The Cancer of X9 thought

[Hitch]

I asked an avid X9er recently how he could account for a pre-tribulational rapture in the light of John 6;39;


John 6:39-40
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
(KJV)

To my utter astonishment he answered that Jesus was wrong.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Blew my mind. I hadnt expected to ever here from a self professed christian leader that Jesus Christ ever said anything recorded in Scripture that was incorrect. ... Im still just sort of shocked,, I had some clown tell me Pete was wrong about Joel's prophecy in Acts 2 once but never never has any believer made the slightest suggestion to me that Christ is or even might be mistaken about anything.





This is the stuff cults are made of.

H

[drbrumley]

:argh:

Come on Hitch, instead of beating a topic to death like dispensationalism, why not focus your skills on (in your words) more meaningful topics?:yipee:

[Hitch]

drbrumley:
:argh:

Come on Hitch, instead of beating a topic to death like dispensationalism, why not focus your skills on (in your words) more meaningful topics?:yipee: Perhaps you're in the wrong place, this is 'Dispensationalism 101'

H

[joelkaki]

drbrumley, I think that this topic needs to be "beat to death." Dispensationalism is extremely prominent in America at present, and I feel that people need to be made aware of its errors/

Joel

[Popeye]

Give it a few decades and I'm sure it will go away, at least for the most part. A generation can only last so long. I'll bet that we'll see a lot more preterists sooner or later when things aren't going as "predicted".

[GrayPilgrim]

But there is a way to do it with out being a bleeting jerk!

[Hitch]

02-21-2003 @ 06:15 AM
GrayPilgrim:

But there is a way to do it with out being a bleeting jerk! Perhpas I should adopt the condescending approach,,, ya know like that Gray Pilgirm guy...

[GrayPilgrim]

That is your approach and has been as long as I've seen your posts.

[Hitch]

02-21-2003 @ 06:14 AM
Popeye:

Give it a few decades and I'm sure it will go away, at least for the most part. A generation can only last so long. I'll bet that we'll see a lot more preterists sooner or later when things aren't going as "predicted". Well that might work on run of the mill DFs Pops but these kind might just up and decide Jesus was wrong about the 'generation' thing as well.

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

02-21-2003 @ 06:29 AM
GrayPilgrim:

That is your approach and has been as long as I've seen your posts. Then stop following me around and you wont have a problem. And BTW I'll ask a favor.. Could you drop out of MODERATOR mode,,just for a day or so so I can put you on ignore?

Wouldnt that save us both needless trouble?

Now MODERATOR I'll remind you of the rules and ask that you post something with respect to the topic or please stay off the thread.

You and DrBrumly can start a whine at Hitch thread somewhere else.

HITCH

[Bill the Cat]

sorry, but I fail to see the relevance for dispensationalism of these verses unless you are referring to the "Raise him up in the last day" part. That's easy enough for a pre-tribber like myself.

[joelkaki]

Today @ 12:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72762#post72762)
Bill the Cat:

sorry, but I fail to see the relevance for dispensationalism of these verses unless you are referring to the "Raise him up in the last day" part. That's easy enough for a pre-tribber like myself.

I believe that is what he was referring to. How do you explain it?

Joel

[The Curtmudgeon]

02-21-2003 @ 12:14 AM Popeye:

Give it a few decades and I'm sure it will go away....

Heh heh. As a dispensationalist/PreMiller myself, I have a tendency to agree! Of course, you and I won't agree on the reason why or the means by which it'll go away....

The ("I'll fly away, oh Lordy, I'll fly away") Curtmudgeon

[Bill the Cat]

04-19-2003 @ 11:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73143#post73143)
joelkaki:



I believe that is what he was referring to. How do you explain it?

Joel

Easily enough.

To speak of being raised up in the last day was the same as to say that one was righteous, or it was spoken of as the special privilege of the righteous. In accordance with this, Paul says, “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead,” Phi_3:11.

Edit:
To Curtmudgeon:
:thumb: My pastor says he's gonna beat us there. He's bald and has less wind resistance :rofl:

[Hitch]

Easily enough.

To speak of being raised up in the last day was the same as to say that one was righteous, or it was spoken of as the special privilege of the righteous. In accordance with this, Paul says, “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead,” Phi_3:11.


To speak of being raised up in the last day was the same as to say that one was righteous Hmmmmm I reckon no one told John:


John 12:48
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
(KJV)


I dont think rejecting Christ counts as righteousness.


Not that righteousness is a requirement for resurrection:


John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)


Cat you're up too late for us workin folks...

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

To speak of being raised up in the last day was the same as to say that one was righteous Hmmmmm I reckon no one told John:


John 12:48
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
(KJV)


Refers to being judged at the resurrection of the damned not resurrection of the just. I believe these are 2 separate events.

John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)

See passage from Daniel that this was taken from:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not the general resurrection, but that of those who share in the first resurrection; the rest of the dead being not to rise till the end of the thousand years (Rev_20:3, Rev_20:5-6; compare 1Co_15:23; 1Th_4:16).

Cat you're up too late for us workin folks...

Sorry Hitch. I'm on midnight shift this month. I forgot to cite my source on the first verse too. Adam Clark's commentary.

[Darth Xena]

Bill that is impossible. Jesus in John 5 makes the resurrection of the damned and saved as ONE event occuring at the same time, on the last day. It is not two separate events whatsover.

[Bill the Cat]

So can you explain Rev 20:5 and 6. 5 says:
Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

and then 6 says

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Verse 5 seems to say resurrection after the Mil. reign and verse 6 says they will reign with Jesus during the Mil reign.

Verse 4 talks about those beheaded for Christ during the trib (not worshipping the Beast) being resurrected before the Mill began. That's the first resurrection. Rev 20:13 then talks about the res. of the damned. 2 separate events.

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 07:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75266#post75266)
Bill the Cat:




Refers to being judged at the resurrection of the damned not resurrection of the just. I believe these are 2 separate events. Why?



See passage from Daniel that this was taken from:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not the general resurrection, but that of those who share in the first resurrection; the rest of the dead being not to rise till the end of the thousand years (Rev_20:3, Rev_20:5-6; compare 1Co_15:23; 1Th_4:16). ....

] First of all this has nothing to do with John six or any part of John's gospel. Secondly at the time Jesus spoke none of the Apocalypse existed, so that reference is impossible. A reference to something privious is ok but you cant refer to what didnt exist at the time. But I'll answer anyways... []



Sorry Hitch. I'm on midnight shift this month. I forgot to cite my source on the first verse too. Adam Clark's commentary. [/QUOTE]

The First Resurrection is a resurrection in which we all have a part and it is the only resurrection guarenteed to all believers.


Rev 20:6
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(KJV)

:Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: Jesus says:


John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,[ and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. the only way 'from death unto life' is resurrection and Jesus solemly claims this is a current reality of the believer.

(KJV)

on such the second death hath no power][: Jesus says;

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(KJV)

but they shall be priests of God Pete says;


1 Pet 2:9
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
(KJV)


, and shall reign with him a thousand yearsPaul says;
Rom 5:17
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
(KJV)

Seems we have Rev 20 pretty well covered in what Christ has already done on our behalf and the thousand years? Well if we 'reign in life in Christ' and 'to die is gain',,, its obvious bodily death has no negative effect on our royal status in Christ.

Take care

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

Refers to being judged at the resurrection of the damned not resurrection of the just. I believe these are 2 separate events.
Why?
Because of Rev 20, which I still don’t think is properly handled.


See passage from Daniel that this was taken from:
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not the general resurrection, but that of those who share in the first resurrection; the rest of the dead being not to rise till the end of the thousand years (Rev_20:3, Rev_20:5-6; compare 1Co_15:23; 1Th_4:16). ....

] First of all this has nothing to do with John six or any part of John's gospel. Secondly at the time Jesus spoke none of the Apocalypse existed, so that reference is impossible. A reference to something privious is ok but you cant refer to what didnt exist at the time. But I'll answer anyways...

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown concur with me.
The resurrection of both classes is an exercise of sovereign authority; but in the one case it is an act of grace, in the other of justice. (Compare Dan_12:2, from which the language is taken)



The First Resurrection is a resurrection in which we all have a part and it is the only resurrection guaranteed to all believers.

I agree. The righteous will be resurrected at the inception of the Millenium and reign with Christ for 1000 years.

Rev 20:6
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
(KJV)

:Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection:

Sorry, got to break in here. Rev 20:6 in context is referring to those saints who were beheaded for Christ (v4). That’s a physical death. Hence a physical resurrection. (v6)


Jesus says:


John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,[ and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. the only way 'from death unto life' is resurrection and Jesus solemly claims this is a current reality of the believer. (KJV)

John Gill says about this:
both from a moral death to a spiritual life, being quickened, who before was dead in trespasses and sins; and from under a sentence of condemnation, and eternal death, which as a descendant of Adam, and according to the tenor of the law of works, he was subject to, to an open state of justification, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace; the righteousness of Christ being revealed to him, and received by faith, and the sentence of justification passed upon his conscience by the Spirit; so that he who before, in his own apprehension, was a dead man in a law sense, is now alive to God, and secure from the second death, and being hurt by it.

Death loses it’s sting. We have the guarantee of eternal life, but this is not the resurrection. It is our “born again” experience. Even Nicodemus understood as much.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Notice he didn’t say he had to die to be reborn as in a resurrection. Spiritual rebirth and resurrection are two separate things.


on such the second death hath no power][: Jesus says;

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(KJV)

Once again, it is talking about our regeneration, not our resurrection. Jesus had to physically die to be resurrected. We are no different.


but they shall be priests of God Pete says;


1 Pet 2:9
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
(KJV)

Who is this talking about? It refers to the Gentiles being received into the family of God, not the resurrection. 1Pet 2:10


, and shall reign with him a thousand yearsPaul says;
Rom 5:17
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
(KJV)


It does not refer to THIS life, but life after the resurrection, which is true life.
Rev 20:4 realizes this.

Seems we have Rev 20 pretty well covered in what Christ has already done on our behalf and the thousand years?

And I see it as not well covered.

Well if we 'reign in life in Christ' and 'to die is gain',,, its obvious bodily death has no negative effect on our royal status in Christ.

And that’s not even a factor. I have showed that Rev 20:4 speaks of 1 resurrection of the faithful dead (beheaded) who did not take the mark nor worshipped the Beast and that verse 12-13 refers to a second resurrection of everyone else.

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76178#post76178)
Bill the Cat:


Why?
Because of Rev 20, which I still don’t think is properly handled.[/quote] Hmmm the original hearer of Christ's word didnt have that option, and following this logic could never have arrived at the proper conclusion, so taking Christ at his word wlould have led to error.




] First of all this has nothing to do with John six or any part of John's gospel. Secondly at the time Jesus spoke none of the Apocalypse existed, so that reference is impossible. A reference to something privious is ok but you cant refer to what didnt exist at the time. But I'll answer anyways...

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown concur with me.
The resurrection of both classes is an exercise of sovereign authority; but in the one case it is an act of grace, in the other of justice. (Compare Dan_12:2, from which the language is taken) [/quote]Well dont you think Jesus is the better interpreter?





I agree. The righteous will be resurrected at the inception of the Millenium and reign with Christ for 1000 years. The logistics of this idea are frightening. Imagine a few millions of resurrected glorified saints (Or just few if only those beheaded will be on hand?) wandering about with the fallen men and sinners. And the purpose is yet to be considered. why would Christ again leave the Throne to take up residence in time and on earth? Especially if after 1000 years of this perfection the end result is rebellion? After all isnt Christ ruling in his Kingdom today? I fugured it out and if memory serves ,if Jesus could spend one minute with a guest (pilgrim?) assuming every body would want to see Him personally,(I certainly would, )He could see about 5 million visitors a year. that assumes a 24/7 week , no breaks .I wonder how many would die waiting in line. And of course this doesnt do justice to Psalm 110.



Sorry, got to break in here. Rev 20:6 in context is referring to those saints who were beheaded for Christ (v4). That’s a physical death. Hence a physical resurrection. (v6) Pity those cruxified... So Paul will attend but not Pete? Aint literalism grand?




John Gill says about this:
both from a moral death to a spiritual life, being quickened, who before was dead in trespasses and sins; and from under a sentence of condemnation, and eternal death, which as a descendant of Adam, and according to the tenor of the law of works, he was subject to, to an open state of justification, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace; the righteousness of Christ being revealed to him, and received by faith, and the sentence of justification passed upon his conscience by the Spirit; so that he who before, in his own apprehension, was a dead man in a law sense, is now alive to God, and secure from the second death, and being hurt by it. John uses 'passed from dath unto life' to illustrate the spiritual rebirth. Quite correct. Paul is a little more pointed:

Eph 2:5-6
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)

Together with Christ.... like partners?

Of course they are not talking about bodily resurrection, still Paul expressly states the our salvation is part and parcel to the bodily resurrection of Christ. The point being that John (passed from death unto life)and Paul ( raised up) use resurrection to illustrate salvation




Death loses it’s sting. We have the guarantee of eternal life, but this is not the resurrection. It is our “born again” experience. Even Nicodemus understood as much.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

Notice he didn’t say he had to die to be reborn as in a resurrection. Spiritual rebirth and resurrection are two separate things. 'Spiritual rebirth' is spoken of by the apsotles and Christ in terms of resurrection and it is required for eternal life, whereas bodily resurrection is not. This alone shows the greater importance of the spiritual aspect.






Once again, it is talking about our regeneration, not our resurrection. Jesus had to physically die to be resurrected. We are no different. Interesting how the Apostles talk more about regeneration in terms of resurrection than the actual bodily resurrection.




Who is this talking about? It refers to the Gentiles being received into the family of God, not the resurrection. 1Pet 2:10Actually it is the Apostolic interpretation os several Ot passages including Deut. 10;15 and Issy 61;6. All ancient promises made to Israel granted and fulfilled in the church, today.




It does not refer to THIS life, but life after the resurrection, which is true life.
Rev 20:4 realizes this. Why do you literalize R 20 but not R19?



And I see it as not well covered.



And that’s not even a factor. I have showed that Rev 20:4 speaks of 1 resurrection of the faithful dead (beheaded) who did not take the mark nor worshipped the Beast and that verse 12-13 refers to a second resurrection of everyone else. Well to repeat an important source on these matters;


John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)

'All that are in the graves' so much for literalism...


Take care

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

Because of Rev 20, which I still don’t think is properly handled.

Hmmm the original hearer of Christ's word didn’t have that option, and following this logic could never have arrived at the proper conclusion, so taking Christ at his word would have led to error.

So why bother with Revelation at all? Or for that matter, why did Paul even bother explaining anything. Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument. Jesus didn’t spell everything out every time He spoke. The rez was never His central focus, but salvation was. But the thrust of Revelation was the rez, so it would make sense for it to be clarified there.






I agree. The righteous will be resurrected at the inception of the Millenium and reign with Christ for 1000 years.

The logistics of this idea are frightening. Imagine a few millions of resurrected glorified saints (Or just few if only those beheaded will be on hand?) wandering about with the fallen men and sinners.

Ok, so what’s the problem with that? We will reign with Christ over them.

And the purpose is yet to be considered. why would Christ again leave the Throne to take up residence in time and on earth?

Because the text says He will. Isaiah describes this time in Chapter 11.

Especially if after 1000 years of this perfection the end result is rebellion?

Rebellion by whom? Rev 20:7 says that Satan is released from his prison and deceive the people, but the saints will persevere.

After all isnt Christ ruling in his Kingdom today?

Rev 1:5 makes that clear that He is the ruler of Kings. Is He ruling in His kingdom, yes. But until Satan is put under His feet, Satan is still the ruler of this world.

I fugured it out and if memory serves ,if Jesus could spend one minute with a guest (pilgrim?) assuming every body would want to see Him personally,(I certainly would, )He could see about 5 million visitors a year. that assumes a 24/7 week , no breaks .I wonder how many would die waiting in line.

That’s just plain silly. You act like it’s the pope on parade. The Mill is after huge portions of people are killed for following the Beast.

And of course this doesnt do justice to Psalm 110.

I don’t see how you get that. It fits quite nicely IMHO. But lemme know which verse you are referring to.

Sorry, got to break in here. Rev 20:6 in context is referring to those saints who were beheaded for Christ (v4). That’s a physical death. Hence a physical resurrection. (v6)

Pity those cruxified... So Paul will attend but not Pete? Aint literalism grand?

Well, 1) these are the trib saints and
2) beheaded Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of pelekizō, old word (from pelekus an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See Rev_6:9; Rev_18:24; Rev_19:2 for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (Rev_1:9; Rev_12:17; Rev_19:10). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ’s victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in Rev_13:15; Rev_14:9.; Rev_16:2; Rev_19:20. WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson

So it’s not literally only those beheaded, but those who refused to take the mark. But they are still resurrected.

John uses 'passed from death unto life' to illustrate the spiritual rebirth. Quite correct. Paul is a little more pointed:

Eph 2:5-6
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)

Together with Christ.... like partners?

So does that mean we sit in heavenly places right now? I don’t think so.

Of course they are not talking about bodily resurrection, still Paul expressly states that our salvation is part and parcel to the bodily resurrection of Christ. The point being that John (passed from death unto life)and Paul ( raised up) use resurrection to illustrate salvation

Because especially for Paul, the resurrection was the final outcome of our salvation, not the immediate reality. As Gordon Fee put it, it’s Paul’s “already, but not yet” soteriology.

'Spiritual rebirth' is spoken of by the apsotles and Christ in terms of resurrection and it is required for eternal life, whereas bodily resurrection is not. This alone shows the greater importance of the spiritual aspect.

So you think that when the apostles say we are saved, we are resurrected?

Interesting how the Apostles talk more about regeneration in terms of resurrection than the actual bodily resurrection.

Because their thrust was salvation, not resurrection.

Actually it is the Apostolic interpretation os several Ot passages including Deut. 10;15 and Issy 61;6. All ancient promises made to Israel granted and fulfilled in the church, today.

And here lies where we totally disagree. I don’t believe God has nor will He ever completely cut off Israel. Rev 7 spells out the tribes of Israel that are sealed as saved.

Why do you literalize R 20 but not R19?

Who said I didn’t literalize R 19.



Well to repeat an important source on these matters;


John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)

'All that are in the graves' so much for literalism...

So to follow your lead, those that are alive at the end Strictly by this verse will have no part of hearing His voice. Jesus doesn’t address them at all in this verse.

[Jacob]

mistaken post

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 08:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76299#post76299)
Bill the Cat:



Hmmm the original hearer of Christ's word didn’t have that option, and following this logic could never have arrived at the proper conclusion, so taking Christ at his word would have led to error.

So why bother with Revelation at all? Or for that matter, why did Paul even bother explaining anything. Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument. Jesus didn’t spell everything out every time He spoke. The rez was never His central focus, but salvation was. But the thrust of Revelation was the rez, so it would make sense for it to be clarified there. Odd then in John six he takes time to speak so much of the resurrection. And repeatedly time it so carefully. Had you been there to hear Jesus say these things in his unqualfied amnner wouldnt youhave believed them without qualification?



The logistics of this idea are frightening. Imagine a few millions of resurrected glorified saints (Or just few if only those beheaded will be on hand?) wandering about with the fallen men and sinners.

Ok, so what’s the problem with that? We will reign with Christ over them. Well personally the idea of being in heaven for a thousand yreas or so the coming here to watch men die is not vary appealing. And Chrsit was to be humbled but once. To leave again the Throne he paid so dearly to bring us to is more than I would ask the One who humbles himself to look upon the stars.



Because the text says He will. Isaiah describes this time in Chapter 11.



Rebellion by whom? Rev 20:7 says that Satan is released from his prison and deceive the people, but the saints will persevere. Well ya dont think its drinking coffee with the bros during the release do ya ? R 20;3



Rev 1:5 makes that clear that He is the ruler of Kings. Is He ruling in His kingdom, yes. But until Satan is put under His feet, Satan is still the ruler of this world. Again Jesus has a different idea;

John 12:31
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
(KJV)

This Jesus said just before the Cross. And later Paul adds;


Col 2:14-15
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
(KJV)

The enemy remaining is death ,completely overcome by bodily resurrection and nothing else.




That’s just plain silly. (exactly!)You act like it’s the pope on parade. The Mill is after huge portions of people are killed for following the Beast. OK so all that are left are righteous. They REALLY want to see Jesus personally and theres a billion or so lft. How do you accomodate them?



I don’t see how you get that. It fits quite nicely IMHO. But lemme know which verse you are referring to.



Pity those cruxified... So Paul will attend but not Pete? Aint literalism grand?

Well, 1) these are the trib saints and
2) beheaded Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of pelekizō, old word (from pelekus an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See Rev_6:9; Rev_18:24; Rev_19:2 for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (Rev_1:9; Rev_12:17; Rev_19:10). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ’s victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in Rev_13:15; Rev_14:9.; Rev_16:2; Rev_19:20. WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson

So it’s not literally only those beheaded, but those who refused to take the mark. But they are still resurrected. Well Ive already show that bodily resurrection is not required to meet the standard of R20;6.



So does that mean we sit in heavenly places right now? I don’t think so.


Eph 1:3
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
(KJV)


Eph 2:6
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)

Suit yourself, Paul sure thinks so.

Because especially for Paul, the resurrection was the final outcome of our salvation, not the immediate reality. As Gordon Fee put it, it’s Paul’s “already, but not yet” soteriology.



So you think that when the apostles say we are saved, we are resurrected?
Eph 2:5-6
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)

You have a right to argue with me,but that right does not extend to Paul and this passage is quite plain.



Because their thrust was salvation, not resurrection.



And here lies where we totally disagree. I don’t believe God has nor will He ever completely cut off Israel. Rev 7 spells out the tribes of Israel that are sealed as saved.



Who said I didn’t literalize R 19.
Rev 19:15
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(KJV)

Rev 19:21
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
(KJV)

So do you think its a really big sword? Or is it 'just plain silly' ?






So to follow your lead, those that are alive at the end Strictly by this verse will have no part of hearing His voice. Jesus doesn’t address them at all in this verse. I dont know what you mean here
Cat and there is another one above that I couldnt recall the quote you were addressing, I ll get em later,, chow time

Take care

H

[Bill the Cat]

Hitch, this has been a lot of fun and taxing for me to find info and define and defend my position. I LOVE IT!!! :thumb: and a root beer from me!! :cheers:


So why bother with Revelation at all? Or for that matter, why did Paul even bother explaining anything. Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument. Jesus didn’t spell everything out every time He spoke. The rez was never His central focus, but salvation was. But the thrust of Revelation was the rez, so it would make sense for it to be clarified there.

Odd then in John six he takes time to speak so much of the resurrection. And repeatedly time it so carefully. Had you been there to hear Jesus say these things in his unqualified manner wouldn’t you have believed them without qualification?

The simple fact is we were not there. We have the whole of scripture to form our understanding. Just because Jesus made a statement doesn’t mean the hearer understood exactly the intended meaning. See Nicodemus again. And the parts that were in reference to the last day were spoken to the Pharisees, not the believers. Also Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in Joh_5:28 as in 1Co_15:22 while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned. It is not the general resurrection Jesus speaks of here, but the resurrection of the Just.



Ok, so what’s the problem with that? We will reign with Christ over them.

Well personally the idea of being in heaven for a thousand years or so then coming here to watch men die is not very appealing. And Christ was to be humbled but once. To leave again the Throne he paid so dearly to bring us to is more than I would ask the One who humbles himself to look upon the stars.

No, no. You misunderstand me. I believe in a literal return and 1000-year reign here on Earth of Jesus, not a millennium in heaven. Or were you referring to the wait between His ascension and the rapture of the Church? And to say that Jesus is going to be humbled by coming back shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the millennial reign.


Well ya don’t think its drinking coffee with the bros during the release do ya ? R 20;3 ;
No, Satan will deceive those whose ancestors survived the battle of Armageddon, not the reigning elect.

Again Jesus has a different idea
John 12:31
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
(KJV)

This Jesus said just before the Cross.

But after His resurrection at the visitation of the twelve, Jesus says:
Joh 14:30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;



And later Paul adds;

Col 2:14-15
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
(KJV)

The enemy remaining is death ,completely overcome by bodily resurrection and nothing else.

Actually, the last remaining enemy is the first enemy, temptation. Death has lost its sting, but temptation is still powerful.


OK so all that are left are righteous.

I never said that. Some are, some are not. That’s how Satan can deceive them after being loosed.

They REALLY want to see Jesus personally and theres a billion or so lft. How do you accomodate them?

Mar 10:27b for all things are possible with God."


Well, 1) these are the trib saints and
2) beheaded Genitive of the articular perfect passive participle of pelekizō, old word (from pelekus an axe, the traditional instrument for execution in republican Rome, but later supplanted by the sword), to cut off with an axe, here only in N.T. See Rev_6:9; Rev_18:24; Rev_19:2 for previous mention of these martyrs for the witness of Jesus (Rev_1:9; Rev_12:17; Rev_19:10). Others also besides martyrs shared in Christ’s victory, those who refused to worship the beast or wear his mark as in Rev_13:15; Rev_14:9.; Rev_16:2; Rev_19:20. WORD PICTURES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT by Archibald Thomas Robertson

So it’s not literally only those beheaded, but those who refused to take the mark. But they are still resurrected.


Well I’ve already show that bodily resurrection is not required to meet the standard of R20;6.

Not in my opinion. You merely rehashed O.P. belief that salvation is the resurrection of the righteous and referenced a few verses that don’t really hold up to contextual criticism. (This is just my opinion too)


Eph 1:3
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
(KJV)


Eph 2:6
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
(KJV)


Matthew Henry comments:
What remains yet to be done is here spoken of as though it were already past
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible

John Gill echoes:
and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing;
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

So we don’t sit there now, but it is so sure that it is spoken of as though it already is.

Suit yourself, Paul sure thinks so.

You have a right to argue with me, but that right does not extend to Paul and this passage is quite plain.

You may think so, but I ran it by my best bud’s dad who has his PhD in Pauline studies, and he agrees with my exegesis.


Rev 19:15
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
(KJV)

Rev 19:21
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
(KJV)

The sword is the Word of God as spelled out in Ephesians 6:17 and it does proceed forth from the mouth of the rider. This is symbolic, yes but still literally a physical punishment and destruction. But it is not just confined to this passage. Rev 1:6 says the same thing about the sword, as does Rev 2:16. So it can be understood within the context of Revelation to be symbolic of the Word but still literal in the destructive aspect.

Thanks for a great debate so far Hitch. It’s been really fun!!

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 05:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77226#post77226)
Bill the Cat:

Hitch, this has been a lot of fun and taxing for me to find info and define and defend my position. I LOVE IT!!! :thumb: and a root beer from me!! :cheers: Hieniken please...




Odd then in John six he takes time to speak so much of the resurrection. And repeatedly time it so carefully. Had you been there to hear Jesus say these things in his unqualified manner wouldn’t you have believed them without qualification?

The simple fact is we were not there. We have the whole of scripture to form our understanding. Just because Jesus made a statement doesn’t mean the hearer understood exactly the intended meaning. See Nicodemus again. And the parts that were in reference to the last day were spoken to the Pharisees, not the believers. Also Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in Joh_5:28 as in 1Co_15:22 while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned. It is not the general resurrection Jesus speaks of here, but the resurrection of the Just.

[/quote]
John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)


So somewhere in these two lines you need to find and support a 1,000 year gap.






Well personally the idea of being in heaven for a thousand years or so then coming here to watch men die is not very appealing. And Christ was to be humbled but once. To leave again the Throne he paid so dearly to bring us to is more than I would ask the One who humbles himself to look upon the stars.

No, no. You misunderstand me. I believe in a literal return and 1000-year reign here on Earth of Jesus, not a millennium in heaven. Or were you referring to the wait between His ascension and the rapture of the Church? And to say that Jesus is going to be humbled by coming back shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the millennial reign. [/quote] Hmmmm the King of Glory settled into a nice room in a brick and mortar building in Jerusalem , with sin and death all about ,and again constrained by time. I dont think so Tim...What is the purpose?

The earth is his footstol, not his throne. You are yet to address Pslam 110.



No, Satan will deceive those whose ancestors survived the battle of Armageddon, not the reigning elect.

And this is somehow different from today?



But after His resurrection at the visitation of the twelve, Jesus says:
Joh 14:30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;





Actually, the last remaining enemy is the first enemy, temptation. Death has lost its sting, but temptation is still powerful.




I never said that. Some are, some are not. That’s how Satan can deceive them after being loosed.



Mar 10:27b for all things are possible with God."





Well I’ve already show that bodily resurrection is not required to meet the standard of R20;6.

Not in my opinion. You merely rehashed O.P. belief that salvation is the resurrection of the righteous and referenced a few verses that don’t really hold up to contextual criticism. (This is just my opinion too) [/quote] Are you secure from the Second Death?



Matthew Henry comments:
What remains yet to be done is here spoken of as though it were already past
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible

John Gill echoes:
and in these they are made to sit already; which is so said, because of the certainty of it, for the same glory Christ has, they shall have; and because of their right to such a blessing;
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

So we don’t sit there now, but it is so sure that it is spoken of as though it already is.

Suit yourself, Paul sure thinks so.



You may think so, but I ran it by my best bud’s dad who has his PhD in Pauline studies, and he agrees with my exegesis.

Interesting you quote a famous post millennialist.


Eph 2:6-8
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(KJV)

So ask you friend if you are also waiting to be saved.


Also it is important to remember that we are not physical or spiritual beings. Just as Ace 4 is five in a Blackjack hand Ace 4 is also fifteen. We live in both the phsical and the spiritual at the same time.







The sword is the Word of God as spelled out in Ephesians 6:17 and it does proceed forth from the mouth of the rider. This is symbolic, yes but still literally a physical punishment and destruction. But it is not just confined to this passage. Rev 1:6 says the same thing about the sword, as does Rev 2:16. So it can be understood within the context of Revelation to be symbolic of the Word but still literal in the destructive aspect.

Thanks for a great debate so far Hitch. It’s been really fun!! Like I said you dont literalize R19. That was the main point. But look back to something previous in the Apocalypse. Perhaps you will see this spoken word more akin to the powerful preaching of the Gospel


Rev 12:10-11
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
(KJV)


This is how Christ conquerors his enemies, by conversion through the preaching of the Gospel. Our dear Paul is the prime example. Still there is temporal and eternal destruction for apostates and covenant breakers.

Take care

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

The simple fact is we were not there. We have the whole of scripture to form our understanding. Just because Jesus made a statement doesn’t mean the hearer understood exactly the intended meaning. See Nicodemus again. And the parts that were in reference to the last day were spoken to the Pharisees, not the believers. Also Christ is the Agent of the general resurrection in Joh_5:28 as in 1Co_15:22 while here only the resurrection of the righteous is mentioned. It is not the general resurrection Jesus speaks of here, but the resurrection of the Just.


John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
(KJV)


So somewhere in these two lines you need to find and support a 1,000 year gap.

Once again, John 6 is the resurrection of the just at the beginning of the Mill. John 5 is the general resurrection after the Mill and the commencement of the Judgment. And anyway, to find a gap in a verse of scripture, regardless of duration, is not unheard of.
Jesus reads from Isaiah, and only quotes part of it, because not all of the verse was fulfilled at Jesus' first coming.
Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to thecaptives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
[2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Jesus left off the last part of Isa 61:2, "the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;" on purpose. Because the day of vengeance will occur (for me) or has occurred (for you) at the great tribulation. Now, if there can be an unstated time gap of at least 40 years in one single verse, why not 2000 or more?

Peter, in Acts 2, quotes Joel 2, as being fulfilled because of the outpouring of Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Yet we are (from my view) or they were at Pentecost (your view) still waiting for the "Day of the Lord". Gaps within a verse or even few verses are not unheard of.



No, no. You misunderstand me. I believe in a literal return and 1000-year reign here on Earth of Jesus, not a millennium in heaven. Or were you referring to the wait between His ascension and the rapture of the Church? And to say that Jesus is going to be humbled by coming back shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the millennial reign.
Hmmmm the King of Glory settled into a nice room in a brick and mortar building in Jerusalem , with sin and death all about ,and again constrained by time. I dont think so Tim...What is the purpose?

The millennium will be a time when the world will finally function in the way God had intended. Peace, justice, and prosperity will be hallmarks of this age. Zec. 14:16 tells us that everyone will come to visit Jesus at Jerusalem and Zec. 14:9 tells us that this time is the reign of the Lord over all of the Earth (the Mill).

The earth is his footstool, not his throne.

So you admit He is not reigning here in a millennial reign, because what King reigns on his footstool?

You are yet to address Psalm 110.
What’s to address?
Psa 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
Psa 110:2 The LORD will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies."
Psa 110:3 Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power; In holy array, from the womb of the dawn, Your youth are to You as the dew.
Psa 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."
Psa 110:5 The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
Psa 110:6 He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.
Psa 110:7 He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore He will lift up His head.

You have not addressed Isa. 11 which describes the condition of the Earth during the Mill.

No, Satan will deceive those whose ancestors survived the battle of Armageddon, not the reigning elect

And this is somehow different from today?

Yup. The elect can be deceived today. Also, how can we reign with Christ for 1000 years if we are dead after 60-80?

The world is not Jesus’ just yet either

1 John 5:19 "We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one."





Are you secure from the Second Death?

Well, the first death is what I’m worried about right now. :thumb: Only God knows the state of my heart, not even I can say 100% that it is right before God
Jer 17:9 "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Jer 17:10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

He is the judge, not me.


Eph 2:6-8
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(KJV)

So ask you friend if you are also waiting to be saved.
In a way I am saved as Paul refers to it as the reception of the Spirit. But there is a final eschatological salvation where there will be no doubt.

Also it is important to remember that we are not physical or spiritual beings. Just as Ace 4 is five in a Blackjack hand Ace 4 is also fifteen. We live in both the physical and the spiritual at the same time.

OK?
Like I said you dont literalize R19.

Nor do I literalize Jesus saying He is a vine. The message is still clear. Some things naturally can’t be taken literally, and some can. Where we draw the line is where we differ.

That was the main point. But look back to something previous in the Apocalypse. Perhaps you will see this spoken word more akin to the powerful preaching of the Gospel

Rev 12:10-11
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
(KJV)

The Word (sword of the Spirit) is Jesus (the Word made flesh) and His authority, not ours. Even our testimony is not the very utterance of God, only our words to tell someone else of the hope we have. The verses in Rev that talk of the sword proceeding from His mouth are the words of Christ, not ours. And it is Christ that will destroy with that word and power.

This is how Christ conquerors his enemies, by conversion through the preaching of the Gospel. Our dear Paul is the prime example. Still there is temporal and eternal destruction for apostates and covenant breakers.

See there is destruction for those opposing Him. And Christ dispenses it, not us.


And a final note:
Last winter, I had a conversation with a Preterist who dismissed the notion of saying the Lord’s Prayer. His point was that we should not say “Your Kingdom come” since God’s Kingdom has already arrived.
God Bless
Bill

[Hitch]

2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Jesus left off the last part of Isa 61:2, "the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;" on purpose. Because the day of vengeance will occur (for me) or has occurred (for you) at the great tribulation. Now, if there can be an unstated time gap of at least 40 years in one single verse, why not 2000 or more?


When its becomes neccessary to compare apples (40 years) to watermelons (2.000+) the weakness is exposed.

H

[Hitch]

The Word (sword of the Spirit) is Jesus (the Word made flesh) and His authority, not ours. Even our testimony is not the very utterance of God, only our words to tell someone else of the hope we have. The verses in Rev that talk of the sword proceeding from His mouth are the words of Christ, not ours. And it is Christ that will destroy with that word and power.

How little you grant to speaking in the name of the Lord. And all to protect an eschatological position. too bad.

I wonder,can you tell me when Paul attacked Christ?

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Eph 2:6-8
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(KJV)

So ask you friend if you are also waiting to be saved. ”


In a way I am saved as Paul refers to it as the reception of the Spirit. But there is a final eschatological salvation where there will be no doubt.


Almost a nice catch.

According to Paul you are 'saved' in the very same manner you are 'raised up together'. Its too bad you place eschatology above the obvious . What should be cause for rejoicing for you has become something that needs to be played down for the cause of dogma. Too bad.

take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

And a final note:
Last winter, I had a conversation with a Preterist who dismissed the notion of saying the Lord’s Prayer. His point was that we should not say “Your Kingdom come” since God’s Kingdom has already arrived.
God Bless
Bill

You should have kicked him in the shins. (assuming a female wouldnt be so stupid)

H

[Hitch]

And the purpose is yet to be considered. why would Christ again leave the Throne to take up residence in time and on earth? ”



Because the text says He will. Isaiah describes this time in Chapter 11.


Hmmmmm


Isa 11:1-5
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
(KJV)

Isa 11:6-10
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(KJV)


Well Cat once again Paul cites as a present reality that which you claim to be future.

In that day ;What day? The day the lion will eat straw, there will come a root of Jesse.


Rom 15:12
12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
(KJV)


Not a word regarding the supposed physical presence of the glorified resurrected Christ. Paul uses these passages to confirm the reconcilliation, the promises to the fathers;:
Rom 15:8
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
(KJV)

Take care

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

I'll consolidate the posts.

2] To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Jesus left off the last part of Isa 61:2, "the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;" on purpose. Because the day of vengeance will occur (for me) or has occurred (for you) at the great tribulation. Now, if there can be an unstated time gap of at least 40 years in one single verse, why not 2000 or more?


When its becomes neccessary to compare apples (40 years) to watermelons (2.000+) the weakness is exposed.

Rubbish. A gap in a prophecy is a gap in a prophecy, whether you agree or not. One day to God is like 1000 years to us, so time matters not to Him.



The Word (sword of the Spirit) is Jesus (the Word made flesh) and His authority, not ours. Even our testimony is not the very utterance of God, only our words to tell someone else of the hope we have. The verses in Rev that talk of the sword proceeding from His mouth are the words of Christ, not ours. And it is Christ that will destroy with that word and power.

How little you grant to speaking in the name of the Lord. And all to protect an eschatological position. too bad.

No I don’t knock speaking in the name of God, see my sig line. I just understand that our words are our words as we FEEL the Holy Spirit move us. Can we be wrong??

I wonder,can you tell me when Paul attacked Christ?

He persecuted Christ by persecuting His body.

Eph 2:6-8
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
(KJV)

So ask you friend if you are also waiting to be saved. ”


In a way I am saved as Paul refers to it as the reception of the Spirit. But there is a final eschatological salvation where there will be no doubt.


Almost a nice catch.

According to Paul you are 'saved' in the very same manner you are 'raised up together'. Its too bad you place eschatology above the obvious . What should be cause for rejoicing for you has become something that needs to be played down for the cause of dogma. Too bad.

Exactly as I have showed. It is assured that IF we are saved, it is spoken of as if it already was. It is that much a guarantee. The point I was making was that some who think they are OK, are not. I speak as if I am saved but I understand that the decision ultimately is His. He knows the motivations of my heart much better than I.


And a final note:
Last winter, I had a conversation with a Preterist who dismissed the notion of saying the Lord’s Prayer. His point was that we should not say “Your Kingdom come” since God’s Kingdom has already arrived.

You should have kicked him in the shins. (assuming a female wouldnt be so stupid)

I agree, but why don’t you think it’s stupid to pray for God’s kingdom to come when it’s already here?


And the purpose is yet to be considered. why would Christ again leave the Throne to take up residence in time and on earth? ”



Because the text says He will. Isaiah describes this time in Chapter 11.


Hmmmmm


Isa 11:1-5
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
(KJV)

Isa 11:6-10
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(KJV)


Well Cat once again Paul cites as a present reality that which you claim to be future.

Paul cites four Old Testament passages showing God’s rich mercy to the Gentiles. These are Old Testament passages showing that God’s mercy reaches out to the Gentiles resulting in their salvation. Paul is not saying that Isaiah 11 had been fulfilled, but that it was a prime example of God’s mercy extending to the Gentiles as well.

In that day ;What day? The day the lion will eat straw, there will come a root of Jesse.


Rom 15:12
12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
(KJV)

A simple quote of a promise from God to the Gentiles.


Not a word regarding the supposed physical presence of the glorified resurrected Christ. Paul uses these passages to confirm the reconciliation, the promises to the fathers;:
Rom 15:8
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
(KJV)


Paul uses these verses to show Christ’s offer of salvation was available to the Gentiles as well.

[Hitch]

04-29-2003 @ 04:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81575#post81575)
Bill the Cat:

I'll consolidate the posts.




When its becomes neccessary to compare apples (40 years) to watermelons (2.000+) the weakness is exposed.

Rubbish. A gap in a prophecy is a gap in a prophecy, whether you agree or not. One day to God is like 1000 years to us, so time matters not to Him.[/quote] So should we expect the resurrection in another 1,000 years? Maybe there was a GAP there and all the stories are just,,,stories. after all time doent matter to God right? so he can fib all he wants. .. Rubbish indeed.





How little you grant to speaking in the name of the Lord. And all to protect an eschatological position. too bad.

No I don’t knock speaking in the name of God, see my sig line. I just understand that our words are our words as we FEEL the Holy Spirit move us. Can we be wrong??[/quote] WE are not Apostles nor are WE penning the Holy Scriptures.



He persecuted Christ by persecuting His body.




In a way I am saved as Paul refers to it as the reception of the Spirit. But there is a final eschatological salvation where there will be no doubt.


Almost a nice catch.

According to Paul you are 'saved' in the very same manner you are 'raised up together'. Its too bad you place eschatology above the obvious . What should be cause for rejoicing for you has become something that needs to be played down for the cause of dogma. Too bad.[/QUOTE]

Exactly as I have showed. It is assured that IF we are saved, it is spoken of as if it already was. It is that much a guarantee. The point I was making was that some who think they are OK, are not. I speak as if I am saved but I understand that the decision ultimately is His. He knows the motivations of my heart much better than I.




You should have kicked him in the shins. (assuming a female wouldnt be so stupid)[/QUOTE]

I agree, but why don’t you think it’s stupid to pray for God’s kingdom to come when it’s already here?[/quote] That would be as contrary to what Jesus said as placing great tribulation thousands of years distant from his generation.

I once prayed for a son. He's 22 now . I still pray for him. Now you need to tell me just how we are trnaslated into his kingdom from tje kingdom of darkness, is the kingdom is not here. And please note this notion is directly contrary to Chirst's own word 'the kingdom of God is...'





Hmmmmm


Isa 11:1-5
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
(KJV)

Isa 11:6-10
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
(KJV)


Well Cat once again Paul cites as a present reality that which you claim to be future.

Paul cites four Old Testament passages showing God’s rich mercy to the Gentiles. These are Old Testament passages showing that God’s mercy reaches out to the Gentiles resulting in their salvation. Paul is not saying that Isaiah 11 had been fulfilled, but that it was a prime example of God’s mercy extending to the Gentiles as well.



A simple quote of a promise from God to the Gentiles.





Paul uses these verses to show Christ’s offer of salvation was available to the Gentiles as well. [/QUOTE] Imagine that. Your own hand picked proof text for a temporal kingdom is Apostolicly applied to the opening of the Kingdom to the nations, by your own word. [quote]

Take care

Hitch