Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No offence, but this is terrible reasoning, as I see it. 
By the way, the word "RETURN" [biblically-speaking] IS used only in reference to His Second Coming to the earth (so it is incorrect to use it in reference to our Rapture, strictly speaking [biblically]); see Lk19:12,15,17,19 when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou authority over 10 cities" and "likewise thou... over 5" , and Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." [i.e. as an ALREADY-WED Bridegroom] THEN the meal [the "feast/supper of the Lamb" aka the promised and prophesied earthly MK]
And consider the following (how many times did He "appear" to only SOME before His "Acts 1" visible ascension--which I believe was some "40 days" AFTER His "[ACTIVE] I ascend" which He did ON His Resurrection Day/ON Firstfruit [fulfilling Lev23:10-12 on the very day]):
Mark 16:9 -
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
Mark 16:12 -
"After that ['after these things' - G3326 G3778 - meta tauta] he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country."
Mark 16:14 -
"Afterward [G5305 hysteron (can mean 'lastly')] he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
["MM" being one of those (the "first," it says)... and the "two of them" (Emmaus road walkers) being more of those, who they disbelieved their "word/testimony" about having "seen" Him after His resurrection; and elsewhere in Acts 10:41 it states that He did not appear/manifest/be-visible [G1717] "to all the people," but only to carefully chosen witnesses (only!), meaning the 11 also, etc (1Cor15:1-4)]
By the way, the word "RETURN" [biblically-speaking] IS used only in reference to His Second Coming to the earth (so it is incorrect to use it in reference to our Rapture, strictly speaking [biblically]); see Lk19:12,15,17,19 when He will deal out responsibilities having to do with "have thou authority over 10 cities" and "likewise thou... over 5" , and Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44 "when he will RETURN FROM the wedding..." [i.e. as an ALREADY-WED Bridegroom] THEN the meal [the "feast/supper of the Lamb" aka the promised and prophesied earthly MK]
And consider the following (how many times did He "appear" to only SOME before His "Acts 1" visible ascension--which I believe was some "40 days" AFTER His "[ACTIVE] I ascend" which He did ON His Resurrection Day/ON Firstfruit [fulfilling Lev23:10-12 on the very day]):
Mark 16:9 -
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."
Mark 16:12 -
"After that ['after these things' - G3326 G3778 - meta tauta] he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country."
Mark 16:14 -
"Afterward [G5305 hysteron (can mean 'lastly')] he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
["MM" being one of those (the "first," it says)... and the "two of them" (Emmaus road walkers) being more of those, who they disbelieved their "word/testimony" about having "seen" Him after His resurrection; and elsewhere in Acts 10:41 it states that He did not appear/manifest/be-visible [G1717] "to all the people," but only to carefully chosen witnesses (only!), meaning the 11 also, etc (1Cor15:1-4)]
The "that day" being referred to in verse 3 connects back to the subject of verse 2, not skipping clear back over verse 2 to grab the subject of verse 1. This is the mis-step of all who do not grasp what Paul is actually conveying here. (It is grammatically incorrect to grab way back past the entire verse 2, from the standpoint of verse 3 (and what it is saying)...
Verse 3 is talking about what was said in verse 2--that there were those trying to convince the Thessalonians "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"--Paul is telling them WHY this is NOT SO)
Verse 3 is talking about what was said in verse 2--that there were those trying to convince the Thessalonians "that the day of the Lord IS PRESENT"--Paul is telling them WHY this is NOT SO)
Wrong again....the context of that day not coming is directed at the BODY PRESENCE that is to say OUR GATHERING TOGETHER UNTO HIM....
and the DAY of the LORD is also the DAY of Christ and the DAY of GOD.......PAUL and PETER tie ALL three days together as ONE day....JESUS is LORD, CHRIST and GOD..........
and the DAY of the LORD is also the DAY of Christ and the DAY of GOD.......PAUL and PETER tie ALL three days together as ONE day....JESUS is LORD, CHRIST and GOD..........
-
1
- Show all
The Millerites (from my foggy recollection) were "Historicists" (meaning, they saw the Book of Revelation [meaning the bulk of it, 4:1-chpt19] as describing things which transpire over the course of the past some-2000yrs, starting in the first century), and I've discussed why that is incorrect, based on:
--the SEQUENCE issues in the Olivet Discourse (which SEQUENCE is parallel in Matt22 verse 7 [70ad events] and verse 8 [the far-future events, He "shewed unto His servants" in Rev1:1 (4:1/1:19c / 7:3)], in verse 8's "THEN SAITH HE to his servants" [i.e. AFTER the 70ad events... in the later 95ad writing of "[The] Revelation"])
--the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Rev1:1/22:6 (paralleling the SAME "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Lk18:8[Lk17end] "avenge IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" , and Rom16:20 "shall bruise Satan under your feet IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" [which involves the 1Cor6:3[14] "we SHALL JUDGE ANGELS" thing, which hasn't happened yet]); so the "Historicist" disregards the wording of "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Rev1:1 [/4:1 (re: the FUTURE aspects of the Book); 7:3] and makes it say something that it doesn't say, instead
--the SEQUENCE issues in the Olivet Discourse (which SEQUENCE is parallel in Matt22 verse 7 [70ad events] and verse 8 [the far-future events, He "shewed unto His servants" in Rev1:1 (4:1/1:19c / 7:3)], in verse 8's "THEN SAITH HE to his servants" [i.e. AFTER the 70ad events... in the later 95ad writing of "[The] Revelation"])
--the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Rev1:1/22:6 (paralleling the SAME "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Lk18:8[Lk17end] "avenge IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" , and Rom16:20 "shall bruise Satan under your feet IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" [which involves the 1Cor6:3[14] "we SHALL JUDGE ANGELS" thing, which hasn't happened yet]); so the "Historicist" disregards the wording of "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Rev1:1 [/4:1 (re: the FUTURE aspects of the Book); 7:3] and makes it say something that it doesn't say, instead
The subject of verse 1 (one event only being spoken of in that entire verse 1) is distinct from "what" it was they were being wrongly convinced (and distraught over) in verse 2 (the subject of verse 2).
Verse 3 is referring to the subject of verse 2 (grammatically, and common-sense-sensely
).Paul is telling them WHY it is NOT SO "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense indicative]" (though for them to THINK so was PERFECTLY *REASONABLE*, in view of their present and ongoing, very negative circumstances ['persecutions and tribulations'] they were ongoingly enduring, 2Th1:4 etc)
It is not *reasonable* for US to believe they were distraught over the Lord's Own Presence (nor merely the thought of it), and this indeed is not what Paul was conveying in this text.
Watermark has noted that erchomai (Strong's G2064) is generally used of coming as in Mark 13:26 "coming in the clouds", while parousia (Strong's G3952) is translated as coming Mat 24:3 "the sign of your coming" which in literal translations is "presence".
Ultra-dispensationalist A.E. Knoch in his CLV translates it as presence:
(24: 3 Now at His sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?")
So the question is in the coming or presence do we need to say that this is bodily or "spiritually" as in a Theophany?
(2 Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.)
Interestingly, Paul used Strong's G3918 pareimi ( to be near, i.e. at hand) from which Strong's G3952 parousia is derived to speak of being present in spirit rather than present bodily:
(1 Cor 5:3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present)
Ultra-dispensationalist A.E. Knoch in his CLV translates it as presence:
(24: 3 Now at His sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?")
So the question is in the coming or presence do we need to say that this is bodily or "spiritually" as in a Theophany?
(2 Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.)
Interestingly, Paul used Strong's G3918 pareimi ( to be near, i.e. at hand) from which Strong's G3952 parousia is derived to speak of being present in spirit rather than present bodily:
(1 Cor 5:3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present)
-
1
- Show all
[continuation of my earlier posts/points]
...then if we view...
--2Th2:7b-8a "the One restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [come to be], AND THEN shall that Wicked be revealed"
[to be a close correlation of that which we see written in Lam2:3-4 (ALSO in a "JUDGMENT" context)]
--Lamentation 2:3-4 "He hath drawn back His right hand from before the enemy" [effectively saying, let 'er rip! i.e. SEAL #1, et al]
[note again: this SEQUENCE is repeated 3x in this 2Th2:3-9a context; and is the SAME SEQUENCE which 1Th4-5 also presents]
...then if we view...
--2Th2:7b-8a "the One restraining at present, will restrain, UNTIL out of the midst he be come [come to be], AND THEN shall that Wicked be revealed"
[to be a close correlation of that which we see written in Lam2:3-4 (ALSO in a "JUDGMENT" context)]
--Lamentation 2:3-4 "He hath drawn back His right hand from before the enemy" [effectively saying, let 'er rip! i.e. SEAL #1, et al]
[note again: this SEQUENCE is repeated 3x in this 2Th2:3-9a context; and is the SAME SEQUENCE which 1Th4-5 also presents]
Y
You have a lot to re-learn......the Thessalonian letters were written to correct the error that they had MISSED the resurrection ingathering....PART of that correction was....THAT DAY shall not come UNTIL the following takes PLACE.....<----THIS also JIVES with DANIEL and REVELATION....where the BEAST/LITTLE HORN does the following...
MAKES war against
WEARS OUT
OVERCOMES
THE saints.....wake UP..........THEY were distraught over the fact that they thought they had MISSED IT....and the TRIBULATION that they were enduring was a sure sign that they had NOT missed it......
THROUGH MUCH TRIBULATION we must enter the KINGDOM.........WHEN the following takes place then we can LOOK UP...
a. Sun goes dark
b. Moon quits giving light
c. Stars go dark
d. HEAVEN is ripped open and reveals the face of GOD
e. MAN of sin revealed as god and worshiped as god
f. Complete apo-hystamie
g. 7 seals
h. 7 trumpets
i. 7 thunders
j. MOST of humanity wiped out
k. Darkness over all the earth
etc.
There is no such thing as an invisible, imminent return of Christ............Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 all state AFTER the tribulation of THOSE DAYS.......
The parable of the WHEAT AND TARES <---GOD begins to move against the TARES 1st before gathering the wheat
and ON and ON and ON.......
The subject of verse 1 (one event only being spoken of in that entire verse 1) is distinct from "what" it was they were being wrongly convinced (and distraught over) in verse 2 (the subject of verse 2).
Verse 3 is referring to the subject of verse 2 (grammatically, and common-sense-sensely ).
Paul is telling them WHY it is NOT SO "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense indicative]" (though for them to THINK so was PERFECTLY *REASONABLE*, in view of their present and ongoing, very negative circumstances ['persecutions and tribulations'] they were ongoingly enduring, 2Th1:4 etc)
It is not *reasonable* for US to believe they were distraught over the Lord's Own Presence (nor merely the thought of it), and this indeed is not what Paul was conveying in this text.
Verse 3 is referring to the subject of verse 2 (grammatically, and common-sense-sensely
).Paul is telling them WHY it is NOT SO "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense indicative]" (though for them to THINK so was PERFECTLY *REASONABLE*, in view of their present and ongoing, very negative circumstances ['persecutions and tribulations'] they were ongoingly enduring, 2Th1:4 etc)
It is not *reasonable* for US to believe they were distraught over the Lord's Own Presence (nor merely the thought of it), and this indeed is not what Paul was conveying in this text.
MAKES war against
WEARS OUT
OVERCOMES
THE saints.....wake UP..........THEY were distraught over the fact that they thought they had MISSED IT....and the TRIBULATION that they were enduring was a sure sign that they had NOT missed it......
THROUGH MUCH TRIBULATION we must enter the KINGDOM.........WHEN the following takes place then we can LOOK UP...
a. Sun goes dark
b. Moon quits giving light
c. Stars go dark
d. HEAVEN is ripped open and reveals the face of GOD
e. MAN of sin revealed as god and worshiped as god
f. Complete apo-hystamie
g. 7 seals
h. 7 trumpets
i. 7 thunders
j. MOST of humanity wiped out
k. Darkness over all the earth
etc.
There is no such thing as an invisible, imminent return of Christ............Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 all state AFTER the tribulation of THOSE DAYS.......
The parable of the WHEAT AND TARES <---GOD begins to move against the TARES 1st before gathering the wheat
and ON and ON and ON.......
No it wasn't.
This is a very commonly-held misunderstanding of what it is that Paul is actually conveying here in 2Th2.
Verse 2 tells us what they were thinking: [those who were trying to convince them] "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense indicative]"...
"IS PRESENT" is a completely different idea to "we MISSED something" (this is NOT what Paul is saying was on their distraught minds)
This is a very commonly-held misunderstanding of what it is that Paul is actually conveying here in 2Th2.
Verse 2 tells us what they were thinking: [those who were trying to convince them] "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect tense indicative]"...
"IS PRESENT" is a completely different idea to "we MISSED something" (this is NOT what Paul is saying was on their distraught minds)
Indeed, ALL of the Olivet Discourse (your references above in your first line) refer ONLY to "His Second Coming to the earth" [Rev19] (FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom); our Rapture is NOT its SUBJECT (at all)
The "WHEAT" harvest, I've already said is not "the Church which is His body" (US), and that Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50 was the BASIS of the disciples LATER Q of Him (in Matt24:3) when He responded with the Olivet Discourse. He had ALREADY spoken to them about this in the EARLIER Matt13 context. Hence, their Q here. None of this is our "Rapture" (as I've been saying).
In Matthew 13, the "gather" is in the EXACT OPPOSITE SEQUENCE as that of our Rapture, as I've said in the past...
The "WHEAT" harvest, I've already said is not "the Church which is His body" (US), and that Matt13:24,30,39,40,49-50 was the BASIS of the disciples LATER Q of Him (in Matt24:3) when He responded with the Olivet Discourse. He had ALREADY spoken to them about this in the EARLIER Matt13 context. Hence, their Q here. None of this is our "Rapture" (as I've been saying).
In Matthew 13, the "gather" is in the EXACT OPPOSITE SEQUENCE as that of our Rapture, as I've said in the past...
The thing that made their minds distraught was exactly what Paul SAID it was... and that had NOTHING whatsoever to the idea of anything having been "MISSED"... rather, "that the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT" (this is what false informers were wrongly convincing them of, or at least that they were at risk of believing such false informers). It has everything to do with [their wrongly thinking it] "IS PRESENT" (not that anything was "MISSED")… as that is what the text actually tells us/states.
And the rest needs to be understood from THIS perspective. (Paul is telling them WHY it is NOT SO)
And the rest needs to be understood from THIS perspective. (Paul is telling them WHY it is NOT SO)
E
You forget rome ruled the church for thousands of years. There is evidence, any doctrine which did not agree with their theology was burnt, or totally destroyed.
How about lets stick with the bible. Not what tainted history seems to say (whoever rules the world also rules the history books)
How about lets stick with the bible. Not what tainted history seems to say (whoever rules the world also rules the history books)
-
2
-
1
- Show all
E
Hey, thanks, But with all due respect prophecy (for-telling future events) and parables (using figurative language to explain a spiritual truth) are two different types of language used in the word.
They would also contradict the purpose of each. Meaning they will NOT be used together. It would defeat the purpose of each.
They would also contradict the purpose of each. Meaning they will NOT be used together. It would defeat the purpose of each.
-
1
- Show all
just read our dear brother's book here: https://christianchat.com/blogs/book-on-the-2nd-coming-of-christ.172326/
there is no debate anymore its just over. all other views have already been disproven. time to be dogmatic or is that the right word? anyway, its time to just see it believe it. (and receive it)
it all must jive with one coming as he said
both preterist and pre-trib have that same problem, they got many comings.
there is no debate anymore its just over. all other views have already been disproven. time to be dogmatic or is that the right word? anyway, its time to just see it believe it. (and receive it)
it all must jive with one coming as he said
both preterist and pre-trib have that same problem, they got many comings.
-
1
- Show all