Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

Spiritual Jew said:

What translation of Ephesians 6:11-12 do you accept?

Click to expand...

Any that does not change the text to read as if Satan in heaven is who we are fighting. Do I need to accept the original Greek? You have not presented it.

Spiritual Jew said:

Apparently, you don't know what hyperliteral means. It does not have anything to do with not allowing for other interpretations. It means that you assume everything is literal unless it's very clearly spelled out that it's not, so you are often not able to recognize symbolic or figurative language.

Click to expand...

Are you arguing that one cannot take symbolism to an extreme literal position? Interpreting symbolism is turning it into a literal objective point. It can be taken to extremes. No one keeps symbolism symbolic to make a point. Subjective thought can not be made into a point. It is unrelatable by nature. A lot of people are agreeable in thought. They keep it that way, because if truth be known, they would certainly disagree. That is the nature of human opinion in a sin fallen world.

It seems to me the Bible is mostly written in symbolism, because the Holy Spirit points each one to the truth. If there was not a Holy Spirit, no human would be able to agree on a point, because there would be "a billion" interpretations. It would not matter what percentage was right, because no one would know who is right.

Spiritual Jew said:

It isn't just figurative. We have to discern when scripture is figurative and when it is literal. Some is figurative and some is literal. Premils and amils disagree on which is which sometimes and we agree at other times.

Click to expand...

The use of 1000 is specific. At least in math. Turning 1000 into symbolism is a private interpretation.

Spiritual Jew said:

Where do you find 1000 years in a passage like 2 Peter 3:3-13 between Christ's second coming and the judgment?

Click to expand...

The Day of the Lord starts at the Second Coming. Where in Scripture does it claim the Day of the Lord ends at the Second Coming?

The point about Peter is the Day is described with the Lord. Not spiritually or physically. It is both. It cannot be neither. Peter in his choice of words defining this time, indicates a sin free body and a physical body. Spiritual is without sin. Physical being present with the Lord. Jesus was both physically and spiritually present at the first coming. Currently that is not the case. If Christ is coming a second time, the physical and spiritual is a condition after the coming not an undefined period before the coming.

Revelation 20 clearly defines a Resurrection. In fact, the first of it's kind. The Second Coming has to remove all of Adam's condition in the world. All is destroyed, that is true. Christ will make all things new, that is true. There is a Resurrection, that is true. It is not the NHNE, that is an added interpretation. John states a 1000 year period. Peter defines 1000 as a Day with the Lord. Peter uses symbolism to make a point. John uses the number 1000 to make a point. Now if you think the use of "1000" is misleading and it needs to be spelled out "thousand", I do not see a difference necessary in interpretation. Would you not have to prove that John used a Greek word that is not so well defined? John could have just said the Day of the Lord in all 6 uses, and left it up to private interpretation, no? Would it have changed your objection to the fact? I do not think John used the Day of the Lord once in Revelation, yet most accept the way OT prophets used the term is the same event John is addressing in all of Revelation.

Spiritual Jew said:

You said "The stars falling to earth like figs leaves, is literally stars coming to earth." So, I guess you either misspoke or did not make it clear as to what you meant. That's not my fault.

Click to expand...

It is literal stars coming to earth. There are no literal stars as gas giants. All stars are literal angels. Did you miss the point that science is Satan's deception that all mankind has been deceived with, even the "elect". If you accept a star is a gas giant you are deceived by Satan. It is nothing personal or means you are not saved, thank God.

Spiritual Jew said:

You keep saying that we have to assume that death being swallowed up in victory can't be referring to the end of death because death isn't cast into the LOF until the judgment. But, my point is that once the last person to die is dead (we both agree that occurs in Rev 20:9) then death will be swallowed up in victory and the last enemy, death, will be defeated then because it's a guarantee that no one will die after that. Death being cast into the LOF is just a formality at that point.

Click to expand...

Death swallowed up in victory is the description of the Atonement on the Cross. It is not defined by the last human physically dying.

The point about death in this Day of the Lord is not the same as we view death today. Death with a capital D is introduced in Revelation 6:8

"Its rider’s name was Death, and Sh’ol followed behind him. They were given authority to kill one-quarter of the world by war, by famine, by plagues and with the wild animals of the earth."

The 4th seal is the last event before the Second Coming. "Death" is not "prior to" the Second Coming, being that we do not know how much time will pass between the 4th, 5th, and 6th seals. Now any one can claim Death started in the dark ages, but that is a private interpretation, since God did not state the 4th seal was opened in the dark ages.

It would be a plausible interpretation to state that any physical death after the 4th seal, ends up in Death, not sheol. Sheol still holds all the dead, but Death holds all who now physically die. These will never be found in the Lamb's book of life. Why? After the 7th seal, names will be removed, as people die. Why? Because in the 6th seal the church is complete and glorified. No more joining the church. No plan B to enter the church, not even in the NHNE. The church is completed period!

The only Resurrection in Revelation 20:4 are those chosen by God Himself, the final harvest to live on the earth for 1000 years with Christ the Lord. The only exception are those who choose to be beheaded instead of accepting the mark. All other dead in the final harvest are placed in Death as if their names were never in the Lamb's book of life. Those in the 42 months, who die at Armageddon are not in the Lamb's book of life. They were removed at one point prior to the 42 months or when the mark appeared on their foreheads, their names disappeared from the Lamb's book of life. They literally went from the role of life to the role of Death, eben though physically alive.

Now those who die during the 1000 years at any time have decided to remove their names in the same way. Death is not accidental. It is a conscious choice. Those who die in the Millennium is not part of the definition "death is swallowed up in victory". Death in the millennium is a curse given to those who choose Death instead of life. Just like the mark is the curse on those living and not those who chose death, by being beheaded.

sovereigngrace said:

God’s people cannot populate an incorrupt earth.

Click to expand...

If this is the church, I agree. They cannot populate a perfect earth. Populate incorporates procreation. The act of filling the earth. The church only populates the Garden of Eden, Paradise. Revelation 20 is God's chosen people populating the earth. God took out Adam from the sons of God to fill Paradise. Now, at the Second Coming, God is taking out of Adam, people to populate the earth in the Last Millennium.

Timtofly said:

Any that does not change the text to read as if Satan in heaven is who we are fighting. Do I need to accept the original Greek? You have not presented it.

Click to expand...

No, Satan and his angels roam the earth. They are in the spiritual realm that we can't see, but they can access the earth. The passage says they are "the powers of this dark world", so that shows they have access to this world. They are originally from heaven and that's all the passage is saying. It's not saying they're in heaven now and we somehow fight them in heaven or anything ridiculous like that and I never made such a claim.

Timtofly said:

It is literal stars coming to earth. There are no literal stars as gas giants. All stars are literal angels. Did you miss the point that science is Satan's deception that all mankind has been deceived with, even the "elect". If you accept a star is a gas giant you are deceived by Satan. It is nothing personal or means you are not saved, thank God.

Click to expand...

Are you aware of anyone else who shares this view or are you the only one? Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the stars we see in the sky at night are angels? Do you think the sun is an angel, too?

Timtofly said:

Are you arguing that one cannot take symbolism to an extreme literal position?

Click to expand...

No, not at all. I know that some do that and that's not a good idea just like assuming everything (or almost everything) is literal is not a good idea.

We have to take each passage of scripture and determine the context and what type of language is being used (hyperbolic, apocalyptic, poetic, figurative, symbolic, metaphorical, literal, parabolic, etc.) without bringing any preconceived notions into it.

BABerean2 said:

If these were really "dead" it would kill modern Dispensational Theology, so you have come up with Plan B.

You cannot have a judgment of the dead, without a bodily resurrection of the dead, as described by Christ in John 5:27-30.

Click to expand...

You are not making any sense. If a person is not in Christ, they are dead, if they are dead or alive. No resurrection because they are not physically dead. They are normal people dead in sin.

Those rewarded are in heaven, they are prophets. Their reward is in heaven.


Your false plan says all the dead and alive stand in judgement even before Satan and the FP show up. That would be ideal. I would say OK, because Satan does not need 42 months. They all would be rewarded because there would be no dead, and no one to destroy for destroying the earth. Then the Millennium will start immediately.

All you are doing is skipping Satan's 42 months.

Spiritual Jew said:

Are you aware of anyone else who shares this view or are you the only one? Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that the stars we see in the sky at night are angels? Do you think the sun is an angel, too?

Click to expand...

The sun and moon are two great lights according to Genesis 1. Only the stars are angels. Joseph claimed his dad and mom were the sun and moon.

I have no idea who accepts the truth of God's Word in this matter.

Timtofly said:

Your false plan says all the dead and alive stand in judgement even before Satan and the FP show up.

Click to expand...

I will say it once again.
The Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is a series of overlapping visions given to John on the Island of Patmos.

The only way to properly interpret the book is through the principle of "Recapitulation".


.

BABerean2 said:

I will say it once again.
The Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is a series of overlapping visions given to John on the Island of Patmos.

The only way to properly interpret the book is through the principle of "Recapitulation".

.

Click to expand...

And I will also say yet again, regardless that Revelation is not chronological throughout, there are still events that are chronological, and that certain events have to happen somewhere in this chronological timeline.

An example of this chronological timeline. Initially satan is not bound. Then he is bound. Then he is loosed. There are events, such as the saints recorded on Revelation 20:4 we see martyred for not worshiping the beast, that has to fit this chronological timeline somewhere, regardless Revelation is not chronological throughout. And then there is the beast that ascends out of the pit, and the false prophet that rises out of the earth, that has to fit this chronological timeline somewhere as well, in order for them to be the main reasons the saints in Revelation 20:4 end up martyred.


To me it seems unreasonable that they can be martyred for not worshiping the beast, while the beast is in the pit and before a 2nd beast, the false prophet, rises out of the earth. It's obvious that the false prophet plays a role in their martyrdom. We can know that from the following clues----which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)

As can be seen, they are not martyred for just refusing to worship the beast, they are also martyred for refusing to worship it's image, and for refusing to receive his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands. Anyone that has read Revelation 13 has to know by now, that until a 2nd beast rises out of the earth first, there is not yet any such thing as being martyred for refusing to worship it's image, and for refusing to receive his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.

Surely no one thinks that when the beast was, meaning a time before the cross, the false prophet was already around and operating together with the beast at the time. That doesn't happen twice. That only happens once, and happens once the beast ascends out of the pit. Amils try to somehow explain all of this away, as if the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4, who are clearly martyred before satan is loosed after the thousand years, that they are somehow not martyred when the beast and false prophet are working together.

DavidPT said:

An example of this chronological timeline. Initially satan is not bound. Then he is bound. Then he is loosed.

Click to expand...

The following proves your chronology above is wrong.


In the two verses below we find the wicked angels already bound in chains.
Is Satan one of "the angels that sinned"?


2Pe_2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;


Jud_1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.



In the two verses below we have an angel coming down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit. The angel then opens the pit.

Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Rev 9:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.



You also have to ignore the time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others in Revelation 11:15-18, to make your chronology work.

You have to ignore the fact that there are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.


If you ignore enough scripture you can make the Premill doctrine work.
But that is the only way to make the doctrine work.


.

Spiritual Jew said:

I believe Jesus answered two questions.

Click to expand...

Correct. Jesus did answer 2 questions:

Mark 13:4 “1.) Tell us, when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, 1.) “when will these things happen, 2.) and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, 1.) “when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”


Based on the parallel accounts we can see that the first question is:

1.) When will these things (temple destruction) happen?
2.) What will be the "sign" that they (temple destruction) are about to be fulfilled = what will be the "sign" of your coming and end of the age?

Spiritual Jew said:

I believe the question about His coming and the end of the age was a separate question and has a global scope rather than the local events that occurred in 66-70 AD..

Click to expand...

I don't believe they are different questions. I believe using scripture to interpret scripture shows us that the question 2 is same across all accounts.

So then to be consistent with your interpretation style, you believe the abomination of desolation is a different event than the armies surrounding Jerusalem, just like the premils do, correct?

Matthew 24:15-16 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’a described by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Mark 13:14 So when you see the abomination of desolationa standing where it should not beb (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:20-21 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that her desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city.


However, If you believe the highligted red statements above are all talking about the same thing then I'm confused as to why you would believe the highlighted blue below would be different?


Mark 13:4 “1.) Tell us, when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, 1.) “when will these things happen, 2.) and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, 1.) “when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Spiritual Jew said:

There was no age that ended in 70 AD. This is where partial preterism falls apart, in my opinion. When Jesus spoke of the end of the age He was talking about the end of the temporal age when people get married and they die in contrast to the eternal new heavens and new earth age to come when people will no longer get married or die.

Click to expand...

The NT is clear that the apostles believed they were living at the end of the ages.

1.) The Spirit was to be poured out in the last days.
Acts 2:16-17 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out My Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

2.) Jesus' 1st advent took place at the end of the ages.
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

3.) Paul believed he was living at the end of the ages.
1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

4.) Paul believed the time was short and the the present form of the world was passing away.
1 corinthians 7:29-30 What I am saying, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who weep, as if they did not; those who are joyful, as if they were not; those who make a purchase, as if they had nothing; and those who use the things of this world, as if not dependent on them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

5.) Peter believed the end of the ages was "at hand"
1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is at hand. Therefore be clear-minded and sober, so that you can pray.

6.) John believed it was the "last hour".
1 John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

7.) James believed the coming of the Lord was "at hand" and the Judge was "standing at the door". This coincides with the olivet discourse.
James 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very door.

Spiritual Jew said:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

The end of the age has clearly not come yet as people are still marrying and dying.

Click to expand...

Does marriage between men and women occur, when one goes to heaven upon death?

Spiritual Jew said:

If you try to say it has to do with the end of the old covenant age as most partial preterists do, that can't be true either because the old covenant ended when Jesus died on the cross. To deny that is heresy in my view. Just because the temple was not yet destroyed until 70 AD does not mean that the old covenant was still in effect until then. It absolutely was not. Christ's once for all sacrifice made animal sacrifices obsolete immediately.

Click to expand...

While the old covenant was becoming obsolete for those in Christ, it still existed in the first century.

It was becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away, even after the cross, according to the author of hebrews:
Hebrews 8:13 in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

It was being brought to end, even after the cross, according to Paul.
2 corinthians 3:11 For if what is being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Believers in Jerusalem were still very zealous for the Law, even after the cross, resulting in Paul partaking in a purifying ritual and offerings as, IMHO, to not hurt the faith of those weaker.
Acts 21:21-26 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled,d and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Spiritual Jew said:

Right, I knew that partial preterists make this connection. And how did this happen around 70 AD exactly?

Click to expand...

Depends on the partial preterist, but I am of the position that this is the time that the dead began go to heaven, and not at the cross, as traditional amil holds.

Spiritual Jew said:

There is just one glaring problem with this. What Jesus was talking about, as it relates to the time when the temple would be destroyed, were only of events that would happen in and near Jerusalem. So, why would Paul talk to the Thessalonians about events that were going to happen in Jerusalem as if those events would affect them directly? That does not make any sense.

Click to expand...

Who were the ones responsible for the persecution and sufferings of the thessalonians believers ?

The Jews who were persecuting but also stirring up the city officials to persecute the church.

1 thessalonians 2:14-15 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,f who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

Acts 17:5-9 But the Jewsa were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

Acts 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds

Did God grant relief to the thessalonian believers from the persecution by the Jews or are they still waiting for this?

2 thessalonians 1:5-7 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels

I would argue, yes. When the unbelieving Jews who traveled to Jerusalem for the feasts were engulfed and destroyed in the Jewish Roman war from 66-70ad.

Do you believe the vineyard owner "CAME" to destroy the wicked tenants for killing the servants and the son? I do.

Matthew 21:40-41 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

matthew 21: 43-44 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e

Spiritual Jew said:

I believe it clearly does line up with it, but what can we do? Just respectfully agree to disagree on that.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Spiritual Jew said:

You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying it means long. I'm saying it doesn't necessarily mean a small amount.

Click to expand...

the word itself literally always means small, few, or short. It is never used for things large or long.

Spiritual Jew said:

If so, doesn't this show that the number can refer to a large number in comparison to a larger number? This shows that the word can be used in a relative sense to refer to a limited, but not necessarily small, amount (of people in this case, but also time or whatever it might be).

Can you at least acknowledge it is used that way when Jesus said "many are called, but few (oligos) are chosen?

Click to expand...

I'm arguing the literal definition of the word, which is always small, few, short.

Millions when taken by itself, is a lot. But millions is small when compared to trillions. That doesn't change the definition of small to all of the sudden to be the polar opposite. Context is key

In a previous post you stated:

"Here, the word is translated as "long" in relation to time rather than "short"! And, again, I believe it's referring to an undefined and limited amount of time without giving any indication of the actual duration being literally short or long."

But that was incorrect. Oligos is never translated as "long". the literal defintion of the word never changes to mean its polar opposite.

So to bring this full circle, what context sets oligos to be long in revelation 12? Is there a "no (ouk)" to modify oligos in revelation 12 to make it mean "no long time"?

Spiritual Jew said:

I am amazed that you would ask that question. That is not at all what I was saying. I explained what I meant above. Hopefully, you understand now. If not, then just say so and I will try again to clarify my point regarding this.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to clarify your understanding because you stated oligos was translated as long in Acts 14:28, which is incorrect. Oligos is modified by ouk in acts 14:28, to be literally translated as "no short time". That doesn't change the definition of oligos.

Spiritual Jew said:

I don't take that to be talking about a generation in terms of a 40 year generation or however many years you would consider to be a generation. The Greek word "genea" can refer to a 40 (or however many year) generation of people but also can refer to a certain type of people or can even refer to people in general.

Click to expand...

You may not, but strong's does.

" 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήν δέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage)."

What other events did Jesus' generation not experience from the olivet discourse, excluding the coming of the son of man?

BABerean2 said:

I will say it once again.
The Book of Revelation is not in chronological order.
Instead, it is a series of overlapping visions given to John on the Island of Patmos.

The only way to properly interpret the book is through the principle of "Recapitulation".

Click to expand...

The only way to interpret Revelation is through the Holy Spirit. Man-made theology will not work. John was taken to the Lord's Day. Revelation 1:10

10 "I came to be, in the Spirit, on the Day of the Lord; and I heard behind me a loud voice, like a trumpet,"

1 "After these things, I looked; and there before me was a door standing open in heaven; and the voice like a trumpet which I had heard speaking with me before said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after these things.”
2 Instantly I was in the Spirit, and there before me in heaven stood a throne, and on the throne Someone was sitting."

Revelation 4:1-2

He went; did not dream it all.

claninja said:

Correct. Jesus did answer 2 questions:

Mark 13:4 “1.) Tell us, when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, 1.) “when will these things happen, 2.) and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, 1.) “when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”


Based on the parallel accounts we can see that the first question is:

1.) When will these things (temple destruction) happen?
2.) What will be the "sign" that they (temple destruction) are about to be fulfilled = what will be the "sign" of your coming and end of the age?



I don't believe they are different questions. I believe using scripture to interpret scripture shows us that the question 2 is same across all accounts.

Click to expand...

And I believe using scripture to interpret scripture that the end of the age could not possibly have occurred in 70 AD.

Please tell me how this has already been fulfilled:

Matt 13:40 As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

At the end of the age there will no longer be marriage or death. Has that occurred yet?

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

So then to be consistent with your interpretation style, you believe the abomination of desolation is a different event than the armies surrounding Jerusalem, just like the premils do, correct?

Click to expand...

No, that is not correct. Why would you think that? Clearly, Luke 21:20-21 is parallel to Matthew 24:15-16 and Mark 13:14. Only someone desperate to keep their doctrine afloat would think those are not speaking of the same event. I have seen some premils do just that.

However, If you believe the highligted red statements above are all talking about the same thing then I'm confused as to why you would believe the highlighted blue below would be different?


Mark 13:4 “1.) Tell us, when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

Matthew 24:3 While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, 1.) “when will these things happen, 2.) and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Luke 21:7 “Teacher,” they asked, 1.) “when will these things happen? 2.) And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

Click to expand...

Because I believe Matthew's account contains the most detail about what Jesus said than the other 2 accounts. Note that the Olivet Discourse covers all of Matthew 24 and 25. Mark and Luke did not include any of the details found in Matthew 25. So, I believe Matthew is worded the way it is to show that it wasn't just the destruction of the temple that Jesus talked about in the Olivet Discourse. He also talked about His future second coming at the end of the age.

I believe it's quite obvious from other things that Jesus said, that the end of the age has not yet occurred and because He was referring to this temporal age when people marry and die and at the end of which all people will be separated and judged. That has clearly not happened yet.

The NT is clear that the apostles believed they were living at the end of the ages.

1.) The Spirit was to be poured out in the last days.
Acts 2:16-17 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out My Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

2.) Jesus' 1st advent took place at the end of the ages.
Hebrews 9:26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

3.) Paul believed he was living at the end of the ages.
1 corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

4.) Paul believed the time was short and the the present form of the world was passing away.
1 corinthians 7:29-30 What I am saying, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who weep, as if they did not; those who are joyful, as if they were not; those who make a purchase, as if they had nothing; and those who use the things of this world, as if not dependent on them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

5.) Peter believed the end of the ages was "at hand"
1 Peter 4:7 The end of all things is at hand. Therefore be clear-minded and sober, so that you can pray.

6.) John believed it was the "last hour".
1 John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour.

7.) James believed the coming of the Lord was "at hand" and the Judge was "standing at the door". This coincides with the olivet discourse.
James 5:8-9 You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.

Matthew 24:33 So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very door.

Click to expand...

All those passages were saying is that the last days began way back then. And they are still going on now. When they said things like "the coming of the Lord is at hand" it simply meant that it could occur at any time. They were not saying they knew when it would occur. Otherwise, Jesus saying that no one knew the day or hour of His coming would not be true.

Does marriage between men and women occur, when one goes to heaven upon death?

Click to expand...

Is that really your takeaway from this passage:

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

Jesus was comparing ages here, not comparing life and death. Do you really think that He was saying "the age to come" refers to when we die and go to heaven?

claninja said:

While the old covenant was becoming obsolete for those in Christ, it still existed in the first century.

It was becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away, even after the cross, according to the author of hebrews:

Hebrews 8:13 in speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a better translation of that verse:

Heb 8:13 (NIV) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

This verse is not saying the old covenant was becoming obsolete. It's saying it was made obsolete by the establishment of the new covenant. Do you not believe that the new covenant was established immediately upon Christ's death and resurrection?

All Hebrews 8:13 means is that the remnants of the old covenant were still visible because the temple was still standing and people were still foolishly performing animal sacrifices and such due to not accepting Christ's once for all sacrifice or due to not understanding the Christ had already made the old covenant obsolete. But, if you think the old covenant was still in effect at that point then I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Look at what Paul told the Galatians here before 70 AD:

Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as "righteousness.”
7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Would Paul have scolded the Galatians like this if the old covenant law was still in effect? Absolutely not.

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;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;

These passages make it clear that Christ put an end to the old covenant with His death on the cross.

It was being brought to end, even after the cross, according to Paul.

2 corinthians 3:11 For if what is being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a better translation of that verse:

2 Cor 3:11 (KJV) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

Clearly, Christ's death and resurrection established the new covenant. I believe that is undeniable. So, if the new covenant was in effect and was meant to replace the old covenant then how could the old covenant have possibly still be in effect once the new covenant was put into effect? That does not make sense.

Believers in Jerusalem were still very zealous for the Law, even after the cross, resulting in Paul partaking in a purifying ritual and offerings as, IMHO, to not hurt the faith of those weaker.

Acts 21:21-26 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law. But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them.

Click to expand...

As the passage in Galatians 3 shows, it was foolish for anyone to think that the old covenant works of the law were still required. Paul knew that, but he also knew that scolding those Jews the way he did the Galatians was not the right approach. In no way, shape or form can this passages from Acts 21 be used to show that the old covenant was still in effect after Christ's death on the cross. All Paul was doing there was to become "like a Jew to win the Jews" (1 Cor 9:20) to Christ.

Depends on the partial preterist, but I am of the position that this is the time that the dead began go to heaven, and not at the cross, as traditional amil holds.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the souls of dead believers? Why would they not have started going to heaven until 70 AD instead of after Christ's death on the cross?

Who were the ones responsible for the persecution and sufferings of the thessalonians believers ?

The Jews who were persecuting but also stirring up the city officials to persecute the church.

1 thessalonians 2:14-15 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,f who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

Acts 17:5-9 But the Jewsa were jealous, and taking some wicked men of the rabble, they formed a mob, set the city in an uproar, and attacked the house of Jason, seeking to bring them out to the crowd. And when they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus.” And the people and the city authorities were disturbed when they heard these things. And when they had taken money as security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.

Acts 17:13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica learned that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Berea also, they came there too, agitating and stirring up the crowds

Did God grant relief to the thessalonian believers from the persecution by the Jews or are they still waiting for this?

2 thessalonians 1:5-7 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels

I would argue, yes. When the unbelieving Jews who traveled to Jerusalem for the feasts were engulfed and destroyed in the Jewish Roman war from 66-70ad.

Click to expand...

Jesus has not yet been revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. I will never accept the interpretation that says 2 Thess 1:7-10 already happened.

Please tell me how this already happened:

2 Thess 1:7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

The first thing to notice here is that it speaks of Jesus being REVEALED from heaven with His angels. In what way was He revealed in 70 AD? Do you not believe we will see Him face to face one day? Do you not believe He will come visibly just as He left visibly (Acts 1:11)?

The next thing to notice is that He will "punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus". Were the Jews who persecuted Thessalonian believers the only ones "who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus"? Notice that it says they will be "punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord". That is referring to the day when all unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15) which will happen when Christ comes with His angels (Matt 25:31-46). The ultimate vengeance for those Jewish persecutors will come on judgment day, so just because Christ didn't return back then to deliver physical punishment directly to those Jews, He will stay take vengeance on them on judgment day by casting them into the lake of fire.

The third thing to notice here is that on the day Jesus is revealed from heaven with His angels to take vengeance on unbelievers, it's the same day "He comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed". How does what is described in verse 10 fit with your partial preterist doctrine?

Do you believe the vineyard owner "CAME" to destroy the wicked tenants for killing the servants and the son? I do.

Click to expand...

Matthew 21:40-41 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?” 41They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

matthew 21: 43-44 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e

Click to expand...

Yep, He sure did. Like I said before, there are some similarities between what happened in 70 AD and what will happen when He visibly comes down from heaven in the future. In both cases, He takes vengeance on unbelievers. It's just that the scale of destruction is different in the 70 AD event compared to the future second bodily coming event (as can be seen most clearly in 2 Peter 3:3-13).

Continuation of Post #1381:

The following is a response to what the "short time" (Greek: oligos) in Rev 12:12 means:

claninja said:

the word itself literally always means small, few, or short. It is never used for things large or long.

I'm arguing the literal definition of the word, which is always small, few, short.

Millions when taken by itself, is a lot. But millions is small when compared to trillions. That doesn't change the definition of small to all of the sudden to be the polar opposite. Context is key

Click to expand...

Please read what I'm about to say very carefully. I am NOT saying the word means literally a large number instead of a (relatively) small number. Please read that again. Let me know if I'm not being clear.

I'm saying the word does not have to refer to a literal small number. Once again, I give you the example of "many are called, but few (oligos) are chosen". In that case it's a RELATIVELY small number, but not a LITERALLY small number. Do you understand my point? So, in the case of the "short time" that we're discussing, I'm saying that it can be a RELATIVELY short period of time, but not necessarily a LITERALLY short period of time. I don't know what else I can do to clarify my point.

In a previous post you stated:

Click to expand...

"Here, the word is translated as "long" in relation to time rather than "short"! And, again, I believe it's referring to an undefined and limited amount of time without giving any indication of the actual duration being literally short or long."

But that was incorrect. Oligos is never translated as "long". the literal defintion of the word never changes to mean its polar opposite.

I'm trying to clarify your understanding because you stated oligos was translated as long in Acts 14:28, which is incorrect. Oligos is modified by ouk in acts 14:28, to be literally translated as "no short time". That doesn't change the definition of oligos.

Click to expand...

Except that it was translated "long" in that verse. Did you not read it?

Acts 14:26 From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed28 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long time (oligos) with the disciples.

However, if you would read what else I said carefully, you would see that I'm saying that even though the word was translated as "long" here it was only a "long time" in the context of that verse and not literally a long time. That's all I was saying.

I was merely trying to show you that the word does not have to refer to a literal small number, but can be used in a relative sense. To Paul and Silas, it probably seemed like "a long time" that they were in Antioch just because they were there longer than they had stayed in other places on their journey.

So to bring this full circle, what context sets oligos to be long in revelation 12? Is there a "no (ouk)" to modify oligos in revelation 12 to make it mean "no long time"?

Click to expand...

I'm not modifying anything. I'm trying to show you the real meaning of the word which is "relatively small and limited" rather than "literally small". The example of many are called, but few (oligos) are chosen shows that the most clearly. You keep wanting it to mean a literally small number and yet it refers to a number probably at least in the millions in Matthew 22:14. It's relatively few compared to "the many" who are called, but it's not literally few in number.

You may not, but strong's does.

" 3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time: Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 1:48 (πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί); ; Philippians 2:15; used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period: Matthew 11:16; Matthew 12:39, 41f, 45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 23:36; Mark 8:12, 38; Luke 11:29f, 32, 50; Luke 17:25; Acts 13:36; Hebrews 3:10; ἄνθρωποι τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 7:31; ἄνδρες τῆς γενεάς ταύτης, Luke 11:31; τήν δέ γενεάν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται, who can describe the wickedness of the present generation, Acts 8:33 (from Isaiah 53:8 the Sept.) (but cf. Meyer, at the passage)."

What other events did Jesus' generation not experience from the olivet discourse, excluding the coming of the son of man?

Click to expand...

I like Strong's, but it's not scripture. We should not just assume everything it says is true like we can with scripture.

To answer your question, the people of that time did not experience the gathering of the elect by the angels, which I equate to the time when we are caught up and gathered to Him, as referenced in 1 Thess 4:13-17, 2 Thess 1:10 and 2 Thess 2:2.

Also, the day of judgment, as described in Matthew 25:31-46, has not yet occurred, either.

Heaven and earth have not yet passed away (Matt 24:35).

And, as I mentioned earlier, the end of the age has not come yet, either.