Paul Reveals the timing of Revelation 20

BABerean2 said:

For about 1800 years it was understood that Christ gathers His Church at His Second Coming.

The words "we" and "sleep" in 1 Thessalonians 5:10 must be ignored to suggest otherwise.

Go back and look at the commentaries written at the time of the American Revolutionary War and show us how many of those preachers agree with you.
Why would you think all of those guys got it wrong?


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. William Watson wrote Dispensationalism Before Darby and the Roman Catholic Church and it’s history and church and coverup to prevent people knowing the truth has been exposed long time ago.
The Bible doesn’t teach a post rapture and to think there were not other people that believed the pre trib or mid trib rapture positions is naive. The odds would be against it.

2. The words “we and sleep” in 1 Thessalonians 5:10 is not ignored.
The context is different than what you say.
The rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 as the pre-trib rapture goes with 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 a mystery; Revelation 4:1 a picture of a rapture to Heaven; 11:18 the church still in Heaven in the middle of the tribulation for the believers works of rewards; 19:7-10 the church is still in Heaven for the marriage of the Lamb; and leave the earth for the second coming battle of Armageddon Revelation 16:16; 19:11-15 and the fact that the resurrection of the dead only in Revelation 20:4-6 which happens in Revelation 15:1-2 before the 7 vials in time for the marriage of the Lamb Revelation 19:7-10 in time to rule and reign in the Kingdom Revelation 20:4 proves they will be raptured to Heaven to be with the Old and New Testament saints of the church age proves a pre-trib rapture.

3. Going back to 1 Thessalonians 5:10; the full context has to be understood which is not one verse.

4. But of the times and seasons is a definitive change of context from the previous chapter about the rapture.

5. The Day of the Lord is like a thief in the night Matthew 24:36-41, 43-44; 25:13; Luke 12:39-40; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3; and Revelation 16:15.
The pre-trib rapture doesn’t come like a thief in the night for true believers because they are children of the light and children of the day not night and darkness 1 Thessalonians 5:4-5.
Also we are to be looking for that Blessed Hope Titus 2:13.

6. Verse 3 of those crying peace and safety and sudden destruction comes and travail upon a woman with labor pains is the time of tribulation of Jacob’s trouble Jeremiah 30:6-7; 1-10.
The Day of the Lord is not just one day but also a period of tribulation Joel 2:30-32; Malachi 4:1-5 which starts unexpectedly Matthew 24:37.
One has to take the whole context into consideration not one scripture. It’s called exegesis.

7. Why do we have different positions by people on both sides that have seminary degrees and that are well meaning Christians that have studied hard and long.
Look how long the Catholic Church covered up and had those who didn’t rightly divide the word.
Your question is a mute point.
However, to the point of those from the 1700’s would most likely come down to hermeneutics which many were of a Calvinist point of view which came much from Augustine and that is where the legalistic spirit came from and is still prevalent today as shown in the hatred for Dispensationalism.
Jerrykelso

BABerean2 said:

I have a copy of Watson's book on the shelf in my library.

Watson claims any person who believes the Church will be gathered before "the final conflagration" is a "Dispensationalist".
I believe Christ will gather the Church before the final conflagration, but I am in no way a Dispensationalist.

Therefore, Watson's book is built upon a false premise, which makes the book worthless.


The truth is found in the links below.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_23.pdf


Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. Well, so he made the statement but you didn’t say why he believed that all are dispensationalist.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a false premise.
I can say you are a true dispensationalist?
Why? Because if one is a true Christian you have to believe in being a good steward in the dispensation or time you live in. That goes for being a soul winner or an example of Holiness.
In his exact point about being before the second coming is true because you know it is a change physically and in a spiritual sense of the way of life whether you believe in a millennial kingdom for a 1000 literal years next or the the final restoration of all things.
With all that said, doesn’t mean you have to believe in all the tenets of Dispensationalism. That is absurd.
Of course you should take a closer look at the prospects of Dispensations and Covenants connecting with each other.

3. I gave you scriptural context and you didn’t rebut it but you send your links.
You give one basic scripture and at least your links give more context but they have the wrong context.

4. Your illogical logic about the false premise is just a simple sample of how unapologetic to and in exegesis you post and believe.
With that in mind, why and how could you ever convince me of your position?
The fact is never because you are more interested in tearing down Dispensationalism and trying to debunk something by showing your teachers’ videos when you can’t figure something out and they don’t have the answer either.
Now, I’m not against videos etc. when they are appropriate but, trashing Dispensationalism or those who believe in then is not ever gonna’ help your position.
After all if you want to be a good steward you are a dispensationalist. Think about it. Jerrykelso

BABerean2 said:

The greatest error of Dispensational Theology comes from Emanuel Lacunza'a book "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", which was later translated into English by Edward Irving.

Genesis of Dispensational Theology

That error is the claim that God did not fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary.

The doctrine turns Christ's words in John 19:30 into a work of fiction.


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. Why do you insist on robbing Israel of its Covenant blessings that God has given to them?
Why do you want to continue to bring the spirit of the law’s weaknesses that were replaced with the better promises of the New Covenant on the church?
This is what happens when you misconstrue the historical context and keep it there.

2. Jesus told Israel was the light of the world and salt of the earth but if the salt has lost its savor it is no good but to be trodden down under the foot of men. Israel is the one that was trodden down under the foot of men in Jesus day not the church of the New Testament body of Christ.
Jesu said, the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.
Read your Bible and understand the historical and the age context and the full meaning of what’s going on before you try to understand what it really means to today’s New Testament church.

3. God did not fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant concerning the land or the Davidic Covenant concerning the throne at Calvary.
You know these are physical not just spiritual because the 12 apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel according to Matthew 19:28 and do you really think they are not going to have their own land?
That was talking about the future kingdom that has not been fulfilled yet, not the church age in the early church age or any other time of the church age. Now are you going to deny the scripture about the physical aspect of Israel a part from the church age saints?

4. John 19:30 is about the New Covenant at Calvary.
Israel received the New Covenant under the New Testament Church era though not all the nation.
Paul in Romans 12:1-2 and even the whole chapter was speaking about the whole nation not the remnant who were believers.

5. The kingdom will not start until Christ saves Israel at Armageddon.
The Bible clearly states that the armies of the nations will gather to try and defeat Israel but will fail.
That is when he will Covenant with his people again not the church.
To say that Israel received the New Covenant as a whole nation according to the kingdom context spiritually and physically for eternity is a ball face lie from the pits of hell. Jerrykelso

BABerean2 said:

That error is the claim that God did not fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary.

Click to expand...

And the biggest error in amil theology is denying that God has planned out a 1000 year Millennium seperate and Holy unto God.

BABerean2 said:

Either Paul was confused in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1, or you are confused.
The fire and the judgment of the dead occur at the end of Revelation 20.

Click to expand...

Great, that does not change nor contradict any of Revelation 20. Not that I was worried about any objections raised that God is Sovereign.

Paul and I agree on every point written in Revelation. We do not have to cut out portions and change how they were written.

BABerean2 said:

Anyone who thinks the sacrifice of God's Son at Calvary to pay for the sins of all those who accept Him is an incomplete blessing, needs to read their Bible again with the blinders removed.


Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. I believe Salvation is a complete blessing and without it we would be bound for hell. That is the same belief you hold.
You’re first mistake.

2. I believe the men of Israel and the whole nation of Israel was addressed on the Day of Pentecost and in Peter’s address because they were primarily Jews left over from Jesus ministry, had the Covenants and callings who had the Savior Crucified.

3. These Jews understood the Old Covenant because that is all they had.

They understood what Jeremiah said about the New Covenant even though they didn’t see clearly when it came about through Jesus being the sacrifice.
They definitely didn’t understand the mystery of the church of Jews and Gentiles in one body alike on the day of Pentecost.
This doesn’t mean that the kingdom offer was now in progress just because the New Covenant came to the Jewish nation.
This is your problem in exegesis is that you take similarities and appearances of words or happenings and make it the whole context when it is not.
Jesus said to the disciples that the times and seasons of the kingdom were not for them to know.
Jesus didn’t say Repent for the kingdom is at hand in the early church. He said that in his earthly ministry and they rejected him.
Peter wasn’t saying that Joel was being fulfilled at that time just because the Holy Ghost came on the DOP.
It doesn’t mean the spirit didn’t come but it wasn’t to fulfill Joel for it never happened in the complete context of Joel.
Peter recognized the like signs that were to accompany the kingdom being established but he also knew the kingdom wasn’t established.

4. Your rendering of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 is not the complete fulfillment just because the New Covenant came to them in the early church.

5. The New Covenant came in for the whole world. The Jews first for there were no Gentiles except proselytes.
The mystery of the church of Jews and Gentiles in one body alike was ratified at the cross but wasn’t understood and didn’t happen till years later when Peter got the vision of the clean and unclean and later Paul in Ephesians 2:14-15 clarified it.
Jeremiah and Hebrews is speaking directly to Jews about the kingdom specifically promised to them specifically.
The phrase, not according to the Covenant I made with your fathers in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land out of Egypt.
The verse before plainly say he will make the New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah which agrees with Ezekiel 37 and the two sticks becoming one.
This has never happened in this whole context because it is connected with the full context of the physical kingdom reign on earth.

6. Are you going to deny Israel’s gifts and callings to the land and throne when I gave you the scripture? You didn’t answer back at all on that. Why? Give your exegesis on Matthew 19:28.
Are you going to continue saying that just because Peter was addressing the nation of Israel and they were getting saved under the New Covenant that the whole of context and setting in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:7-12 has been fulfilled?
If so, prove your exegesis.
Don’t ever try to imply again that I don’t believe salvation is not a complete blessing.
Don’t ever again use the New Covenant coming in at Calvary and the Jews of that day receiving it as a deduction to think I believe that the cross is incomplete.
That is what you are doing and they are ball face lies. I am asking you nicely, don’t do that again. Jerry Kelso

BABerean2 said:

I am glad you have finally seen the errors of the Premill doctrine.

Click to expand...

I did not know it was a doctrine. All theology is wrong, because it relies on human understanding. There is a Millennium, and no human theological understanding will change that fact. I am glad you agree all doctrine and theology of man has error.

BABerean2 said:

You are attempting to ignore the word "now" in the passage below, which quotes the text from Jeremiah 31:31-34.
If the two sticks were not put back together at Calvary, the author of the Book of Hebrews was very confused.

The first covenant was made with Israel and Judah, and so was the second.

You are ignoring the Samaritans and the others of the region who were descendants of both the twelve tribes and the Gentiles, who had been mixed together after the Northern tribes were carried into captivity. Why did James address his letter to "the twelve tribes" in James 1:1-3 ?


Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH— (A direct quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34.)
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS IN THEIR MIND AND WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 NONE OF THEM SHALL TEACH HIS NEIGHBOR, AND NONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, 'KNOW THE LORD,' FOR ALL SHALL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST OF THEM TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."
Heb 8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. There is a difference between a Covenant and a Testament.
A Covenant is an arrangement between God and man in this case.
It can be conditional or unconditional or with or without blood.

2. The Old Covenant was made between God and Israel and the New Covenant was the agreement made between God and Israel. The blood was the testimony of their agreement Hebrews 9:15- 20.
That is why it is called a testament.
The New Covenant was made and will come to pass in the last days as Jeremiah and Hebrews indicates.

3. A Testament is a testification of a will. The Old Covenant testimony was the shedding of blood of bulls and goats etc. Hebrews 9.
The death of the testator Christ was the testimony of the Testament. Hebrews 9:16-17.
We benefit from the Testament of his blood Matthew 26:28. It took away sin’s rights but the New Covenant was made with Israel.
Israel is to preach the gospel of the kingdom and the last supper.
So God gave Israel the promise of the New Covenant by the shedding of his blood which is the Testament. Jerrykelso

BABerean2 said:

Can you explain why both the word "covenant", and the word "testament", come from the same Greek word "diatheke"?

You have created a difference which does not exist in the Greek.


G1242
διαθήκη
diathēkē
dee-ath-ay'-kay
From G1303; properly a disposition, that is, (specifically) a contract (especially a devisory will): - covenant, testament.
Total KJV occurrences: 33


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. According to Kenneth Wuest word studies in the Greek New Testament volume 2
says the words Covenant and Testament are used in Hebrews from two different angles.
It is a Covenant in the sense of agreement on God’s part that he will give salvation to the sinner who will receive it who will receive it by faith in the high priest he has appointed.
It is a last testament or will in the sense that bequeaths to the sinner who will receive it on the terms of the will, faith in the blood of Jesus. God the divine Testator, dies to make the will effective.

2. The word Covenant is translated diatithemi which is made up of tithemi “to place” and “dia”the root meaning of which is two; an arrangement of two parties.

3. Diatheke history has been understood in different ways during different times because of differences in culture etc.
This is why context substance and understanding scripture interpreting scripture is vitally important.

4. KJV has diakethe as Testament about 33 times and over 300 times in the Old Testament.
Jerome used diakethe with Testamentum (Latin) and made the terms Old and New Testament which still apply today.
The Jews understood Berith more as a Covenant and were not used to making last wills or testament or at least didn’t quite understand it in that way.
In any case your Greek definition is not an open and shut case like you think.
Those that are one sided on Covenant are the ones that like to spiritualize scripture and take it out of context.
You just can’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Jerrykelso

BABerean2 said:

What I think does not matter.

The Greek word "diatheke" was mainly translated as "testament", but as "covenant" in Hebrews 12:22-24, by the KJV translators. There is no scriptural warrant for the inconsistency.


However, "diatheke" has been translated more consistently as "covenant" by the NKJV.


.

Click to expand...

baberean2,

1. There is no scripture consistency to boxing in each and every context just because you want to dismiss the fact of the truth that of the scriptures about Israel and the Kingdom that has not transpired yet.

2. Your pattern in your posts is to be one sided on things that are not on your side.
It is because you don’t properly exegete the scripture.
You are not apologetic in your approach because you are too busy trying to save your doctrine and knock down another doctrine that is biblical.

3. Once again, just because the word Covenant is used in one place you go to seed.
The Greek scholar Weust says the the Hebrew writer and even Paul would not us diatheke for Covenant without understanding and having the slightest consciousness or the ordinary and contemporary meaning. He would have used the Biblical word, in this case being synonymous with archaic but always with the possibility of a play on the later meaning of the word as in Hebrews 9:15.
There were Covenants with Abraham and Abimelech between two parties of equal statue.
Another can be seen God to Noah where another promises one a certain disposition etc.
with these things in mind offer these usages in Hebrews.
The word diatheke in every place, except Hebrews 9:16-17 diatheke refers to the sacrificial system or to the sacrifice of the Messiah.
The word refers to the atoning merits of the latter sacrifice. God made the term to another on specified terms it means a Covenant.
But when the substitutionary death of the one is brought into the picture , the idea of a Covenant is merged with that of a will or testament.
Since the New Covenant was made through the death of the testator, the Messiah, and since the First Covenant is typical of the New, both Covenants take on themselves the idea of a last will or testament Weust Greek word studies Volume 2.
So Hebrews 12:22-24 Covenant is used with understanding of the context as a testament.
Jerrykelso