- Apr 5, 2007
- 140,178
- 25,219
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, it really should have been.That's not what I said.
Upvote
0
Well, it really should have been.That's not what I said.
I can think of at least three or four without even looking it up.No. How many have there been?
I can think of at least three or four without even looking it up.
There’s no mention of anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians. (In fact, anti-Christ only appears in 1 John and 2 John, and it refers to those who deny that Christ came in the flesh.)And the temple was still standing when Paul wrote it, so he’s referring to the existing temple. That’s how his readers would have understood it.
I was responding to post 153.Can you tell me how your question and answer relate to what I was saying about how the OT has most of the prophecies about the future?
I was responding to post 153.
Since you said Tribulation happened in the first century, I was curious about how you'd view it, and how you'd deal with it, if it turned out to be happening in the near future. But you call it a "fantasy world", so I take it that you don't believe it will happen. Keep your eyes open for it, because it's shaping up to take place.
I can think of at least three or four without even looking it up.
Your view is that this is near future event. We’ve been getting these near future event predictions for countless years. They all rely on things supposedly gleaned from scripture. They all fail because the NT writers were referring to a completely different event.Post 153:
Your answer in post 162:
Sorry, but I see no relation between these.
Per Premil, or at least my version, the nations that were deceived before the thousand years, are no longer deceived during the thousand years, but become deceived once again after the thousand years.
There is still that point about reigning without sin before death is defeated. I guess one can overlook that point, since obviously the last 1900 years have had sin. You all are so used to living in sin, you reject that God can remove sin even before defeating death.There will be no more sin after Christ’s final enemy is put under His feet. That last enemy will be death. After that, Christ then will subject Himself to the Father.
So nobody Sins during the thousand years per your version of Premil?
Okay, where is reigning without sin for a 1000 years found?There is still that point about reigning without sin before death is defeated. I guess one can overlook that point, since obviously the last 1900 years have had sin. You all are so used to living in sin, you reject that God can remove sin even before defeating death.
If Zechariah 14:16-19 involves the millennium, the fact some might refuse to go up, that would seem to involve sinning for refusing to do as commanded. But it wouldn't involve satan having anything to do with that decision since he would be in the pit at the time.
There is still that point about reigning without sin before death is defeated. I guess one can overlook that point, since obviously the last 1900 years have had sin. You all are so used to living in sin, you reject that God can remove sin even before defeating death.
No, stop misquoting me. A resurrected soul is not mortal nor immortal. That is Greek pagan thinking. Paul said this corruptible will be changed for incorruptible. The soul moves from one corruptible body to a new incorruptible body. It is the reverse process that happened to Adam on the day he disobeyed God, and physically died. Adam went from a permanent God made incorruptible body to a sin nature corruptible body. Those who live in the Millennium will have a permanent incorruptible physical body like Adam had prior to sin entering the world. No sin, thus no corruptible bodies. That is why the 1000 years starts with a physical resurrection.So, you have mortal flesh and blood humans inheriting the kingdom of God. That directly contradicts what Paul taught.
1 Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
You are arguing FOR the flip side of the Coin you are arguing AGAINST.
If nations can not be deceived at that time, how can anyone be decieved?
And If People can still committ the gravest of Sins WHILE Satan is in the Pit, How is that different from today?
Are you claiming that during the millennium, even the unrepentant will share in Christ's victory over Satan?
That During the Millennium, even the unrepentant will be freed from Satanic Influence?
Per Amil who is it Amils think are deceived after the thousand years? Do Amils think it are the ones that remained deceived during the thousand years? Since Amils take the thousand years to be the here and now, let's assume this thousand years ends tomorrow, thus satan is loosed. Who is it that Amils see being the ones satan deceives, the number which are as the sand of the sea? Someone already deceived, or someone no longer deceived? Don't forget about Eve. Was she already deceived before satan deceived her? Thus, satan set out to deceive someone already deceived. Or did satan instead set out to deceive someone not deceived?
1000 years is not temporary. 1000 days would be temporary. Sin does not enter at all. Disobedience results in Death, not sin. There is no more temporary chance to "get it right". Sin is living with disobedience non stop. These current physical bodies are dead and thrive in sin and non stop disobedience.Why would God temporarily remove sin only to allow it again when the 1000 years end? That is complete nonsense.
Also, you believe that Zechariah 14 describes the same time period as the thousand years, right? How can you say there would be no sin during that time when it talks about God punishing people for not going up to Jerusalem to worship Him during that time (Zech 14:17-19)? Clearly, people not doing what God commanded them to do would be sinning.
It was not fulfilled in the first century. You just pointed out the error of preterism. If it had happened in the NT, they would have written it into the NT. It is still future, thus not spelled out in God's Word, the NT.That’s not from the NT. You’d think with all of that supposed reference to the third temple, there’d be at least some NT references to back that up. But alas…
I don’t suppose you see the error in your logic, do you.It was not fulfilled in the first century. You just pointed out the error of preterism. If it had happened in the NT, they would have written it into the NT. It is still future, thus not spelled out in God's Word, the NT.