Matt. 5: 21-48. What does Christ mean when He says “you have heard, but I tell you?

[Thunderrr-mental]

Lol

 

[Cameron143]

Yes,

[I think I put this in another recent thread] Isaiah 24:21-23 says,

Isa 24:21
And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall PUNISH the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. [see Rev19:19,21 / 16:14-16 / 20:5... at the time-slot of His Second Coming to the earth / Armageddon]
Isa 24:22
And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit ["pit" often referring to death/the grave], and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited/PUNISHED. [note that a time-period SEPARATES these two distinct "PUNISH" words; this latter one corresponds to the GWTj, well after His Second Coming to the earth Rev19; the "Amill-teaching" that there is NO CORROBORATION elsewhere in Scripture to what we see in Rev19-20 about the 1000 years (a period of time) FOLLOWING His Second Coming to the earth, is proven wrong... because this very passage DOES corroborate! It's providing the VERY SAME SEQUENCE: a period of time BETWEEN the TWO "PUNISH" words in this passage]
Isa 24:23
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.





Another passage is Acts 3:12-26,

where the "Amill-teachings" (and others) incorrectly say that Jesus' throne [David's throne] is transferred to now be located up in heaven ever since His ascension... but they only say this because:

1) they CONFLATE the TWO distinct "raise" issues (re: Jesus) in this passage -

a) "raised" to a position of prominence ['A Prophet... raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me [/Moses]'] in His earthly ministry BEFORE the Cross (vv.22-23,26); and

b) "raised" from the dead AFTER the Cross (vv.15,13a);



2) where Acts 3:24 states, "Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days," the "Amill-teachings" (and others) incorrectly surmise that this verse is speaking (re: the "[have] foretold of these days" thing) to mean David's throne now being located UP IN Heaven;

whereas what "[have] foretold of these days" actually refers to His "suffering servant" days (His earthly ministry, rejection, and death on the Cross; ... "His Servant Jesus" vv.13,26;
See also Jesus' words in Lk19:14 "We will not have this man to reign over us," reflective of both 1Sam8:7's "for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them"
and Gen37:8's [re: Joseph's FIRST dream [=Jesus' FIRST advent] "And his brethren said to him, Shalt thou indeed reign over us? or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words." [whereas Joseph's SECOND dream=Jesus' SECOND advent, events surrounding])...

... which ("Suffering Servant") aspect Peter's listeners (v.12 "ye men of Israel") HAD OVERLOOKED / BYPASSED in their focusing only on the "reigning King" aspects of OT prophecies, thus fulfilling that very thing in having Jesus put to death (vv.13-17). THAT is what "[have] foretold of these days" (v.24) is speaking to, NOT the idea that David's throne is now located UP THERE (no longer located on the earth). The "Amill-teachings" (and others) are incorrect in this matter.





Hope that helps you see my perspective a little better, though I think you and I may have discussed some of this in previous threads... not sure.

Have a great day! = )

I struggle at times to understand your posts because of the way they are broken up with references and lines of thought, and would have to search out things you assert as related. It's not that what you are saying is wrong or not. I just don't receive and categorize information the way you do.
I asked the question because if the throne of Jesus' glory is earthbound, then it's the first time that a thing in heaven would be patterned after something on earth.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Wow!

Here you go sis
I believe jesus has all ready came because


Posted by Cameron
I believe it's what the Bible teaches. I'll give you an example from Revelation 1:
Revelation 1
Verse 1...things which must come to pass shortly...
Verse 3...for the time is at hand...
Verse 7...every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him...

Sounds like 1st century to me.


Selah rev 1 says people saw Jesus coming in a cloud 🙂

But don't worry it's not preterism because we both believe he will return

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Here’s an example of the Seals mirroring the Olivet prophecy:

Here is the first seal in Revelation ch. 6:
And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. - Revelation 6:2 One might not know this, but this is the false christ being described above.

Agreed. (Included in "the things which must come to pass in quickness [noun]" per 1:1... i.e. the "future" things of Rev, per 1:19c / 4:1.)



.

The first seal is a warning not to be deceived.

The first seal is the AC / man of sin ("whose COMING / advent / arrival / parousia")... with "bow" often meaning "deception" in Scripture.


The Greek word for "conquering [and to] conquer" shows up again in a couple of places speaking to a LATER point in the chronology (of the "in quickness" time-period we call the Trib), in both of the following:


--Revelation 11:7 "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them [the 2W] and shall OVERCOME [same Grk word as in 6:2 (2x)] them and kill them" (many see this as the power behind the [individual] man's action at this point);


--Revelation 13:7 "And it was given unto him [beast / mouth (individual man aspect)] to make war with the saints [see Dan7:20-21] and TO OVERCOME [same Grk word] them..."





So this (Rv6:2) is not a far-fetched idea snatched merely from thin air = )

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I struggle at times to understand your posts because of the way they are broken up with references and lines of thought, and would have to search out things you assert as related. It's not that what you are saying is wrong or not. I just don't receive and categorize information the way you do.

Maybe we can start with just this small excerpt from my post:

[...] the "Amill-teaching" that there is NO CORROBORATION elsewhere in Scripture to what we see in Rev19-20 about the 1000 years (a period of time) FOLLOWING His Second Coming to the earth [in Rev19], is proven wrong... because this very passage [Isa24:21-22,23] DOES [/does corroborate] [...]

What is it about this section that you find difficult to "understand" or "receive and categorize"? It's fine. I just would like to grasp what it is that you might require me to clarify better.

I'm always happy to try to answer (or to clarify) regarding any questions you may have about what I've put.

 

[Cameron143]

Maybe we can start with just this small excerpt from my post:



What is it about this section that you find difficult to "understand" or "receive and categorize"? It's fine. I just would like to grasp what it is that you might require me to clarify better.

I'm always happy to try to answer (or to clarify) regarding any questions you may have about what I've put.

First, this is just a snippet and is easier to understand in smaller bites. And it appears your argument is that the amil position is not supported by other scripture, whereas, a literal physical 1000 year kingdom is supported by the Isaiah reference. Which, had you simply said that, I would have understood easily.
If it is what you are claiming, I'll be glad to address it.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Cameron143 , my argument is that the "Amill-teachings' " (and others, similarly) claim that "Pre-mill" is not supported (or corroborated) anywhere else in Scripture (outside of Rev), so that "Pre-mills" must be wrong in their [/our] view that the "1000 years" [or even "time" (on earth)] FOLLOWS Christ's Second Coming to the earth / His Return (at Rev19), is not correct.

There is indeed corroboration (I supplied one example, there.)





Hope that helps clarify.

 

[Cameron143]

^ @Cameron143 , my argument is that the "Amill-teachings' " (and others, similarly) claim that "Pre-mill" is not supported (or corroborated) anywhere else in Scripture (outside of Rev), so that "Pre-mills" must be wrong in their [/our] view that the "1000 years" [or even "time" (on earth)] FOLLOWS Christ's Second Coming to the earth / His Return (at Rev19), is not correct.

There is indeed corroboration (I supplied one example, there.)





Hope that helps clarify.

I appreciate the explanation.