensationalist system. These basic premises may be summarized in the following way:

1. The Distinction between Israel and the Church. According to the dispensationalist view, throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to earthly goals and an earthly people, that is, the Jewish people; and the other related to heavenly goals and a heavenly people, that is, the Christian church.[5] The church was not foreseen in the Old Testament and therefore constitutes a "parenthesis" in God's predicted plan for Israel. In the future, the distinction between Jew and Gentile will be reestablished and will continue through- out all eternity.
Where did you get this nonsense, Len? Both Israel and Church are about earthly and spiritual realities.

The Body of Christ is composed of Israel and Church. BOTH covenants are eternal entities due to differing covenants, but BOTH are in Christ.
2. The Literal Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy. The Old Testament, dispensationalist writers argue, contains many promises that God will establish an earthly kingdom involving Israel. These promises are to be fulfilled literally. The central promise to Abraham was that Abraham's physical descendants would be given the land of Canaan as an everlasting possession. The Davidic covenant contains the promise that a descendant of David (the Messiah) would rule over Israel forever from David's throne, i.e., from Jerusalem. The new covenant of Jer. 31:31-34, though containing features which also apply to believers in the present "church age," is essentially a covenant for Israel. A great many passages in the Psalms and prophets are interpreted to mean that Israel will be regathered in the land of Canaan under the perfect rule of the Messiah. These promises will be fulfilled literally during Christ's millennial reign. Similarly, much of Daniel and Revelation awaits a literalistic fulfillment in the future millennium.

The gathering of Israel to Christ at Jerusalem from the nations is literally stated on more than one place.
3. The Manifestation of God's Glory as the Purpose of History While dispensationalists agree that human beings are reconciled to God by grace alone through the work of Christ in history, "the soteriological or saving program of God is not the only purpose but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself."[6] Thus, not salvation but the manifestation of God's glory is the main theme and broad purpose of His activity in human history in each of the dispensations.

Yes, it is how God deals with Man to convey salvation. It is not salvation itself.
B. Historic Premillennialism

In contrast to dispensational premillennialism, those who hold the historic premillennialist view argue that Christ's second advent will be a one-stage event after the tribulation.
False in that Pre-Trib is also as old as Post-Trib, which you are talking about here.
Either at this time or before, the vast majority of Jews will be converted. Believers who have died will be raised, those alive will be transformed, and all believers will meet Christ in the air and then descend with Him to earth. Christ will then slay the Antichrist, bind Satan, and set up His millennial kingdom on earth. Christ and His redeemed, both Jews and Gentiles as one people of God, will reign visibly over the unbelieving nations still on earth. People in resurrected bodies and natural bodies will live together on the earth. Sin and death will still exist, but external evil will be restrained. The 1000 years of the millennial kingdom will be a time of social, political, and economic justice and great prosperity. After these 1000 years, Satan will be loosed in order to deceive the unbelieving nations into making a final assault against the redeemed. Satan will be destroyed, and the resurrection of the dead unbelievers will occur. Then will come the judgment of all, both believers and unbelievers, and eternity.
There are several realms of thought in this arena.
C. Postmillennialism

In contrast to the above, the less common postmillennial view places Christ's second advent after (post) the millennium. Only then will the rapture, the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the eternal states occur. The millennium is not understood to involve a visible reign of Christ in the form of an earthly monarchy, nor is the millennial period to be taken literally as necessarily 1000 years long. In these respects postmillennialism corresponds closely to the amillennialist position (see below). But the postmillennial view does posit a recognizable millennial period, a golden age of prosperity and peace among all at the end of which Christ will return. The millennium will arrive gradually under the increasing influence of Christianity, leading to the pervasive reduction of evil and to greatly improved conditions in the social, economic, political and cultural spheres. In fact, the entire world will eventually be Christianized to the point that the Christian belief and value system will become the accepted norm for all nations. Matthew 28:18-20 will become a reality.
They also recognize a literal Trib as well.
D. Amillennialism An eschatology which does not teach a literal thousand-year earthly reign of Christ may be called "amillennialist" (sometimes called "realized millennialism" because the period spoken of in Revelation 20 is now in the process of realization). Although the detailed exegesis of the pertinent texts may vary somewhat among amillennialist Christians, those who adhere to this position agree that the "thousand-year" reference in Revelation 20 is a figurative expression for the present reign of Christ which began upon His ascension into heaven and will be fully manifested at His second coming. Christ's second coming will be one event at which time He will, in the words of Martin Luther, "raise up me and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life"
There are also Historicist , Preterist, Partial Preterist, Mid Trib, Pre-Wrath, Idealist and other views. Idealists is the most non literal with probably Amils being the second most non literal.
The above is simply an overview of the Millennial positions, not an all encompassing, detailed view.
With some errors contained.

[Ltanner09]

Where did you get this nonsense, Len? Both Israel and Church are about earthly and spiritual realities.

Core, quite honestly I was heading out and googled a site that presented the MK views and didn't spend time giving it the fine comb treatment.

I suppose, looking back, I unintentionally ended up at a Lutheran site which gave their view of Dispensational Pre Mill. Sometimes it's better not to post anything (or provide links) if in a rush. :)

Feel free to give your belief of the pre mill doctrine before we begin.

I'd also better take a gander of their amill understanding, but since they ARE Amill they should pretty much have the hammer on the nail with that doctrine....one should certainly hope, anyway.

Just FYI, I googled "millennial kingdom views" and, apparently, they were the first of the listed group to post the views.

[Ltanner09]

There are also Historicist , Preterist, Partial Preterist, Mid Trib, Pre-Wrath, Idealist and other views. Idealists is the most non literal with probably Amils being the second most non literal.

Hmmm, I think I get a rebuttal option on this (as I didn't offer MY opinion on Pre Mills interpretation).
I do believe we've seen who has the more literal approach in the previous debates.

I've been posting what's written and you've rebutted with your, ummmm, opinion.

I'll try responding here before daybreak. I'm in my nocturnal mode so posting under the stars is commonplace with me, lately.

[Ltanner09]

Before I give my views on the MK I think it relevant to share my method of interpreting the book of Revelation.

IMO, the book repeats events (is not chronological).
Core will claim it is chronological, but containing verses that are not (some call these verse breaks "parentheses").

It's also a way of saying "it's not chronological", without actually saying it.

Obviously, the chronological interpretation falls flat just reading REV 12. The birth of Christ....at REV 12.....dispels the claimed accuracy that Revelation is a "chronological" book.

Either is it, or it is not. Some claim that REV 12's mention of the birth of Christ is necessary to understand the chapter. Guess God figured our short term memory of the gospels, which cover Christ's birth, would kick in by the time we got to Revelation.

However, if we understand that the book repeats events, it begins to become more clear.

Staying with REV 12 as the example, it begins with showing a symbol of the nation of Israel, and the subsequent birth of Christ, His catching up to heaven, and the persecution of those with the testimony of Christ.

REV 12 is a description of events beginning in the 1st century and culminating in the end times.

Although this debate is NOT centered on one's interpretation of the chronology of Revelation, it is central to the MK debate, as we'll see somewhere down this yellow brick road.

The most obvious starting point in this debate:
The Thousand years.....literal or not literal.

(The following is an unavoidable topic when discussing the MK, so let's get it out of the way).

Primary question would be, is "a thousand years" used in a figurative way in the bible or woodenly literal?

2Pe 3:8 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.

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;


Does God not love those who keep His covenant in generation 1001?

1Ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

Ps 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

The above certainly doesn't mean God becomes forgetful in generation 1001, it (and all the above) use "a thousand" in a figurative sense, denoting uncertain affinity.

Core and I will never agree on this, so I'll cut this short.

I can better prove that the thousand years is NOT literal after Core replies.
I'm pretty good at chess and it isn't because I telegraph my next move.:D

[kay-gee]

Also...the Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills....what about the 1001st hill? They aren't his? Also if revelation is primarily a vision, how does one "see" a thousand years? Thousand in those days denoted a large infinite amount, in the same way today we would say a gazillion. I have no trouble with the millenium being a figurative one, meaning a long uncertain length of time.

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

Also...the Lord owns the cattle on a thousand hills....what about the 1001st hill? They aren't his? Also if revelation is primarily a vision, how does one "see" a thousand years?

Revelation is primarily a vision and needs to be interpreted as such. I hope to reveal that fact when Core replies.

In the meantime, since I work the next 3 days, I will post a bit more and wait for Core's responses.

There is nothing in Revelation that depicts Christ reigning on earth and there is nothing in the New Testament, including Christ's own words, that prophecy that He will reign on earth.

The reign of Christ was to be FROM heaven, not earth:

Daniel, in a vision, saw Christ receiving the kingdom. Christ didn't descend to earth to receive it, but receives it IN heaven:

Da 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

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.

Acts makes it clear that Christ would be raised up to sit on His throne, not raised up and sent down to a throne.

Ac 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Ac 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Psalms 110 additionally confirms Christ was to rule from heaven:

Ps 110:1 <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

Christ was to rule from the right hand of the Father.

Ac 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.

Pre Mill has Christ, on earth, surrounded by His enemies, yet we are told Christ was to rule from the right hand until His enemies are made His footstool.

Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of the Father:

Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly 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.

IN Romans Christ is at the right hand:


Ro 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

In Ephesians Christ has already received all power:

Eph 1:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

In Hebrews we read:

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


Christ is sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. There is no higher throne from where Jesus is.

1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Of course an earthly rule is shown nowhere in the New Testament. Not even in Revelation.

Not one chapter, verse nor sentence can be found describing Christ on an earthly throne.

In fact Christ Himself claimed:

Joh 18:36 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.

To the high priest, Jesus stated:

Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Oops, I almost forgot the proverbial nail in pre mills coffin: I knew I was holding this hammer for a reason.

Re 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Slowly:
"I John....IN THE KINGDOM and patience of Jesus Christ."

More focus?
I John....in the kingdom...of Jesus Christ.

John was in Christ's kingdom when he wrote Revelation. He said so, quite literally.

This wasn't a kingdom with an earthly throne, the kingdom John saw was heavenly.

Once again I have provided LITERAL biblical proof of my claim. Christ's kingdom exists now and existed when John wrote Revelation.

Kinda like pre mill waiting for the promise to Israel of earthly land, when the destination is HEAVENLY.

Kinda lIke the Jews waiting for an earthly temple, where the TRUE temple is under construction in heaven.

Pre mill waits for an earthly kingdom, where the TRUE kingdom exists already.

Core, Like attorney Gambini (aka Gallo, Callo) informs the witness, I think your glasses are ready for another layer of tickness. :p

[kay-gee]

Colossians 1:13 says we were delivered from darkness into the kingdom. If that was the case then, then I should be part of the kindom upon being saved by the gospel today.
Also, could you please address the matter of Jesus proclaiming that the Kingdom is at hand. Its seems kind of ridiculous to go about proclaiming this to people if it were not something they could immenently be a part of. A whole lot of useless information to preach, if it were something not realized for several more millenium, after everyone hearing it was dead

all the best...

[CTZonEdit]

What rediculous claims.

Daniel gives a clear interpretation of the dream in verses 15-28. I see you omitted that part.

The dream clearly shows Christ coming to earth, pronouncing judgment, and bringing in the kingdom.

21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them,

Where is this taking place? Not in heaven. Its on the earth. Saints are defeated on the earth. Literally stated.

Next verse...

22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

Its literally states he came. Came where? To where the saints were defeated. Where is that? The earth.

Whats next? They time came where THEY possessed the kingdom. What kingdom?

I thought we were already in "kingdom", Len? So what is this "other" kingdom and time where I am going to possess something I am already possessing?

Again your verses and explainations run logical circles around one another.

Oh and we can chart our claims. Here. (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/index.php?pid=1) Were are your charts? ;)

[CoreIssue]

Where did you get this nonsense, Len? Both Israel and Church are about earthly and spiritual realities.Core, quite honestly I was heading out and googled a site that presented the MK views and didn't spend time giving it the fine comb treatment.

I suppose, looking back, I unintentionally ended up at a Lutheran site which gave their view of Dispensational Pre Mill. Sometimes it's better not to post anything (or provide links) if in a rush. :)

Feel free to give your belief of the pre mill doctrine before we begin.

I'd also better take a gander of their amill understanding, but since they ARE Amill they should pretty much have the hammer on the nail with that doctrine....one should certainly hope, anyway.

Just FYI, I googled "millennial kingdom views" and, apparently, they were the first of the listed group to post the views.
OK. That cleared that up.

There is no such thing as ONE doctrine for any of the disciplines of belief. Several variations within each group for sure. :D

My beliefs do not conform to others on Pre-Trib completely. So a general statement is best.

[CoreIssue]

There are also Historicist , Preterist, Partial Preterist, Mid Trib, Pre-Wrath, Idealist and other views. Idealists is the most non literal with probably Amils being the second most non literal.Hmmm, I think I get a rebuttal option on this (as I didn't offer MY opinion on Pre Mills interpretation).
I do believe we've seen who has the more literal approach in the previous debates.

I've been posting what's written and you've rebutted with your, ummmm, opinion.

I'll try responding here before daybreak. I'm in my nocturnal mode so posting under the stars is commonplace with me, lately.
Understood on the posting time.

What written, true, but by whom is the difference.

There is no such thing as ONE Amil, Pre-Trib, Post-Trib, etc. position. There are many within each. Often minute differences, sometimes more dramatic.

[CoreIssue]

Before I give my views on the MK I think it relevant to share my method of interpreting the book of Revelation.

IMO, the book repeats events (is not chronological).
Core will claim it is chronological, but containing verses that are not (some call these verse breaks "parentheses").

It's also a way of saying "it's not chronological", without actually saying it.
Supportive inserts or running out an issue to the end is still chronological order, Len.

As in;


subject 1st event

subtext
subtext 2


subject 2nd event

This is one flow, not 3. A norm and accepted as flow. So saying not chronological is a false claim.
Obviously, the chronological interpretation falls flat just reading REV 12. The birth of Christ....at REV 12.....dispels the claimed accuracy that Revelation is a "chronological" book.False. A time regression is not a breaking of the subject time flow. It is an insert to give clarity to the meaning of the flow.
Either is it, or it is not. Some claim that REV 12's mention of the birth of Christ is necessary to understand the chapter. Guess God figured our short term memory of the gospels, which cover Christ's birth, would kick in by the time we got to Revelation.It shows flow from the War in Heaven over Satan trying to take God's throne to trying to kill Christ in a continuation of that effort to kill the Woman, thus the last of believing Israel, again in that effort. It establishes purpose that has been going on since before Adam.
However, if we understand that the book repeats events, it begins to become more clear.No, it blurs everything and makes it subject to what you want the issues to mean. Your claimed meaning is never supported by any literal statements or by history.
Staying with REV 12 as the example, it begins with showing a symbol of the nation of Israel, and the subsequent birth of Christ, His catching up to heaven, and the persecution of those with the testimony of Christ.

REV 12 is a description of events beginning in the 1st century and culminating in the end times.And it contains a lot of events never happening in history and thus destroys your claims.

In example, the Three Woes have never taken place, the Two Witnesses have never been at the Temple in Jerusalem, the war of Armageddon has never taken place, at no time has 2/3 of the earth's population been wiped out by the events stated, nor have all the cities fallen, islands disappeared or so forth. You neglect a lot of events and cannot explain them with proof.
Although this debate is NOT centered on one's interpretation of the chronology of Revelation, it is central to the MK debate, as we'll see somewhere down this yellow brick road.It establishes a firm reality you do not read literally, for sure.
The most obvious starting point in this debate:
The Thousand years.....literal or not literal.

(The following is an unavoidable topic when discussing the MK, so let's get it out of the way).

Primary question would be, is "a thousand years" used in a figurative way in the bible or woodenly literal?

2Pe 3:8 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.

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;


Does God not love those who keep His covenant in generation 1001?

1Ch 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

Ps 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.

The above certainly doesn't mean God becomes forgetful in generation 1001, it (and all the above) use "a thousand" in a figurative sense, denoting uncertain affinity.

Core and I will never agree on this, so I'll cut this short.It does not mean 1,000 days to a literal day. It is a figurative term with a literal meaning of a very long block of time. Every use in the Bible implies a basis of many centuries.
I can better prove that the thousand years is NOT literal after Core replies.
I'm pretty good at chess and it isn't because I telegraph my next move.:DAnd the point being since I have never claimed it as a literal thousand years to a day?

In example, the Day of the Lord encompasses the Trib, MK and Short time. So that day cannot be a literal 1,000 years with the MK a literal 1,000 years. But they can be approximately 1,000 in total without doing any damage to the literal meaning of the phrase.

And CTZ gave you a solid answer on Christ on the earth during the MK. I wll add:
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=19&version=31#fen-NIV-31017a)] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Revelation 22
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Christ returns as he left at the head of an army and slaugters the AC army, has the AC and FP throne into the Pit alive, Satan chained and rules the earth along with the resurrected Trib Saints and Church who is with him. He comes as King.

Sure not events in Heaven.

Christ left visible to living earthly flesh and will return to where he left, amply described in the Bible, and will be seen by the whole living earth.

[Ltanner09]

Core wrote:
And CTZ gave you a solid answer on Christ on the earth during the MK.

CTZ didn't show Christ sitting on an earthly throne. The reign of Christ is from heaven, not earth.

Jesus said to the High Priest and the Sanhedrin that they would "see" the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64)

Core wrote:
He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Psalm 2:7-9I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, "You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give you the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces likes a potter's vessel.


This is describing the current reign of Christ. Over the nations. Over ALL. It is not speaking of a Millennium of peace, but of violence in which Christ conquers the disobedient.
Notice Psalm 110:2 a "rod" is also mentioned. It is the rod of the present rule of Christ. Hebrews chapter 1 tells us that the Psalm 2 verses started in the first century. He was then ruling over ALL, in fact He was "upholding ALL things by the word of His power.

Core wrote:

Revelation 22
4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

The scene is heavenly and no earthly throne is depicted.

Christ returns as he left at the head of an army and slaugters the AC army, has the AC and FP throne into the Pit alive, Satan chained and rules the earth along with the resurrected Trib Saints and Church who is with him. He comes as King.

Sure not events in Heaven.

Christ left visible to living earthly flesh and will return to where he left, amply described in the Bible, and will be seen by the whole living earth.

The Lord, throughout the OT, is described as coming on clouds and other imagery when destroying His enemies.

However Rev 20 is not showing an earthly throne nor a reign from earth.
Heading out to work, but will reply more, in depth when I return.

Can't help but notice that neither you nor CTZ refuted any of the verses I posted which clearly show Christ seated at the right hand of the Father.
His reign is current. His throne is in heaven. Although He defeats His earthly enemies, His throne is not on earth.

[CTZonEdit]

Can't help but notice that neither you nor CTZ refuted any of the verses I posted which clearly show Christ seated at the right hand of the Father.
His reign is current. His throne is in heaven. Although He defeats His earthly enemies, His throne is not on earth.

I did the same thing on the previous issue. Why would I comment on verses and verses and verses you continue to take out of context? Is this a game now? The one with the most verses wins?

I refuted your whole argument with one example. That should tell you something right there.

[CoreIssue]

Len, CTZ got you on that one. You just keep ignoring verses that contradict you by parsing other verses out of context, putting you spin on them and demanding they are THE answer.

That is nonsense.
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
And that is dealt with in Revelation.

It does not say where those men will be when they see Christ on the the Throne. How about in Hell witnessing what they denied would happen?

And the verses have already been posted stating Christ returns physically to the earth. You just don't deal with them completely.

The sentence is a conjunctive, it does not mean both happen at the same time, just they will happen. By rules of sentence construction you can split them into two sentences.
But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One.
But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.
Two events, not one. No demand as at the same time.

Plus, the Throne comes down with the NJ on the New Earth, not this earth, so you are double rejected.

As for the verse on Christ ruling, it is not from Heaven, Len, because it states he comes with an army and a sword to strike down nations and then rule them. That is on this earth, not in Heaven. Nor from Heaven onto the earth because it says he comes to do it, meaning he leaves Heaven and comes here.

Again you do not pay attention to literal words and try to spin them into figurative meaning. Again you do not deal with parts stated, as in a coming army and sword killing nations.

But Revelation and other OT prophecies do. They literally state he goes to war at Armageddon and slaughters armies.

Psalms does not give you that justification. It is prophetic, not current to when spoken because Christ did not even exist then.

Revelation 22 you again pull verses out of context. I GAVE you the context that states a literal coming leading to this event. You threw those verses away and did not deal with them literally. You refuse to treat the passage in totality, but split it up and try to reinvent individual meanings as if they are free standing.

There has been NO resurrection of the saints yet, Len. None.

And why would we even try to refute Christ on the Throne of God? He is God and was seated there and currently is. But he will return in the Second Coming, so that attempted argument does nothing to support you supposition.

But that does not make this the MK nor him physically ruling Israel or the world. You cannot connect verses about what is in Heaven now to verses about the future Second Coming and demand one demands the other is in Heaven. Cannot do it.

No. CTZ gave a straight forwarded and accurate refutation. While shorter than mine it is every bit as correct. It only takes one refutation to defeat an error, simple rule of logic statements, If B (proof) does not support A (claim)then A is false in totality.

You have yet to give a literal proof that you figurative demands are real. You just say it and demand it is true. You carry the burden to show it figurative and literal, now us that it literal and not figurative.

[kay-gee]

So is that a literal sword He will be bringing? With that literal sword He is going to take out all the nations with their tanks, jetplanes, battleships etc...? Wondering!

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

Len, CTZ got you on that one. You just keep ignoring verses that contradict you by parsing other verses out of context, putting you spin on them and demanding they are THE answer.

That is nonsense.

I'll need to re-read this thread as I must have missed something.
CTZ "got me" on what?

He posted one verse of Jesus coming in judgement. He didn't post ANY of an earthly throne. But I just got home and will look again.


64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
And that is dealt with in Revelation.

It does not say where those men will be when they see Christ on the the Throne. How about in Hell witnessing what they denied would happen?

Where will they be? I guess literal once again goes out the window, huh?
They saw the judgment upon Jerusalem and certainly recalled Jesus warning about the desolation to come.

And the verses have already been posted stating Christ returns physically to the earth. You just don't deal with them completely.

Core you]ve spiritualized these verses to make them mean what you wish them to mean. Christ sending judgement is not returning to (or sitting upon) an earthly throne.

The sentence is a conjunctive, it does not mean both happen at the same time, just they will happen. By rules of sentence construction you can split them into two sentences.
But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One.
But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.
Two events, not one. No demand as at the same time.

We'll get back to this as this thread is heading in a different direction

Plus, the Throne comes down with the NJ on the New Earth, not this earth, so you are double rejected.

Core, if you drive like you debate you likely have a wreckless driving citation or two....you're all over the place. You referenced the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven (you said it comes onto the New Earth, though it's not stated).
Do you believe this is prior to/or during the MK we're debating?

Psalms does not give you that justification. It is prophetic, not current to when spoken because Christ did not even exist then.

Of course it's prophetic. That's why Daniel was called a prophet.
Of course it wasn't current when written, else it wouldn't be a prophecy..

Daniel's prophecy was Christ coming to the Ancient of Days to receive a kingdom.
That was fulfilled when Christ ascended.

Revelation 22 you again pull verses out of context. I GAVE you the context that states a literal coming leading to this event. You threw those verses away and did not deal with them literally. You refuse to treat the passage in totality, but split it up and try to reinvent individual meanings as if they are free standing.

Woah. Are you referencing Rev 22 or Rev 20? I'm trying to follow you but you're throwing your trail of bread crumbs into the wind here.


And why would we even try to refute Christ on the Throne of God? He is God and was seated there and currently is. But he will return in the Second Coming, so that attempted argument does nothing to support you supposition.

Who's arguing about His return? The argument is about the location of His throne, during His reign.

But that does not make this the MK nor him physically ruling Israel or the world. You cannot connect verses about what is in Heaven now to verses about the future Second Coming and demand one demands the other is in Heaven. Cannot do it.

Core, show me ONE verse with Christ sitting on a literal earthly throne.
You can't.
Just like I asked for ONE verse about the AC confirming a covenant, fulfilling (what you claim to be) a prophecy from Daniel. You can't.

You are believing loads of ideas without one verse to back them up.

No. CTZ gave a straight forwarded and accurate refutation. While shorter than mine it is every bit as correct. It only takes one refutation to defeat an error, simple rule of logic statements, If B (proof) does not support A (claim)then A is false in totality.

I posted a verse in REV where John stated he was IN the the kingdom of Jesus Christ. that was 1900+ years ago.
The refutes everything you've offered so far. You claim the kingdom is earthly, yet you can't show an earthly throne.

It's your claim, not mine. You need to substantiate your claim, with clear scripture not theory.

You have yet to give a literal proof that you figurative demands are real. You just say it and demand it is true. You carry the burden to show it figurative and literal, now us that it literal and not figurative.

Are you claiming Rev 1:9 is wrong? I haven't seen anyone refute it.

[Ltanner09]

CTZ wrote:


21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them,
Where is this taking place? Not in heaven. Its on the earth. Saints are defeated on the earth. Literally stated.

No it says the saints were being defeated, not ARE defeated.

Next verse...

22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
Its literally states he came. Came where? To where the saints were defeated. Where is that? The earth.

The saints "were being defeated", not were defeated.

Whats next? They time came where THEY possessed the kingdom. What kingdom?

Must be the kingdom John was in , in the 1st century.

I thought we were already in "kingdom", Len? So what is this "other" kingdom and time where I am going to possess something I am already possessing?

AS you can see this thread, as suspected, will now turn into the events of AD70.

Again your verses and explainations run logical circles around one another.

I still haven't seen anyone refute Rev 1:9 where John stated he was IN the kingdom of Jesus 1900+ years ago.

I certainly haven't seen a pre mill connect "Kingdom"-Jesus+earthly throne"
in any verse.

Jesus plainly stated the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
Pre mill cannot connect "Israel+Christ+earthly throne" in any one sentence within the entire bible.

Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.
His kingdom was not from here.
Then NT verses showing the kingdom in heaven, Christ at the right hand of God.

We know the kingdom of Jesus existed in (using pre mills date) AD95, the date they claim Rev was written..


EDITED TO ADD:
Mt 16:28 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.


Core can't reach beyond the grave this time, to claim (as he did earlier) that those who would see Him in the kingdom would do so after death. Jesus told His disciples that that some wouldn't taste of death before they saw Christ coming in His kingdom.

Core will have to get out the parallel bars to do his spiritual gymnastics on this one.


I'll wait a coupla hours before I follow up with the next post, which will deal with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 to see if Core wants a separate thread, or wants it here. I suppose the issues are tied together as I'm claiming Christ's kingdom began shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and His kingdom will still be the center of the debate.

I need to decide if I should grab 2 hours sleep, or just dive in.

[CoreIssue]

So is that a literal sword He will be bringing? With that literal sword He is going to take out all the nations with their tanks, jetplanes, battleships etc...? Wondering!

all the best...
Nice try, KG. But the Bible defines his word as a sword. So that makes it either a sword of the sword of his word equally literal.

It says the weapons will be gathered and used by Israel for months after the battle. They will employ foreigners to bury the dead. Pretty literal description of physical realities that will not be taking place in Heaven, either physically or in spirit.

[CoreIssue]

CTZ wrote:


21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them,
Where is this taking place? Not in heaven. Its on the earth. Saints are defeated on the earth. Literally stated.No it says the saints were being defeated, not ARE defeated.
On the earth, Len. They die in mulitudes in the Trib, so sure

Next verse...

22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.
Its literally states he came. Came where? To where the saints were defeated. Where is that? The earth.The saints "were being defeated", not were defeated.
Lame, Len. This is the the Trib where saints will be martyred in multitudes. That is not a Heavenly event.
Whats next? They time came where THEY possessed the kingdom. What kingdom?Must be the kingdom John was in , in the 1st century.
Does not fit the contextual subject.
I thought we were already in "kingdom", Len? So what is this "other" kingdom and time where I am going to possess something I am already possessing?AS you can see this thread, as suspected, will now turn into the events of AD70.
You didn't deal with the point the kingdom came with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Nothing to do with 70 AD.

So, as CTZ pointed out the kingdom possessed cannot be spiritual one.
Again your verses and explanations run logical circles around one another.I still haven't seen anyone refute Rev 1:9 where John stated he was IN the kingdom of Jesus 1900+ years ago.

I certainly haven't seen a pre mill connect "Kingdom"-Jesus+earthly throne"
in any verse.

Jesus plainly stated the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
Pre mill cannot connect "Israel+Christ+earthly throne" in any one sentence within the entire bible.
That is a ridiculous and false demand. Inventing your own wording demand is a trademark of bad theology.

YOU cannot connect Christ+70th Week of Daniel+covenant in one sentence either. Equal demand back at you.
Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.
His kingdom was not from here.
Put it in context. That is speaking of Christ as savior, thus his spiritual kingdom.

Again you parse issues and fail to look at whole realities and context.
Then NT verses showing the kingdom in heaven, Christ at the right hand of God.
It also shows a coming physical kingdom.
We know the kingdom of Jesus existed in (using pre mills date) AD95, the date they claim Rev was written..
Which has nothing to do with the kingdom of Israel and the Davidic Covenant.
EDITED TO ADD:
Mt 16:28 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.

Pentecost. Spiritual kingdom, not physical.
Core can't reach beyond the grave this time, to claim (as he did earlier) that those who would see Him in the kingdom would do so after death. Jesus told His disciples that that some wouldn't taste of death before they saw Christ coming in His kingdom.
Try again. Never made such a claim.

I said no one had been resurrected yet, but you have claimed so.
Core will have to get out the parallel bars to do his spiritual gymnastics on this one.
Nope. Just recognize there is a spiritual kingdom and the return of Israel as covenant to rule the physical kingdoms of the earth from the kingdom of Israel.
I'll wait a coupla hours before I follow up with the next post, which will deal with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 to see if Core wants a separate thread, or wants it here. I suppose the issues are tied together as I'm claiming Christ's kingdom began shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and His kingdom will still be the center of the debate.

Began at Pentecost, spiritually. Physical has not happened yet.
[/quote]

[Ltanner09]

I wrote:
I still haven't seen anyone refute Rev 1:9 where John stated he was IN the kingdom of Jesus 1900+ years ago.

I certainly haven't seen a pre mill connect "Kingdom"-Jesus+earthly throne"
in any verse.

Jesus plainly stated the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
Pre mill cannot connect "Israel+Christ+earthly throne" in any one sentence within the entire bible.

Core replied:

That is a ridiculous and false demand. Inventing your own wording demand is a trademark of bad theology.

Not a false demand, but a false claim...on your part, that you can't support with any biblical verses.

If I tell you the cat is gray, either you believe me or I produce the gray cat.

You keep showing me chickens and proclaiming them to be cats.

YOU cannot connect Christ+70th Week of Daniel+covenant in one sentence either. Equal demand back at you.

I posted 4 pages linking Christ and His covenant to the 70 weeks.
Those NT verses quoted Dan 9:24 pertaining to its fulfillment. It describes in detail the covenant.

You, on the other hand, haven't produced any covenant that the AC confirms...no details of it, no biblical verses telling us what it is.
Oh, your cat is clucking again.

[Ltanner09]

Core wrote in another thread.....but is more appropo here:

Len, that relates to Israel's fall. Here relates to its return.
Quote:
Matthew 24
Signs of the End of the Age

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Second coming and the end of the Age. Never happened yet.





Quote:
4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
Been a growing historical reality. Sure was not fulfilled in the past.

Quote:
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
No way a past reality as you wish to claim. Most nations didn't even know of the Apostles or Christ, even at his death.

Quote:
10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
Faith had not even been spread yet. To fall away it first must be accepted and spread.

Quote:
11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
Not a reality back then. But sure has been since, especially in our day and time.

Quote:
12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
Evil is sure growing dramatically now. Been bad a long time, but getting worse.

Quote:
13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations,
That reality did not occur until the 20th century.

Quote:
and then the end will come.
Another prophecy designating this time period.

Quote:
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
The Woman flees at Mid Trib. And it requires a Temple exists.

Quote:
17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
Talking Jerusalem and the Temple.

Quote:
21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
Not happened yet.

Quote:
22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.
Not happened yet.

Quote:
26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Visible. Has not happened yet.

Quote:
28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]
Not happened yet.
Quote:
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
Expanded upon in the OT. Has not happened yet.

Quote:
32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
But in 24 he cursed the tree. That was OT Israel.


Here the tree is coming alive again in a new season.


33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
A requirement is the return of national Israel AFTER all the other required events have occurred in history.

1948 was when Israel began to show life again. There was no national Israel from 70 AD until then.
Generation meaning:
Quote:
Strong's Number: 1074 Browse Lexicon Original WordWord Origin geneavfrom (a presumed derivative of) (1085) Transliterated WordTDNT Entry Genea1:662,114 Phonetic SpellingParts of Speech ghen-eh-ah' Noun Feminine Definition

1.
2. fathered, birth, nativity
3. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
1. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
1. esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
4. the whole multitude of men living at the same time
5. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Core, give me a little time here. I will address all of the above verses and then you'll regret using them in the context that you have.;)

[Ltanner09]

Core, I'll be back tomorrow.

[CoreIssue]

I wrote:
I still haven't seen anyone refute Rev 1:9 where John stated he was IN the kingdom of Jesus 1900+ years ago.

I certainly haven't seen a pre mill connect "Kingdom"-Jesus+earthly throne"
in any verse.

Jesus plainly stated the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
Pre mill cannot connect "Israel+Christ+earthly throne" in any one sentence within the entire bible.Core replied:

That is a ridiculous and false demand. Inventing your own wording demand is a trademark of bad theology.Not a false demand, but a false claim...on your part, that you can't support with any biblical verses.

If I tell you the cat is gray, either you believe me or I produce the gray cat.

You keep showing me chickens and proclaiming them to be cats.
And you keep making demands you do not meet yourself. Double standard.
YOU cannot connect Christ+70th Week of Daniel+covenant in one sentence either. Equal demand back at you.I posted 4 pages linking Christ and His covenant to the 70 weeks.
Those NT verses quoted Dan 9:24 pertaining to its fulfillment. It describes in detail the covenant.

You, on the other hand, haven't produced any covenant that the AC confirms...no details of it, no biblical verses telling us what it is.
Oh, your cat is clucking again.
But none of them contain the exact words in combination in one verse you demand I must produce to have valid proof.

You dismiss my related verses due to you exact wording demand and then demand I accept your claimed related verses without meeting your own demand they be in one verse and phrased as you want them.

Until we are on equal proof demand levels there is nothing to discuss.

[CoreIssue]

I wrote:
I still haven't seen anyone refute Rev 1:9 where John stated he was IN the kingdom of Jesus 1900+ years ago.

I certainly haven't seen a pre mill connect "Kingdom"-Jesus+earthly throne"
in any verse.

Jesus plainly stated the kingdom was taken away from the Jews and given to another nation.
Pre mill cannot connect "Israel+Christ+earthly throne" in any one sentence within the entire bible.Core replied:

That is a ridiculous and false demand. Inventing your own wording demand is a trademark of bad theology.Not a false demand, but a false claim...on your part, that you can't support with any biblical verses.

If I tell you the cat is gray, either you believe me or I produce the gray cat.

You keep showing me chickens and proclaiming them to be cats.And you keep making demands you do not meet yourself. Double standard.
YOU cannot connect Christ+70th Week of Daniel+covenant in one sentence either. Equal demand back at you.I posted 4 pages linking Christ and His covenant to the 70 weeks.
Those NT verses quoted Dan 9:24 pertaining to its fulfillment. It describes in detail the covenant.

You, on the other hand, haven't produced any covenant that the AC confirms...no details of it, no biblical verses telling us what it is.
Oh, your cat is clucking again.[/quote]
But none of them contain the exact words in combination in one verse you demand I must produce to have valid proof.

You dismiss my related verses due to you exact wording demand and then demand I accept your claimed related verses without meeting your own demand they be in one verse and phrased as you want them.

Until we are on equal proof demand levels there is nothing to discuss.

[Ltanner09]

Core wrote:

Here relates to its return.
Quote:
Matthew 24
Signs of the End of the Age

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Second coming and the end of the Age. Never happened yet.

Core, so the disciples came to Jesus and asked for the sign of His coming, but had absolutely no idea he was GOING anywhere (His ascension after His resurrection).

Jesus must have been truly amazed.

The only possible "coming" the disciples could be asking about would be:

Mt 16:28 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.

That's what they had been waiting for, Christ's kingdom. Jesus had just raked the religious leaders over the coals, pronouncing woe, after woe upon them (CH 23).

Then tells them their house will let desolate.

He tells them WHEN these woes that He pronounced will come upon them:
Mt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.


He concludes His scathing rebuke on these leaders by saying:
Mt 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Of course they "saw" Him after this, physically...but failed to SEE Him for who He truly was, the Messiah.

But in your theory, the disciples, after hearing about the doom and gloom pronounced upon the religious leaders AND who had NO idea that Christ would ascend after His resurrection, asked Him about the 2nd coming?

They were only familiar with the first coming and thought Jesus was about to usher in His kingdom at any time.

[CoreIssue]

What a flawed conclusion based on false evidence and a false sequence, Len.

They were asking about when the physical Temple would be destroyed, not understanding he was talking about his own death as well, when this age would end and when the physical kingdom would come, because they knew OT prophecy stated it WOULD happen, which Christ answered would be in the distant future and they would not nor could know the time.

He told them it would happen when he returned and what had to transpire before he would return.

After his statements they Apostles did not ask another questions about the issue.

Again you make the false demand that there is only the spiritual kingdom being talked about. But that is false. There is spiritual and physical kingdoms talked about in the Bible. As with covenants, you keep trying to merge everything into one issue.

[Ltanner09]

What a flawed conclusion based on false evidence and a false sequence, Len.

They were asking about when the physical Temple would be destroyed, not understanding he was talking about his own death as well, when this age would end and when the physical kingdom would come, because they knew OT prophecy stated it WOULD happen, which Christ answered would be in the distant future and they would not nor could know the time.

Core, once again you make a claim then back away from it.
Your claim was the disciples were asking about the 2nd coming.

I replied they COULDN'T be as they weren't even aware He was going to ascend.

THEN you claim MY conclusion is based on false evidence AND a false sequence.

Yet you set the premise by offering your spin on verse 24:3 by saying they were asking about the 2nd coming.

He told them it would happen when he returned and what had to transpire before he would return.

But they didn't know he was going anywhere (the ascension). So, why on earth would they envision a 2nd coming.

Again you make the false demand that there is only the spiritual kingdom being talked about. But that is false. There is spiritual and physical kingdoms talked about in the Bible. As with covenants, you keep trying to merge everything into one issue.

Before we continue, what did Christ mean here?:

Mt 16:28 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.

__________________

[CoreIssue]

What a flawed conclusion based on false evidence and a false sequence, Len.

They were asking about when the physical Temple would be destroyed, not understanding he was talking about his own death as well, when this age would end and when the physical kingdom would come, because they knew OT prophecy stated it WOULD happen, which Christ answered would be in the distant future and they would not nor could know the time.Core, once again you make a claim then back away from it.
Your claim was the disciples were asking about the 2nd coming.

I replied they COULDN'T be as they weren't even aware He was going to ascend.

THEN you claim MY conclusion is based on false evidence AND a false sequence.

Yet you set the premise by offering your spin on verse 24:3 by saying they were asking about the 2nd coming.
Let us back the dynamics of this discussion back and get on the same page. We were talking about proofs there is a future second coming and that Mat 24 was dealing with that in fact.

No, the Apostles at this time did not understand it was a Second Coming issue. Yes, they were asking when the Temple and the earthly kingdom would come where Christ was king. Yes, the wanted to know if that time was then. No, they did not understand Christ came to bring the spiritual kingdom, then, not the spiritual. Yes, Christ laid it out about the coming of the physical kingdom, which was what they asked about. Yes, then followed dealing with the question of when it would come. No, he said no one but the Father knows when that time would be, but it could not come until all the historical events he had spoken about had already occurred.

So, yes, you are trying to merge kingdom issues but trying to make statements of the physical kingdom mean the spiritual kingdom.

Two different issues, Len. Mat 24 is literally speaking about the physical destruction of the Temple, events following in history and then the coming of the physical kingdom in the future, when the Trib temple will have been built.

The temple destroyed in 70 AD is NOT the temple in which the AoD will be erected. No such AoD was erected in 70 AD. Didn't happen. Nor does the 70th Week or Revelation ever mention a physical destruction of the physical temple. Both speak of AoDs set up and worship of the AC being established.
He told them it would happen when he returned and what had to transpire before he would return.But they didn't know he was going anywhere (the ascension). So, why on earth would they envision a 2nd coming.
There was a thology among Jews of two comings of the Messiah, one as Savior and one as King. That, contrary to what you want to claim, is anything but a new doctrine. It existed in BC times.
Again you make the false demand that there is only the spiritual kingdom being talked about. But that is false. There is spiritual and physical kingdoms talked about in the Bible. As with covenants, you keep trying to merge everything into one issue.Before we continue, what did Christ mean here?:

Mt 16:28 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.

__________________[/quote]
I already answered that once. Spiritual kingdom, not physical kingdom.

They saw Christ return after his resurrection. Still First Coming, not Second.

And note, it says Christ in his kingdom, not them, nor Christ bringing his spiritual kingdom to them, which happened at Pentecost and which he told them to wait for the Holy Spirit to bring.

Pay attention to what you just did before you throw a claim out. You jumped to a different passage with a different subject. One on the spiritual kingdom and one on the physical.

You can only attempt to link them by going non literal. Literal, when all on the subjects are looked at, clearly define two separate issues.

The lost are not in Christ's spiritual kingdom, but will be include in the physical MK one. Clearly stated in prophecy.

[Ltanner09]

There was a thology among Jews of two comings of the Messiah, one as Savior and one as King. That, contrary to what you want to claim, is anything but a new doctrine. It existed in BC times.

I'm not asking you about theology, I'm asking you about biblical verses.
Where, through scripture, could the disciples have gotten any idea Christ was GOING anywhere that would generate the question, according to you, about His second coming?



Again you make the false demand that there is only the spiritual kingdom being talked about.

I haven't demanded anything, I posed a question in relation to YOUR demand that the disciples were speaking to the 2nd coming in MATT 24.

But that is false. There is spiritual and physical kingdoms talked about in the Bible. As with covenants, you keep trying to merge everything into one issue.

Core, what on earth are you talking about? Are you on this thread or somewhere else?

I asked:
Before we continue, what did Christ mean here?:

Mt 16:28 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.

Core replied:
I already answered that once. Spiritual kingdom, not physical kingdom.

They saw Christ return after his resurrection. Still First Coming, not Second.[/quote]

Then how about that prophecy Jesus put forward (going to use your theory:
"Some would not taste of death until .....my resurrection"

Jesus really went out on a limb here, with a prophecy that some would not taste death in 7-10 days, according to you.

I honestly expected your reply to fall elsewhere, but within a similar, ridiculous, time frame. Most erroneously point to the transfiguation.

And note, it says Christ in his kingdom, not them, nor Christ bringing his spiritual kingdom to them, which happened at Pentecost and which he told them to wait for the Holy Spirit to bring.

Pay attention to what you just did before you throw a claim out. You jumped to a different passage with a different subject. One on the spiritual kingdom and one on the physical.

I didn't jump, I asked a question. There was no claim attached to it.

You can only attempt to link them by going non literal. Literal, when all on the subjects are looked at, clearly define two separate issues.

The lost are not in Christ's spiritual kingdom, but will be include in the physical MK one. Clearly stated in prophecy.

You don't really want to go back down that road this soon, do you?
Don't make a claim "clearly stated in prophecy", then not produce that gray cat we talked about.

Christ's kingdom is not from earth, but from heaven (and I produced the verses). One kingdom, not two.

You profess there are two (physical/earthly) being the other. I'll ask again, let's see what's in the bag, Core? You say a cat, but I smell chicken.

The disciples were not asking about a 2nd coming (they that had no clue to, as they weren't told Christ was going to ascend). They were asking about His kingdom.

We'll get to that eventually. You listed most of MATT 24 and I'll have to reply piece by piece.

Off to work. Be back later or in the a.m.









__________________

[CoreIssue]

There was a thology among Jews of two comings of the Messiah, one as Savior and one as King. That, contrary to what you want to claim, is anything but a new doctrine. It existed in BC times.I'm not asking you about theology, I'm asking you about biblical verses.
Where, through scripture, could the disciples have gotten any idea Christ was GOING anywhere that would generate the question, according to you, about His second coming?
Len, you keep spinning what I am saying and demanding what you are saying is fact, which it is not. Let us reduce this to the very basics. Three questions were asked of Christ by the Apostles:
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Statement: The Temple will be destroyed.

Now remember Christ was already resurrected here.
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen,When will the Temple be destroyed.
and what will be the sign of your comingWhat is the sign of your coming. Plainly stated literal statement of a coming future to his being there then.

and of the end of the age?" When will this age end.


Do we agree so far? No interpretation, just the literal statements made and questions asked.

This is really getting annoying that you keep jumping off to elsewhere and trying to spin what I say into something I did not stay in an effort to steer the conversation where you want it to go as to what I think. Not going there.

Time to take this exactly one point at a time. Tedious but necessary.

[Ltanner09]

Core, re read your last post. I'm lost as to what you mean when you say "Christ was already resurrected here", when speaking about the future destruction of the Temple.


I SURE I know what you mean, but your statement is ambiguous.

While I wait on that clarification, I will remind you what generated this confusion that you indicate *I* caused and claim I'm spinning what you say:

You wrote:


Matthew 24
Signs of the End of the Age

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Second coming and the end of the Age. Never happened yet.

You stated the disciples were asking about the 2nd coming. At least your reply indicates that.

I've been pressuring you about how the disciples could possibly be asking about the 2nd coming since they had no idea Christ would be GOING anywhere to begin with, specifically His ascension.

I will reply to each of your points after you clarify the area I pointed out.

[CoreIssue]

Core, re read your last post. I'm lost as to what you mean when you say "Christ was already resurrected here", when speaking about the future destruction of the Temple.


I SURE I know what you mean, but your statement is ambiguous.

While I wait on that clarification, I will remind you what generated this confusion that you indicate *I* caused and claim I'm spinning what you say:

You wrote:


Matthew 24
Signs of the End of the Age

1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." 3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Second coming and the end of the Age. Never happened yet.You stated the disciples were asking about the 2nd coming. At least your reply indicates that.

I've been pressuring you about how the disciples could possibly be asking about the 2nd coming since they had no idea Christ would be GOING anywhere to begin with, specifically His ascension.

I will reply to each of your points after you clarify the area I pointed out.
That wasn't my last post.

Time to get down to verse by verse and STAYING on what verses actually say.

I already clarified your questions, but since they do not meet what you want to hear nor set you up for where you want to go, you don't like them.

So, verse by verse will clear it all up, including those issues. And will reveal the big problems with your claims.

[kay-gee]

Core, are you telling me that Jesus was already reserrected at the time of Matthew 24? That would be handy wouldn't it be?

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Core, are you telling me that Jesus was already reserrected at the time of Matthew 24? That would be handy wouldn't it be?
all the best...
No. He was not dead, buried and resurrected. But he was talking about future events after he was dead, buried and resurrected, as when he would return.

And his dual reference to the Temple was about the death of his body, which would return, and the destruction of the physical temple, which would also return.

Going through the chapter verse by verse will spell all of this out. But Len keeps wanting to jump all over the place and spin the chapter into things either not said, or avoid things said.

We need to go through this verse by verse and STAY in the chapter verse by verse to establish context and content first.

Len's doctrine depends on spiritualizing away from what is pointedly said, thus why he jumps elsewhere, as if that overrides and defines what is said here.

That is the fatal flaw of spiritualizing the Bible. Those who do so cannot deal with sentence and passage context only. Because then it becomes apparent the verses and such can stand on their own and have full meaning that makes full sense IF one is not trying to reject what is said because they don't like it.

Those into all kinds of doctrines and cults do this. It is the core of how their thinking functions. But the trouble is they cannot prove any of it with any factual evidence.

As with what Len is doing, it is based on the claim the Land Covenant to Abraham was fulfilled. But they falsely lay out the claim, focusing only on the land inhabited and being conditional to Israel, as if that defines the covenant, which it does not.

The Land Covenant to Abraham had 3 key parts:


All the land specified would be inhabited by Israel. Len spins the meaning to ruled over. Not the same thing. Never was so inhabited.
It would be inhabited by his descendents forever. Obviously has not happened.
It is an unconditional and eternal covenant. Len tries to spin the meaning to until fulfilled and then tries to claim it was fulfilled. But obviously point 2 makes it clear it can never be fulfilled to completion. Not to mention point one has never been fulfilled, which Len will argue with.

Amils and others try to claim the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant to Abraham, but it is not because:


It was made to Israel via Abraham, long after Abraham was dead.
The Mosaic was conditional while the Abrahamic unconditional, so by definition it cannot be the same.
If the Abrahamic, it was renegotiated, which defies the meaning of unconditional and everlasting.

So, the foundation upon which the figurative demand for every other argument is based is false, thus all the following claims are false.

Get the point? They hinge everything on their interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant to justify not reading everything else literally.

It is critical to read the Bible for what it says. God didn't invent some holy dictionary or cryptic was of talking where A = Z and K = T. A = A.

[kay-gee]

Sounds good. Go verse by verse and keep the discussion on track.

I would like to add at this time that it is not really a case of liking or disliking things the Bible has to say. It is about seeking out the truth and believing it!

all the best...

[CoreIssue]

Sounds good. Go verse by verse and keep the discussion on track.

I would like to add at this time that it is not really a case of liking or disliking things the Bible has to say. It is about seeking out the truth and believing it!

all the best...
OK. Please note I posted some adds to my post just before your post hit. I don't want you to miss them.

[InTheWind]

Sounds good. Go verse by verse and keep the discussion on track.

I would like to add at this time that it is not really a case of liking or disliking things the Bible has to say. It is about seeking out the truth and believing it!

all the best...


Core has gone verse by verse, this debate is going in circles.
Ltanner09 doesn`t want to learn or change his views and either do you Kay-Gee. All you guys want to do is argue and disagree with everything.
If you don`t agree with anything here and don`t want to prove your views what are you doing here.
Move on, i`m tiring of this nonsense. :nod:

[Ltanner09]

Core, you totally mis-read my last post. I'm not going to rehash it.
=============================================
I'll reply to your post as you asked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltanner09 View Post
T

Core wrote

Let us reduce this to the very basics. Three questions were asked of Christ by the Apostles:
Quote:
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
Statement: The Temple will be destroyed.

Now remember Christ was already resurrected here.

If you had said Christ WILL BE resurrected here I would have simply said I agree.

But (and this is what I asked to to clarify) your statement indicates Christ was resurrected when He made the statement.


3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen,
When will the Temple be destroyed.

Agreed


and what will be the sign of your coming
What is the sign of your coming. Plainly stated literal statement of a coming future to his being there then.

If you're claiming this refers to the SECOND coming, I disagree.
This was your position in my quote of you in post #23 here.

The disciples wanted to know when Christ would usher in His kingdom. They weren't asking about His return after His ascension as they weren't even AWARE of that fact yet.


and of the end of the age?"
When will this age end.

They were asking when their age would end and the Messanic age (MK) would begin.

Pre Mill believes "this age" (the one that existed in AD30) was replaced by the Church age and will be followed by the MK.

Amill believes "this age"( the one that existed in AD30) was replaced by the MK.

We agree that "this age", the one the disciples were referring to in AD30 was about to end.

Do we agree so far? No interpretation, just the literal statements made and questions asked.

This is really getting annoying that you keep jumping off to elsewhere and trying to spin what I say into something I did not stay in an effort to steer the conversation where you want it to go as to what I think. Not going there.

Time to take this exactly one point at a time. Tedious but necessary.

Core, when you claim the disciples were asking about the 2nd coming then you changed the direction of the debate.

Until that's cleared up we can't move on.

Core wrote:
Going through the chapter verse by verse will spell all of this out. But Len keeps wanting to jump all over the place and spin the chapter into things either not said, or avoid things said.

We need to go through this verse by verse and STAY in the chapter verse by verse to establish context and content first.

Len's doctrine depends on spiritualizing away from what is pointedly said, thus why he jumps elsewhere, as if that overrides and defines what is said here.

And in context:

The disciples question was not about Christ's second coming, but His coming with His kingdom.
The kingdom they already knew about. Christ had already told them (MATT 16) some would not taste of death before they saw Him coming with His kingdom.

The second coming was not revealed to them yet as they had no clue He was going to ascend.

[CoreIssue]

Sorry, Len, I started to go one direction then switched but failed to edit properly. My error and doing a post in a hurry is not smart.

Let us start this over and get it right from step one.

No interpretation. What does the verses say word for word literally as spoken. Just the context of this passage, nothing more. Keep everything else out.
-------------------------------------------
Let us reduce this to the very basics. Three questions were asked of Christ by the Apostles:
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." Statement: The Temple will be destroyed.
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen,
Question: When will the Temple be destroyed.
and what will be the sign of your comingQuestion: What is the sign of your future coming.
and of the end of the age?" Question: When will this age end.

Do we agree so far? No interpretation, just the literal statements made and questions asked.

[CoreIssue]

Sounds good. Go verse by verse and keep the discussion on track.

I would like to add at this time that it is not really a case of liking or disliking things the Bible has to say. It is about seeking out the truth and believing it!

all the best...


Core has gone verse by verse, this debate is going in circles.
Ltanner09 doesn`t want to learn or change his views and either do you Kay-Gee. All you guys want to do is argue and disagree with everything.
If you don`t agree with anything here and don`t want to prove your views what are you doing here.
Move on, i`m tiring of this nonsense. :nod:
I did go verse by verse, ITW. But it immediately circled right back on jumping away and making doctrinal claims versus just dealing with what the passage said on its own.

That is why I am trying to go verse by verse, now, no interpretations allowed.

I do not believe Len will do it because he cannot do so and make it even faintly resemble his doctrinal position.

And true, we have had this issue with KG as well. He does not read literally passage by passage. But if he will actually begin here seeing the problems with non literal, maybe there is hope. :D

Everybody stepping back to the beginning line is the best thing to do when it all gets so bogged downed and muddied up. Go to the absolute basics, no assumptions allowed.

[kay-gee]

That's fine with me. I am watching this very closely. At this point I am only interested in the Biblical evidence. I do not have to agree with Ltanner either on the merits of him being who he is. I am assuming a position of impartiality here and facts only. This is the discussion I've been waiting for, for a year on CTZ, Core and Kay-gee were never able to get it going because of emotions. It's time to settle this one forever.
And as for ITW jumping in here out of te blue and scolding me...What's up with that?

all the best...

[InTheWind]

That's fine with me. I am watching this very closely. At this point I am only interested in the Biblical evidence. I do not have to agree with Ltanner either on the merits of him being who he is. I am assuming a position of impartiality here and facts only. This is the discussion I've been waiting for, for a year on CTZ, Core and Kay-gee were never able to get it going because of emotions. It's time to settle this one forever.
And as for ITW jumping in here out of te blue and scolding me...What's up with that?

all the best...

Because you usually disagree with what people believe here and don`t offer any evidence of your view. If anyone disagrees that`s fine but nobody is going to get away with badgering or smart remarks here.

[CoreIssue]

Got to be fair here, KG. You have stated a lot of positions on things and when asked for proof done exactly what Len is doing, even if in a far more simplistic manner. ;)

I have used this approach before. The result has always been a refusal to do it this way or just abandon the debate.

Why? Because there is no way possible for a non literalists to do it this way. But a literalists can.

Sure, that means, for a literalist, other verses and passages will need to be brought in to clarify some issues. But what it never does is change the foundational meaning of the verses and passages when read stand alone. They work together, literally.

The Bible can be totally read literally and harmonized.

So, time to see how Len responds here.:tiphat:

[Ltanner09]

Let us reduce this to the very basics. Three questions were asked of Christ by the Apostles:
Quote:
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
Statement: The Temple will be destroyed.

Agreed


3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen,
Question: When will the Temple be destroyed.

Agreed


and what will be the sign of your coming
Question: What is the sign of your future coming.

Agreed to extent we're NOT talking about the 2nd coming.


and of the end of the age?"
Question: When will this age end.

This age, speaking to the age the disciples were in?
Agreed

Do we agree so far? No interpretation, just the literal statements made and questions asked.

Pretty much.. So far the only sticking point was whether you were referring to a 2nd coming. It appears that issue has been resolved.


I did go verse by verse, ITW. But it immediately circled right back on jumping away and making doctrinal claims versus just dealing with what the passage said on its own.

That is why I am trying to go verse by verse, now, no interpretations allowed.

I do not believe Len will do it because he cannot do so and make it even faintly resemble his doctrinal position.

Core we both have doctrinal positions, so naturally we're going to disagree at some point. If we agreed there would be no debate.

And true, we have had this issue with KG as well. He does not read literally passage by passage. But if he will actually begin here seeing the problems with non literal, maybe there is hope.

Interpreting either woodenly literal (or woodenly spiritual) will lead to errors.

It's all about the context.

[CoreIssue]

and what will be the sign of your coming
Question: What is the sign of your future coming.Agreed to extent we're NOT talking about the 2nd coming.
Got a problem here. You just threw in doctrine. I didn't.

Did or did it not ask the question I stated?

and of the end of the age?"
Question: When will this age end.This age, speaking to the age the disciples were in?
Agreed'This' means the one that currently is by literal definition.
Do we agree so far? No interpretation, just the literal statements made and questions asked.Pretty much.. So far the only sticking point was whether you were referring to a 2nd coming. It appears that issue has been resolved.Problem again. We are talking what the words literally say.

Please keep the doctrinal comments out. This needs to be a pristine conversation.
I did go verse by verse, ITW. But it immediately circled right back on jumping away and making doctrinal claims versus just dealing with what the passage said on its own.

That is why I am trying to go verse by verse, now, no interpretations allowed.But you did interject doctrine, which I noted. So, let us keep this absolutely clean.
I do not believe Len will do it because he cannot do so and make it even faintly resemble his doctrinal position.Core we both have doctrinal positions, so naturally we're going to disagree at some point. If we agreed there would be no debate.We will see if you can stay literal in grammar, context and word meaning. ;)
And true, we have had this issue with KG as well. He does not read literally passage by passage. But if he will actually begin here seeing the problems with non literal, maybe there is hope.Interpreting either woodenly literal (or woodenly spiritual) will lead to errors.

It's all about the context.Yes, it is about context read per grammar, word definition and rules of language. And that is where you won't make it to the end of this discussion, Len.

There is absolutely no error in reading literally. Liking the outcome is a different matter.

I suggest we get really wooden here and leave out the side comments. Both of us. They are distractions from the goal. :tiphat:

[Ltanner09]

Assuming Core and I are on the same page, it would put the ball back in my court to continue.


4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Been a growing historical reality. Sure was not fulfilled in the past.

Will agree, but all of the above were present in the 1st century,to some extent. I will agree the same events are present today.

Assuming there's nothing in the above to bog us down I'll follow up with another reply shortly.

I see Core posted about the same time I was replying. Guess I need to read it first.

[CoreIssue]

I knew it, Len. You just posted your interpretation and reached back to grab a comment before we began the pristine process.

Since you want to go first, try again, no interpretation included. What does it say in the plain literal words?

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

This should be simple enough to agree on...has been ongoing since NT times and continues today.

[Ltanner09]

I knew it, Len. You just posted your interpretation and reached back to grab a comment before we began the pristine process.

Objection sustained. ;)

I think I had fixed it while you were replying.

We're both here at the same time and overposting each other.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

Ongoing from 1st century to today.

(Edited to change my original reply)

[Ltanner09]

No. We don't agree the whole list was a reality back then and you are trying to get into doctrine here, yet again.

We just agree the verses say these things will happen future to the date of the conversation. Correct?

Fine.

[Ltanner09]

The post I replied to is missing. Guess Core edited it.

Both of us posting at the same time isn't the most brilliant plan we could have.
:aah:

[Ltanner09]

Core, we can agree that MATT 24 says what it says. We need to pinpoint our differences on WHAT is said actually MEANS.

Mt 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

I can agree it says what it says.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Again I can agree what it says is what is says, yet neither of us agrees on what this means.

I don't grasp your reasoning on why we're agreeing with what's written as it's the MEANING we don't agree on.

But, it's your ballpark.

[CoreIssue]

Assuming Core and I are on the same page, it would put the ball back in my court to continue.

[Quote:]
4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[a]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

Been a growing historical reality. Sure was not fulfilled in the past.

Will agree, but all of the above were present in the 1st century,to some extent. I will agree the same events are present today.

Assuming there's nothing in the above to bog us down I'll follow up with another reply shortly.

I see Core posted about the same time I was replying. Guess I need to read it first.
Present and meeting the requirements are two different issues.

The qualifier you are missing is the statement these things are only beginnings of birth pains, not the birth.

Birth comes from pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a constant state but a progress from egg to fully developed baby. So these events begin small and grow over time.

So, agree and move one or are we hung up here?

[Ltanner09]

Roadkill could have more interesting debates than this.

[CoreIssue]

As I said, Len, you would not make it through verse by verse.

You just jumped out there and ran down the verses making statements. That is not taking it verse by verse, just rushing to talk doctrine.

No, we cannot just jump to meanings, as my last reply to what you said and assumed I would agree with shows.

[CoreIssue]

Len, you jumped out and made assumptions and then ran a bunch of posts. That screwed up the flow when I was expecting us to wait for a reply before posting again.

There is no flow now.

[Ltanner09]

Core, don't say I couldn't make it when it's you who wants verse by verse without any comment. I could do that at the beach, by myself.

If I say we don't agree on a meaning you accuse me of doctrine issues.

What are you looking for here, Core?

[Ltanner09]

Present and meeting the requirements are two different issues.

The qualifier you are missing is the statement these things are only beginnings of birth pains, not the birth.

Birth comes from pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a constant state but a progress from egg to fully developed baby. So these events begin small and grow over time.

So, agree and move one or are we hung up here?

Guess I'll agree and get to the next verse.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Are we in agreement the preaching of the gospel in all the world has been fulfilled?

[CoreIssue]

The reason for having you post what it says is to show you see what it literally says but will not accept that is the literal meaning.

THAT is the problem. You read RED and say it means BLUE.

That is just a plain illogical way to read anything. You can attach any meaning you want and it is meaningless because you cannot prove anything you say.

So, if I point out that the Gospel had not been preached to the whole world by 70 AD, there were not many False Christ's, in fact not even many Christians, there was not a vast falling away back then, but massive growth, that there was no AoD set up in the Temple back then and more, you would just disregard the literal statements and spiritualize the meaning away into vapor.

How can we discuss the meaning when you refuse to abide by grammar, context, sentence construction, word meaning, passage flow, given demands and more? There is no way possible.

You believe what you believe without a scrap of proof.

You claim you are following the the 69th and 70th Week of Daniel verses. But in fact you are doing the same thing there by justifying changing them by going to yet another set of verses elsewhere that you also spun the meaning of, and so forth and so on.

It all goes back to your claim that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled by Israel possessing the land promised to Abraham. But that is false and totally disregards the fact that part of the fulfillment was also to possess it for eternity.

That you try to escape by saying Israel didn't keep the Mosaic Covenant.

But that requires the assumption that God would only give them one shot at it. And it makes the Abrahamic Covenant annulable via Israel, which it isn't.

Every step of the way your argument is constructed around spiritualizing meanings. You have no other way to get to your doctrinal position. Impossible to do so reading literally.

So you throw away Ezekiel, huge portions of the OT prophecies saying Israel will be restored, move Revelation back 25 years in time and spiritualize Israel, etc, into Church and 70 AD.

It never ends in your doctrine because it cannot. You have built a doctrine totally dependent on studying the writings of other men in a chain of men going back to the Catholic Church in ancient times trying to write Israel out of the Bible and their church in, while explaining away the RCC in prophecy as a Harlot.

No one but no one can just sit down and read Matthew 24 and get 70 AD out of it. History denies it, the text denies it and so forth. Nor can one read history or Daniel 9 and get your reading out of it if read by grammar.

We are not going to agree. It always boils down to your spiritualized claims with zero proof and me quoting literal words with literal meaning.

Here you admitted the words say what I claim but deny they mean what they say.

Do you see how illogical that thinking is?

The ball is round and blue. But, it actually means the football is oblong and brown. That is just plain unacceptable logic.

Love ya guy, but I see no where to go with this but more frustration for both of us.

Unless something astounding or demanding is said, I see no future continuing this.

I really don't know what else to do or say on this. :tiphat:

[CoreIssue]

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.Are we in agreement the preaching of the gospel in all the world has been fulfilled?
That I will comment on.

Not until the 20th century.

Gotta go to bed. Later.

[Ltanner09]

Before I show Core how wrong he is (through literal biblical verses) I will reply to this.

The reason for having you post what it says is to show you see what it literally says but will not accept that is the literal meaning.

THAT is the problem. You read RED and say it means BLUE.

I know what it literally says and will prove you so wrong, in my next post, you will have jump over to FIGURATIVE to sustain your position.

That is just a plain illogical way to read anything. You can attach any meaning you want and it is meaningless because you cannot prove anything you say.

c:/save to file/coresgoingtoeathiswords :nod:

So, if I point out that the Gospel had not been preached to the whole world by 70 AD, there were not many False Christ's, in fact not even many Christians, there was not a vast falling away back then, but massive growth, that there was no AoD set up in the Temple back then and more, you would just disregard the literal statements and spiritualize the meaning away into vapor.

Then those are issues we deal with one by one.

How can we discuss the meaning when you refuse to abide by grammar, context, sentence construction, word meaning, passage flow, given demands and more? There is no way possible.

You believe what you believe without a scrap of proof.

Now Core, anyone without an ax to grind can plainly see through our debates that I have supported everything with biblical verses.

Land promises, Daniel's 70 weeks, where I even listed 4 PAGES of verses proving (through Christ quoting Daniel) that He confirmed a covenant with many and FULFILLED the prophecy of the 70 weeks.

In fact, all I USED was scripture. You offered unbiblical opinions.

You claim you are following the the 69th and 70th Week of Daniel verses. But in fact you are doing the same thing there by justifying changing them by going to yet another set of verses elsewhere that you also spun the meaning of, and so forth and so on.

Daniel's vision had no gap mentioned. There wasn't a gap, you inserted one.
Where is the "literal" gap?

It all goes back to your claim that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled by Israel possessing the land promised to Abraham. But that is false and totally disregards the fact that part of the fulfillment was also to possess it for eternity.

I provided verses stating ALL the land promised was given.
You argued it didn't include the Euphrates River. You had a , ummmm, chart...or something.

I proved you WRONG again, with biblical verses.

Every step of the way your argument is constructed around spiritualizing meanings. You have no other way to get to your doctrinal position. Impossible to do so reading literally.

So far you're losing at your own game, the literal one. Go back and read the debates on the land promises. I offer the bible verses, you offered your opinion.

So you throw away Ezekiel, huge portions of the OT prophecies saying Israel will be restored, move Revelation back 25 years in time and spiritualize Israel, etc, into Church and 70 AD.

Not only did I provide at least a DOZEN bible verses to prove you wrong, you couldn't provide ONE to support your position. You still can't show an earthly throne without (how do you put it) oh yeah. "spiritualizing verses"./

It never ends in your doctrine because it cannot. You have built a doctrine totally dependent on studying the writings of other men in a chain of men going back to the Catholic Church in ancient times trying to write Israel out of the Bible and their church in, while explaining away the RCC in prophecy as a Harlot.

Core, you're delusional. I never studied RCC teachings (not since I bailed on them at age 11).

No one but no one can just sit down and read Matthew 24 and get 70 AD out of it. History denies it, the text denies it and so forth. Nor can one read history or Daniel 9 and get your reading out of it if read by grammar.

Matt 24, combined with the other gospels complete the puzzle. But we need not go that far as you'll soon see.

We are not going to agree. It always boils down to your spiritualized claims with zero proof and me quoting literal words with literal meaning.

Literal is about to take a back seat in Core's grammar mobile.

My post will soon follow..

[Ltanner09]

Originally Posted by Ltanner09 View Post
Quote:
Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Are we in agreement the preaching of the gospel in all the world has been fulfilled?

Core replied:
That I will comment on.
Not until the 20th century.

Now watch the literalists run for cover. They will slice and dice the biblical (literal) verses to suit their needs and jump onto the spiritualization train.

Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Literal enough?

[Ltanner09]

Assuming Core will wake up, log on, then go back to bed with a headache I will comment on the next verse and then wait for Core's replies.

Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Core and I will disagree on this. Core believes the AOD is a statue in a rebuilt temple.

Remember, Jesus was talking with the disciples. Here's what the other disciples wrote pertaining to their talk with Jesus....on THIS topic

Lu 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea 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.

Mr 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:


Luke tells us exactly what the abomination that causes desolation is, the Roman Armies, not a statue in a temple. The disciples were already told that THEIR temple was going to be destroyed, so why would Jesus be telling them of ANOTHER temple? .......AND NEVER MENTION ANOTHER EARTHLY TEMPLE THROUGHOUT HIS ENTIRE MINISTRY???

It was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem that were to be a signal to flee to the mountains. They were the abomination that caused the desolation. Note Christ's words in both Matthew and Mark "let the reader understand".

Its incredibly important to pay attention to THIS part of Christ's discussion with the disciples because reading and understanding were crucial to grasping exactly what was being stated.

Luke's version contains the answer to the puzzle that reader was to understand.

I've laid the groundwork here for Core to reply. This will likely take several days and I don't want to make this too painful for him in one seating.

[CoreIssue]

Len, I knew you could not resist doing the spinning and jumping away.

On the Gospel being preached throughout the world, you equate being revealed to spread to the world as actually being already preached to the world. Made known as being known by all.
Looking at this in modern English.
25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.You know as well as I the Gospel had not been spread into China, the Americas or Africa at that time.

Romans says revealed and made know. But note Matthews says actually preached to the whole world and all nations.
14"This (Q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024;&version=49;#cen-NASB-23972Q))gospel of the kingdom (R (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024;&version=49;#cen-NASB-23972R))shall be preached in the whole (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024;&version=49;#cen-NASB-23972S))world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Do you really want to say it had been preached to the whole world when the Book of Romans was written? Really?

Now, as for AoD.
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel 20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.Inside the Temple versus around the city. No mention of Abomination with the army. Not the same issue at all, unless you want to attach abomination to every time desolation is used in the Bible.

False claim here, Len. They are different issues.

Now, how does the Bible use AoD? It is well defined and always a Temple issue.


[B]Isaiah 66:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=66&verse=3&version=31&context=verse)
But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense, like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations;
Isaiah 66:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=66&verse=2&end_verse=4&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Isaiah 66 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=66&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Daniel 9:27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=9&verse=27&version=31&context=verse)
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. "
Daniel 9:26-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=9&verse=26&end_verse=27&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Daniel 9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=9&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Daniel 11:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=11&verse=31&version=31&context=verse)
"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
Daniel 11:30-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=11&verse=30&end_verse=32&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Daniel 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=11&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Daniel 12:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=12&verse=11&version=31&context=verse)
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Daniel 12:10-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=12&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Daniel 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=34&chapter=12&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 24:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=15&version=31&context=verse)
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
Matthew 24:14-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=14&end_verse=16&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Matthew 24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)
Mark 13:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mark 13:13-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context) (in Context) Mark 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=13&version=31&context=chapter) (Whole Chapter)

Note Daniel ALWAYS uses it in reference to Temple.

In 167 BC Antiochus Epiphanes set up an alter to Zeus in the Temple. It was called an Abomination of Desolation.

So, the Bible is very clear on what an AoD is. An army around Jerusalem is not an AoD nor is ever called one in Luke.

There was no AoD in 70 AD. The Gospel was not preached to the whole world until the 20th Century. When I was young they were still finding unknown tribes in the Amazon, in example

Matthew 24 requires a whole list of issue to transpire before the Temple and Jerusalem issues occur. They have not because there is no Temple for them to occur in, yet.

They did not happen in 70 AD because the requirements, just in Matthew 24, alone, could not and did not happen at that time.

So much for your literal proof and proving me wrong, Len.

I repeat, you do not read literally, jump all over the Bible, and then try to spin things to fit your doctrine.

Nor do I care if you have ever studied RCC theology. Amil was invented by them and carried over into Protestant denominations when they split off. Others have latched onto it and modified it in different ways.

But that does not change the fact you learned this doctrine by studying the teachings of others. You did not see it in the Bible on your own.

You have nothing to move onto for my further pain and education. These two arguments just blew up in your face, my friend.

[Ltanner09]

Len, I knew you could not resist doing the spinning and jumping away.

On the Gospel being preached throughout the world, you equate being revealed to spread to the world as actually being already preached to the world. Made known as being known by all.

And there you have it, folks.
Literal no longer means literal.


I use the literal, Core calls it spinning and jumping. Anyone reading this can see who's using the spiritual trampoline. As in the previous debates, all I have used IS literal and every time, you cry foul.

Looking at this in modern English.
Quote:
25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
You know as well as I the Gospel had not been spread into China, the Americas or Africa at that time.

I know what's written. Anyone seriously reading this thread can see what's written.

Romans says revealed and made know. But note Matthews says actually preached to the whole world and all nations.
Quote:
14"This (Q)gospel of the kingdom (R)shall be preached in the whole (S)world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Do you really want to say it had been preached to the whole world when the Book of Romans was written? Really?

That's why I posted several verses. You don't have to believe one verse but another witness against your refusal to read the literal was right here:

Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;

6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

LIke I said before, it's more important for some to hold onto their doctrines regardless of what the word of God says. If God's Word says "all the world", it means "all the world".

If God's word says the gospel was preached to EVERY CREATURE UNDER HEAVEN, then it means what it says.

You have lost at your own game. I've stuck to the literal and you bailed.

Your entire doctrine falls like a house of cards when the LITERAL is provided to you. This is precisely why I left the pre mill belief. It's a doctrine held to together with cheap adhesive that doesn't hold when any pressure is applied to it.

Taking Matt 24 LITERALLY causes the pre mill belief to hit the proverbial iceberg and sink quicker than the Titanic. Plenty of lifeboats still available for anyone interested.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end of the OT way of doing business, the end of that age, came in that generation who heard the warning. The end came in AD70.

[Ltanner09]

I'll be back to address Core's spiritualization of the AOD in about 90 minutes.

[CoreIssue]

There is no logic coming from you here at all. Just spinning words to mean what you want to see.



Strong's Number: 3625 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3625&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originoijkoumevnhfeminine participle present passive of (3611 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3611&version=kjv)) (as noun, by implication of (1093 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1093&version=kjv)))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3625&version=kjv#Legend) EntryOikoumene5:157,674Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechoy-kou-men'-ay http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3625g) Noun Feminine Definition
the inhabited earth

the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
the whole inhabited earth, the world
the inhabitants of the earth, men

the universe, the world

Which of the meanings apply here, Len? You are obviously demanding 1.b.

But now you got a problem. The Gospel was only sent to the Roman world? Only the Christians of that area matter?

But it cannot be 1.b.
14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 'Whole word,' Len, not just world.



Strong's Number: 3650 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3650&version=kjv) Original WordWord Origino&loßa primary wordTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3650&version=kjv#Legend) EntryHolos5:174,682Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechhol'-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3650g) Adjective Definition
all, whole, completely
King James Word Usage - Total: 112 all 65, whole 43, every whit 2, altogether 1, throughout + (1223 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1223&version=kjv))&version=kjv 1You are missing the fact that in some of the verses you used 1.b. is in use but in some 1.c. or 1.d. are demanded.

I have no problem with such as Collosians meaning 1.b.

But that is impossible to use in Matthew 24 where the phrase 'whole earth' is used. Which kills your doctrine because the Gospel was not preached to such as the Americas for many centuries later.

Kick in there was no big apostacy at the beginning of the Church Age, when the Church was growing by leaps and bounds once the Apostles got cranking.

Nor did Christ visibly return after his ascension.

Three big strikes there, buddy. You are out.

[Ltanner09]

I was waiting, I thought Core was going to say something relevant to our discussion. The bible tells us the gospels were preached to every creature under heaven. Core is talking about, well, his errant opinions.......again without biblical support.

Maybe Core has a reason to doubt scripture. Could be his doctrine is being run through a shredder here.

So back to business. So far Core doesn't want to stay with the literal and his "pristine conversation".

But that is impossible to use in Matthew 24 where the phrase 'whole earth' is used. Which kills your doctrine because the Gospel was not preached to such as the Americas for many centuries later.

And that tells you, what? The the end Jesus was talking about wasn't the end of the WORLD but the end of the OT age.

This is where your doctrine fails the test. The world was to hear the gospel and the end would come. The conversation with the disciples centered on the TEMPLE and the END OF THE AGE, THEIR age.

The end of THEIR age came in AD70, right after the gospel was preached to "every creature under heaven".

Nor did Christ visibly return after his ascension.

He never said his return in AD70 was the 2nd coming, nor was He asked about that question.

I knew you would trip over your doctrine again. Why would the disciples ask about His 2nd coming sinece they weren't aware He was GOING up to the Father first at His ascension??

They asked about the sign of His coming and were specifically asking about the coming of His kingdom that He told them about in MATT 16.


MATT 24:3 and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
Mr 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
Lu 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Never was a question centered on the 2nd coming.

[CoreIssue]

But that is impossible to use in Matthew 24 where the phrase 'whole earth' is used. Which kills your doctrine because the Gospel was not preached to such as the Americas for many centuries later.And that tells you, what? The the end Jesus was talking about wasn't the end of the WORLD but the end of the OT age.

This is where your doctrine fails the test. The world was to hear the gospel and the end would come. The conversation with the disciples centered on the TEMPLE and the END OF THE AGE, THEIR age.

The end of THEIR age came in AD70, right after the gospel was preached to "every creature under heaven".
No, Len. The OT Mosaic Covenant ended at the Cross. The Church began immediately.

No, the Gospel was not preached to every creature under the Heaven. Who preached to the Americas. You keep dodging that simple question in connection to the whole earth.

Whole Earth, Len. Literally stated. Didn't happen until the 20th century.
Nor did Christ visibly return after his ascension.He never said his return in AD70 was the 2nd coming, nor was He asked about that question.

I knew you would trip over your doctrine again. Why would the disciples ask about His 2nd coming sinece they weren't aware He was GOING up to the Father first at His ascension??
Again you try to bait and switch.

It says after a long string of events, which did not happen, including preaching the Gospel to the WHOLE WORLD, literal words whose meanings you cannot change and even pretend to be literal, he would appear visibly to ALL NATIONS and gather his elect to him.

At 70 AD the elect of Jerusalem were scattered to the nations, not gathered from the nations. Yet another problem for you.

As for a Second Coming, because it was a known OT prophecy Len. Simple as that.
MATT 24:3 and what shall be the sign of thy coming,
Mr 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
Lu 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Never was a question centered on the 2nd coming.Don't you ever stop trying to restate what was said?
and what will be the sign of your coming Direct question, one of three.

Answered here:
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. 36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024&version=31#fen-NIV-23991f)] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' 49and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Pretty big answers for an unimportant question.


All the questions were asked equally. None had priority and all were related to each other.

Now, I repeat, who preached to the Americas, Len?

[kay-gee]

I dont want to get in the way hear but I just cant resist. Core, You claimed there was no apostacy in the early apostlic chuch? I think you need to read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Gnosticism had taken root in at least one of the congregations (Sardis) False apostles in Ephesus, Baal in Pergamum, Jezebel in Thyatira, complacancy in Laodicea. One church of seven gets a good commendation (Philadelphia). The time frame you have yourself for writing of Revelation...Perfect!
Revelation is YOUR book...read it "literally"....results the same.

Soory to but in but I could not let a statement such as that go unchallenged.

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

No, Len. The OT Mosaic Covenant ended at the Cross. The Church began immediately.

Core, Temple sacrifices continued up to AD70. During this time all the Jesus prophesied about came true and the end came for that age.

As KG stated there was apostasy, there were also earthquakes and famine.

Direct question, one of three.

Answered here:
Quote:
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

So they asked the question before that statement was even made? ??
Stay away from literal, Core, it isn't your strong suit.

Let me address the rest of your spiritualizations:

Now, as for AoD.
Quote:
15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel
Quote:
20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.
Inside the Temple versus around the city. No mention of Abomination with the army. Not the same issue at all, unless you want to attach abomination to every time desolation is used in the Bible.

The Romans were never inside the Temple? How did they tear it down?
Maybe a laser guided missile.

False claim here, Len. They are different issues.

Now, how does the Bible use AoD? It is well defined and always a Temple issue.
Quote:

1. Isaiah 66:3
But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense, like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations;
Isaiah 66:2-4 (in Context) Isaiah 66 (Whole Chapter)
2. Daniel 9:27
He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. "
Daniel 9:26-27 (in Context) Daniel 9 (Whole Chapter)
3. Daniel 11:31
"His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
Daniel 11:30-32 (in Context) Daniel 11 (Whole Chapter)
4. Daniel 12:11
"From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
Daniel 12:10-12 (in Context) Daniel 12 (Whole Chapter)
5. Matthew 24:15
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
Matthew 24:14-16 (in Context) Matthew 24 (Whole Chapter)
6. Mark 13:14
"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mark 13:13-15 (in Context) Mark 13 (Whole Chapter)

Core, Luke clearly describes the abomination (The Roman armies) that cause desolation.


Note Daniel ALWAYS uses it in reference to Temple.

In 167 BC Antiochus Epiphanes set up an alter to Zeus in the Temple. It was called an Abomination of Desolation.

So, the Bible is very clear on what an AoD is. An army around Jerusalem is not an AoD nor is ever called one in Luke.

Luke is speaking of the very DISCUSSION that Mark and Matthew are.
Mark and Matthew stated abomination-desolation, where Luke used Jerusalem surrounded by armies.

EACH of the versions are followed by "let them in Judea flee to the mountains.
Either you refuse to see it or you enjoy chasing your tail.

There was no AoD in 70 AD. The Gospel was not preached to the whole world until the 20th Century. When I was young they were still finding unknown tribes in the Amazon, in example

Then you're argument is with scripture. I go by what's written and you use other means that aren't in the bible. I use literal, you're using your opinion.

Matthew 24 requires a whole list of issue to transpire before the Temple and Jerusalem issues occur. They have not because there is no Temple for them to occur in, yet.

They did not happen in 70 AD because the requirements, just in Matthew 24, alone, could not and did not happen at that time.

So much for your literal proof and proving me wrong, Len.

Yeah, and I hope there's lots of people watching.

I repeat, you do not read literally, jump all over the Bible, and then try to spin things to fit your doctrine.

Nor do I care if you have ever studied RCC theology. Amil was invented by them and carried over into Protestant denominations when they split off. Others have latched onto it and modified it in different ways.

But that does not change the fact you learned this doctrine by studying the teachings of others. You did not see it in the Bible on your own.

You have nothing to move onto for my further pain and education. These two arguments just blew up in your face, my friend.

I suppose if you can't argue using scripture you need to attack something, the Catholics, Amill, whatever.
That's the general reaction by someone who's cornered.

At least your drowning on your home field (where only two other people participate) as opposed to a larger audience. I wouldn't take your act on the road, if I were you.

On to the nest verses

[CoreIssue]

I dont want to get in the way hear but I just cant resist. Core, You claimed there was no apostacy in the early apostlic chuch? I think you need to read the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Gnosticism had taken root in at least one of the congregations (Sardis) False apostles in Ephesus, Baal in Pergamum, Jezebel in Thyatira, complacancy in Laodicea. One church of seven gets a good commendation (Philadelphia). The time frame you have yourself for writing of Revelation...Perfect!
Revelation is YOUR book...read it "literally"....results the same.

Soory to but in but I could not let a statement such as that go unchallenged.

all the best...
There was no Great Apostacy that Christ spoke about in Matthew or as talked about in Thessalonians. This was the time of the Church in massive growth, not decline, as it is today.

Notice what you just did? You jumped over all the other requirements and picked up on that one because you thought you could make it fit your thinking.

The list of required signs didn't happen. There was no AoD. The whole world was not preached to.

So, no, it is not a perfect fit for Revelation.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25 Behold, I have told you before.

26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Since Core is an Esubius fan (and used his works in another debate) I'll do the same:

Chapter XXII.—Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions.

“And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas,12301230 See Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4. was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

“Therefore,12311231 Διὰ τοῦτο. Valesius proposes to read μέχρι τούτου, which certainly makes better sense and which finds some support in the statement made by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 32, §7. But all the mss. have διὰ τοῦτο, and, as Stroth remarks, the illogical use of “therefore” at this point need not greatly surprise us in view of the general looseness of Hegesippus’ style. The phrase is perhaps used proleptically, with a reference to what follows. they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

5. But Thebuthis,12321232 Of Thebuthis we know only what is told us here. The statement that he became a heretic because he was not chosen bishop has about as much foundation as most reports of the kind. It was quite common for the Fathers to trace back the origin of schisms to this cause (compare e.g. Tertullian’s Adv. Val. 4, and De Bapt. 17). because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects12331233 The seven sects are mentioned by Hegesippus just below. Harnack maintains that Hegesippus in his treatment of heresies used two sources, one of them being the lost Syntagma of Justin (see his Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 37 sqq.). Lipsius, who in his Quellen der Ketzergesch. combats many of Harnack’s positions, thinks it possible that Hegesippus may have had Justin’s Syntagma before him. among the people, like Simon,12341234 Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3). from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius,12351235 Cleobius is occasionally mentioned as a heretic by ecclesiastical writers, but none of them seems to know anything more about him than is told here by Hegesippus (see the article Cleobius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.). from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus,12361236 Trustworthy information in regard to Dositheus is very scanty, but it is probable that he was one of the numerous Samaritan false messiahs, and lived at about the time of, or possibly before, Christ. “It seems likely that the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord’s time, and that the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus and with John the Baptist [see the Clementine Recognitions, II. 8 and Homilies, II. 24], may be dismissed as merely mythical” (Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. art. Dositheus). from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus,12371237 Epiphanius and Theodoret also mention the Goratheni, but apparently knew no more about them than Hegesippus tells us here, Epiphanius classing them among the Samaritans, and Theodoret deriving them from Simon Magus. from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus,12381238 The name Masbotheus is supported by no ms. authority, but is given by Rufinus and by Nicephorus, and is adopted by most editors. The majority of the mss. read simply Μασβωθαῖοι or Μασβώθεοι. Just below, Hegesippus gives the Masbotheans as one of the seven Jewish sects, while here he says they were derived from them. This contradiction Harnack explains by Hegesippus’ use of two different sources, an unknown oral or written one, and Justin’s Syntagma. The list of heresies given here he maintains stood in Justin’s Syntagma, but the derivation of them from the seven Jewish sects cannot have been Justin’s work, nor can the list of the seven sects have been made by Justin, for he gives quite a different list in his Dialogue, chap. 80. Lipsius, p. 25, thinks the repetition of the “Masbotheans” is more easily explained as a mere oversight or accident. The Apostolic Const. VI. 6 name the Masbotheans among Jewish sects, describing them as follows: “The Basmotheans, who deny providence, and say that the world is ruled by spontaneous motion, and take away the immortality of the soul.” From what source this description was taken we do not know, and cannot decide as to its reliability. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) remarks that “our real knowledge is limited to the occurrence of the name in Hegesippus, and there is no reason to think that any of these who have undertaken to explain it knew any more about the matter than ourselves.” from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists,12391239

On Menander and the Menandrianists, see Bk. II. chap. 26; on the Carpocratians, chap. 7, note 17; on the Valentinians, see chap. 11, note 1; on the Basilidæans, chap. 7, note 7; on the Saturnilians, chap. 7, note 6. and Marcionists,12401240 There is some dispute about this word. The Greek is Μαρκιανισταί, which Harnack regards as equivalent to Μαρκιωνισταί, or “followers of Marcion,” but which Lipsius takes to mean “followers of Marcus.” The latter is clearly epigraphically more correct, but the reasons for reading in this place Marcionites, or followers of Marcion, are strong enough to outweigh other considerations (see Harnack, p. 31 ff. and Lipsius, p. 29 ff.). and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.”


I'm not going to lose any sleep, as to whether or not Core agrees with this.

I'll move on to the next verse/.

[Ltanner09]

I see I skipped a few verses.

Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Anyone remotely familiar with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 knows the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem.
Those that had listened to Christ knew they had to leave.
But how? They were surrounded.

Then the armies disappeared for a brief period of time, allowing those that followed Christ to leave. Those that stayed were swept away in one form or another.

Just like Noah, those in the Lord were provided a means of escape.
Just like Sodom where Lot and his family escaped.
LIke Israel leaving Egypt, a means of escape through the Red Sea was possible.

Believers, up to this time, suffered great tribulation at the hands of unbelievers...but none were subjected to God's wrath which befell unbelieving Jerusalem


Lu 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

[CoreIssue]

Len, discussion over.

You keep circling back to your original arguments while totally disregarding every scrap of evidence that refutes you.

Let the readers make up their own minds.

[Ltanner09]

Maybe Core's at his first amillennial class, so I'll continue.

Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Josephus writes about this event of AD70:

"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 325)
"For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities" (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Ch. 8).

[Ltanner09]

Interestingly enough, Josephus also writes:

It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain.

But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand.

These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes.

For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground."

And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations.

And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

[CoreIssue]

I said it is over, Len. Let the readers decide for themselves. No preaching or teaching from either of us except to answer questions from others.

Your refusal to deal with refutations self evident you cannot deal with them. When you cannot even accept dictionary word meanings it says it all.

We disagree. So be it. But going on is just plain silly.

[Ltanner09]

Mt 24:29 `And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;

Now Core will claim this is a literal event. But OT readers knew what Christ meant as a similar judgment befell Edom:

Isaiah 34:3-5: Also their slain shall be thrown out; their stench shall rise from their corpses, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; all their host shall fall down as the leaf falls from the vine, and as fruit falling from a fig tree. "For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, and on the people of My curse, for judgment.


And Egypt:
Ezekiel 32:7-8: When I put out your light, I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you, and bring darkness upon your land,' says the Lord GOD.

And babylon:
Isaiah 13:9-10: Behold, the day of the LORD comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.

The disciples knew the OT and certainly knew the Christ was talking about coming in judgment upon Jerusalem, and coming in relation to the destruction of the Temple.

But they still didn't know anything about a SECOND coming, so THIS coming had to do with Christ's kingdom, destroying the old way of doing OT business.

But, buy some masterful rearrangement of scriptures.....Core would have us believe that Christ was speaking to His second coming here.

Pre Mill/Dispensationalists would have us believe that the disciples KNEW about a second coming, but had yet to be taught such.

Mt 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;

31 and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.


Now Core will say, "can't be"....it's future..... but Matthew tells us that God's wrath was waiting at the door :

Mt 3:7 And having seen many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming about his baptism, he said to them, `Brood of vipers! who did shew you to flee from the coming wrath?

But we'll get to this shortly. (Not pre mill's shortly, which is something like 2,000 years.)

On that note, recall that Daniel was told to seal up his prophecy because the time was far off for it's fulfillment. (500 something years)

Yet John, in Revelation, was told NOT to seal up the vision because the time was at hand. But pre mill states that "at hand=2,000 years????????

Hope Core can stick around. Maybe we should debate, verse by verse, the NT.:eek:

[CoreIssue]

Len, over means over.

There are 9 pages of reading. So the case for both sides is made. More is beating a dead horse.

Let it go.

Keeping going is preaching. From either of us. Not allowed or wanted here.

Do you understand the meanings of futility and being redundant?

[Ltanner09]

I said it is over, Len. Let the readers decide for themselves

I was so looking forward to the "this generation" section of Matt 24.

I suppose I'll zip through the rest.

Mt 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Pre mill loves this part, the ones taken are the raptured. But wait, what was Jesus actually saying?

Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Rut roh. Don't wanna be taken after all in that scenario.

Mt 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

No one knew the hour.

The rest is self explanatory (for the literal readers).

Even the following:
Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Pre mill really wants that verse to say "THAT" generation. Ask Core.

How is "this generation" used elsewhere in the NT?

Mt 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

Mt 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Mt 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Mt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Lu 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like?

Lu 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

Lu 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

Lu 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Lu 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Christ was speaking to the generation alive during His ministry.

All of the signs in Matt 24 were to be seen by the generation alive then. Not over 2,000 years later.

If nothing else, reading the bible literally will cause the correct conclusion to be reached.
As was seen here, a spin is required to reach a different conclusion than what is written.

If the bible says the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, then I believe God did it. Don't know how and am not going to question it.

Like I've said before, some people will do damage to scripture to solidify their doctrine. Core is smarter than this and hopefully he'll see the pre mill doctrine has more holes than can be filled with scripture.

[Ltanner09]

Fine, I'm done.

[kay-gee]

Ltanner....is it safe to surmise then, that God was through with Israel as a chosen people and the Judaic religious system at 70 AD? There is some overlap there as the Christian system began at Pentecost 33 AD. It seems to me that would imply 2 separate purposes of God had to be in play at the same time.

all the best...

[Ltanner09]

KG, it appears (through further NT writings) that the apostles continued to go along with the OT program in order to get the Jews to accept the Lord.

1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

[CoreIssue]

Ltanner....is it safe to surmise then, that God was through with Israel as a chosen people and the Judaic religious system at 70 AD? There is some overlap there as the Christian system began at Pentecost 33 AD. It seems to me that would imply 2 separate purposes of God had to be in play at the same time.

all the best...
The Judaism system never ended, KG. It exists today.

If you mean covenants, the Mosaic Covenant ended at the cross, 26 or 27 AD and the Church Age began at the cross as well.

Christ was not born at 0. He was born 6 or 7 BC.

[Ltanner09]

Core wrote:
The Judaism system never ended, KG. It exists today

Yes it does, but that wasn't the question, which was:

is it safe to surmise then, that God was through with Israel as a chosen people and the Judaic religious system at 70 AD?

God was done with Judaism at the cross, but the disciples still tried getting those in that system out.

The unbelieving Jews today reject Christ and in doing so reject the Father.
Their system, no matter how it's modified....is not recognized by God.

[CoreIssue]

Len, Here is a pinpoint answer to KG. Maybe you can see the answer this time.

Ltanner....is it safe to surmise then, that God was through with Israel as a chosen peopleNo. God is not through with Israel as the chosen people. After all the postings showing the Temple existing in the future, Israel returning and more, you still refuse to read the words literally.

Your right to do so. But obviously you also have rejected the literal demands of Matthew 24, in example, that show a Temple in the future.

I also asked you who preached to the Americas before 70 AD and didn't get an answer from you either.

So be it. You don't have an answer and really do not care to find one any more the Len does. That is obvious.

Just don't call it reading literally, as Len tries to do.
and the Judaic religious system at 70 AD?The system continues until this day, but the Mosaic Covenant in which it functioned ended at the cross.
There is some overlap there as the Christian system began at Pentecost 33 AD. No overlap. The Mosaic Covenant ended at the cross in 26/27 AD. So while the rituals continued until 70 AD their purpose did not.

The Apostles did go to meetings to try to convert Jews. But that did not make system functional in an true meaning.
It seems to me that would imply 2 separate purposes of God had to be in play at the same time.No. Only the Church was relevant after the cross. The Apostles went as a mechanism to convert. Just as Paul went into the baths to engage the Romans or to the street of idols to use their gods as an opening to preach about Christ.

Tools only and opportunities only.

[CoreIssue]

KG, who preached to the people in the Americas? Verse says whole world and the words mean all the peoples of the whole world, not a part thereof.

So who did the preaching and got the whole job done in about 43 years between the cross and 70 AD?

Amils won't answer that question. They try to just say the Bible says it happened before 70 AD. So who did the preaching? Please tell me.

History shows it didn't happen until the 20th century. And by golly all the other demands of history have been met as well now.

I want to hear your answer, which is evasive, just happened. Already have Len's, so I don't need a rerun.

Did angels ascend everywhere? Did the Holy Spirit whisper it in everyone's ear? Who?

[Ltanner09]

No. God is not through with Israel as the chosen people. After all the postings showing the Temple existing in the future, Israel returning and more, you still refuse to read the words literally.

Your right to do so. But obviously you also have rejected the literal demands of Matthew 24, in example, that show a Temple in the future.

I also asked you who preached to the Americas before 70 AD and didn't get an answer from you either.

First you say we're done (then repeat it) then raise a question pertaining to it complaining I didn't answer you.

How should I know who preached to this continent in AD70....but I'm not going to question God when He said it was done.

You're questioning the literal, I'm supporting it.

The other issues we've already dealt with on other debates. The chosen people are (now) those in Christ, not based on national origin. God already took the kingdom away from national Israel. He doesn't give it back, He gave it to a nation comprising all who are in Christ, a holy nation.

[kay-gee]

Well Core...seeing as the Bible is Silent on the Americas I can only reply to you with 2 very real possibilities....1) The literal text of Paul and the other writers is referring to the then known world (as in Europe Asia Africa and middle east)

2) There was noone in the Americas as yet to preach too. A uninhabited virgin land

I'm fine with either possibility. All I know is it is literally stated in the Bible that this is so and I have to believe God.

all the best...

[InTheWind]

First you say we're done (then repeat it) then raise a question pertaining to it complaining I didn't answer you.

Your the one that continued to post after Core said it was done. :nod:
My bets are on Core, he answered the questions with verses and Ltanner kept dodging questions and verses to only preach his view.
It always amazes me how those with a wrong doctrine always are on the attack and purposely avoid key verses that prove they are wrong.
I`m going to lock this thread it is going nowhere, if I jumped the gun Core can re-open it.

[CoreIssue]

First you say we're done (then repeat it) then raise a question pertaining to it complaining I didn't answer you. Your the one that continued to post after Core said it was done. :nod:
My bets are on Core, he answered the questions with verses and Ltanner kept dodging questions and verses to only preach his view.
It always amazes me how those with a wrong doctrine always are on the attack and purposely avoid key verses that prove they are wrong.
I`m going to lock this thread it is going nowhere, if I jumped the gun Core can re-open it.
No, ITW, you didn't jump the gun.

My final post is, Len, I posted to KG, not you. We were done.

KG, you said:
Well Core...seeing as the Bible is Silent on the AmericasIt isn't silent. But that is a whole other thread.
I can only reply to you with 2 very real possibilities....1) The literal text of Paul and the other writers is referring to the then known world (as in Europe Asia Africa and middle east)[/quote]Which means you did not read my posts. I posted the definitions. 'Whole earth' means the whole earth, not just the known nations. That is a different definition application not allowed by the 'whole earth' phrase.
2) There was noone in the Americas as yet to preach too. A uninhabited virgin landThe Americas had well developed societies for millennia before 70 AD.

And there are all the other requirements that didn't happen back then, and still have not happened today.

Enough said.

[CoreIssue]

First you say we're done (then repeat it) then raise a question pertaining to it complaining I didn't answer you. Your the one that continued to post after Core said it was done. :nod:
My bets are on Core, he answered the questions with verses and Ltanner kept dodging questions and verses to only preach his view.
It always amazes me how those with a wrong doctrine always are on the attack and purposely avoid key verses that prove they are wrong.
I`m going to lock this thread it is going nowhere, if I jumped the gun Core can re-open it.
No, ITW, you didn't jump the gun.

My final post is, Len, I posted to KG, not you. We were done.

KG, you said:
Well Core...seeing as the Bible is Silent on the AmericasIt isn't silent. But that is a whole other thread.
I can only reply to you with 2 very real possibilities....1) The literal text of Paul and the other writers is referring to the then known world (as in Europe Asia Africa and middle east)Which means you did not read my posts. I posted the definitions. 'Whole earth' means the whole earth, not just the known nations. That is a different definition application not allowed by the 'whole earth' phrase.
2) There was noone in the Americas as yet to preach too. A uninhabited virgin landThe Americas had well developed societies for millennia before 70 AD.

And there are all the other requirements that didn't happen back then, and still have not happened today.

Enough said.