End Times View

[zeke37]

zeke37 posted in message #74:

... but if you wanna know the truth, the Tree of Life
is Christ ...
​

While Christ is the life (John 14:6), the source of
our eternal life spiritually (John 3:16), the tree of
life could be for the eternal life of our resurrection
bodies, just as Adam's physical body would have lived
forever if he had eaten of the tree of life (Genesis
3:22). The leaves of the tree of life could also help
speed the healing (Revelation 22:2b) of our
resurrection bodies should they ever be injured by
accident.

And we may still have to eat other foods for our
nourishment even after our resurrection, just as the
angels may have to eat (Psalms 78:25).

Having to eat food is a good thing as it is a daily
reminder of our dependence on God for our continued
existence. This will be important to remember
especially after our resurrection, so that we don't
become proud and rebellious against God like happened
with the angel Lucifer.

I don't think that eating was the problem with Lucifer....that bad supposed apple in the garden is another story all together and that is not really about any food either (symbolically)...another thread perhaps...



in His service
c

 

[huldah153]

What are your views of the end?
I'm a Futurist, Post-Tribulation, Historic Pre-Millennialist.

Historic Amillenialist.

But unlike most Historicists, I don't believe "That Great City" to be Rome, but rather Jerusalem "where also our Lord was crucified". (Rev 11:8)
I also believe that the earth and all its cities will be utterly destroyed as prophesied in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Revelation.

 

[stone]

Are you guys talking about that mystery babylon thing again?

 

[Biblewriter]

The scriptures were given as the evidence; the claims
are based on what the referenced scriptures say. One
will have to prove that the claims are false by
referencing other scriptures which one feels
contradicts the claims, or one will have to show
how the referenced scriptures do not support the
claims. This has not been done.

This has been done repeatedly, and you have simply ignored everything that has been posted.

The reasons were included in the claims and supported
by what the referenced scriptures say.

What you failed to do was to demonstrate that the refrenced scriptures indeed taught what you claimed they taught.

It should be obvious to any reader with an open mind
that ...

This utterly fails as a demonstration of your point. We can indeed say exactly the same about you. That is, that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not approach these scriptures with an open mind. But you will claim that this is an ad hominem attack.

Paul is referring to the same coming of Jesus and
gathering together of the Church in 2 Thessalonians
2:1-8 as Jesus is referring to in Matthew 24:29-31.
There's no scriptural reason whatsoever to think that
they aren't the same.

The scriptural reasons for thinking that they are not the same have been pointed out here again and again, although not in this particular thread.

Actually, one should assume that there is only one
future coming of Christ, for that is all the Bible
ever refers to. It never refer to future comings
(plural) of Christ, but always to the singular future
coming of Christ.

Also, there is no scriptural reason to assume that
the various descriptions of that singular future
coming require plural future comings. No scriptural
proof has ever been presented that they do, so any
insistence that they do would be only because some
men wish that the Church won't have to go through the
coming tribulation, despite the Bible showing clearly
that some in the Church will have to suffer and die
during that time (Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13, 20:4,
Matthew 24:9-13).

Here, you are completely mistaken.

It is true that no scripture explicitly says that there will be two comings. But some scriptures describe Christ coming with his saints, and others describe his coming for his saints. Now which is it, with of for? these are totally contradictory concepts, unless you realize that two different comings are prophesied.

This is not just far fetched interpretation, for there is strong scriptural precedent for such a conclusion. For not even one Old Testament prophecy spoke of two comings of Messiah. But some of them spoke of him coming as a suffering sacrifice, and others spoke of him coming as a mighty conquerer.

Someone who approached these scriptures with you logic would conclude that no scripture anywhere spoke of two comings of Messiah. But New Testament scripture plainly states that his first coming was a fulfillment of some of these prophecies, but that others remain to be fulfilled in the future.

But you have closed your mind to the possibility that God might have done the same thing again. You want to believe that the scriptures only speak of one future coming of Christ, so you refuse to even consider what we say.

An example of what I am talking about is the scriptures about Gog and Magog. I and several others have pointed out details in the Ezekiel 38 and 39 account that directly contradict the idea that this happens after the millennium. But the Revelation 20 account plainly states that it happens after the millennium. The only sober conclusion, the only conclusion based on simple belief that the scriptures are true, is that there will be two such attacks, one before the millennium and one after it. You have simply denied this conclusion, but the only proof that it is incorrect that you have offered is that "it should be obvious to anyone that approached the scriptures with an open mind." What you have proved is that your own mind is not open to interpretations of scripture that do not line up with your own.

There are very few people on this forum who are more persuaded than myself that they know what the scriptures teach is coming. I am normally very sure of myself, so much so that I sometimes unintentionally offend others with my assurance. But I have learned things here. On a few occasions certain individuals have convinced me that I was mistaken on a point here or there. Others have brought up points that I had never before considered. But unless I read with an open mind I can learn nothing. And unless I listen to others I can persuade them of nothing.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #80:

na, not three heavens...

There are three heavens. The first heaven is the
atmosphere, the sky in which the birds fly
(Genesis 1:20b). The second heaven is outer space
where the stars reside (Genesis 26:4). The third
heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2b) is the spiritual realm
where God is on His throne (Revelation 4:2,
Ecclesiastes 5:2, Psalms 11:4).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

Paul was taken to the one and only heaven, but in the
age after Judgement...

Paul was taken to the third heaven, paradise, at one
point during his lifetime in the first century
(2 Corinthians 12:2-7), just as the thief on the cross
was taken to paradise on the very day that he died in
the first century (Luke 23:43). Nothing requires that
they were taken into some future age.

zeke37 posted in message #80:

Paul saw the third age of existance, heaven on
earth.....after Judgement...no evil...all perfect...

Actually, Paul saw paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4) which
is in New Jerusalem where the tree of life now is
(Revelation 2:7, 22:2,14), and which is now in the
third heaven (Hebrews 12:22). It won't descend from
the third heaven until a new earth is created
(Revelation 21:1-3), which won't happen until after
the millennium, the subsequent Gog/Magog event, and
the subsequent great white throne judgment (Revelation
20:7-21:3).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

... it is new heaven on new earth.....right here, same
earth as we have now....rejuvinated...with all the
evil rudiments burnt up...

New Jerusalem won't be the new heaven, for that refers
only to a new first heaven, a new atmosphere which
will be created for the new earth, as the current
atmosphere, the current first heaven, will vanish at
the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11,
cf. 21:1, 2 Peter 3:10).

But it's correct to say that the new earth will be
the same earth as we have now insofar as the planet
itself will abide forever (Ecclesiastes 1:4). Only
its atmosphere will be burned up, along with its
surface and all the works of man upon it (2 Peter
3:10). It will then get a brand new atmosphere, and
a brand new surface, one without any sea (Revelation
21:1).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

... this world or the world to come... Mat 12:32
(world is the word _aion in greek, meaning a time,
not place...but an age)

Matthew 12:32 could refer to the future millennial
age, after the resurrection of the Church (Luke
20:35, Revelation 20:4-6), or it could refer to the
new-earth age (Revelation 21:1-3) after the
millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-
21:3). Either way, nothing requires that the three
levels of heaven which exist now won't continue to
exist during the millennial age and during the new-
earth age.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #80:

there are not three separate places called heaven,
plains of existance or whatever...levels....no.

there is one....and it existed before the foundation
of this world, and it exists now, and it shall exist
in the future....

The second heaven (outer space, the physical universe)
could have been created some 10 billion years before
the first heaven (the earth's atmosphere) was created
when God created the planet earth some five billion
years ago. And the third heaven (the created spiritual
realm) could have existed for untold ages before the
creation of the physical universe some fifteen billion
years ago. So there could have been two higher levels
of heaven for billions of years before the lowest level
was created with the planet earth.

The first heaven, the earth's atmosphere, will be
destroyed at the great white throne judgment
(Revelation 20:11) and replaced when a new earth is
created (Revelation 21:1). But the second heaven,
outer space, could continue unchanged at the great
white throne judgment and then for billions of years
after that, until God eventually decides to create a
new universe. Even science admits that this universe
will eventually die: it will get so spread out and
cold and dark that nothing will survive, and then
even the protons making up all atoms will eventually
decay away, so that there will be nothing but empty,
cold blackness forever. Of course, God won't have to
wait that long to roll up this dying (entropic)
universe and replace it with a brand new one. He could
do that long before it reaches a completely decrepit
state, in which physical life will no longer be
possible.

And He may never have to replace the third heaven, the
created spiritual realm. It could remain unchanged
through entire series of future physical universes,
for untold trillions and trillions of years, just as
it could have existed in the past for untold trillions
and trillions of years, through entire series of past
physical universes, before the one we're in now.

So the second and third heavens need have no connection
at all with earth ages, just as the first heaven could
continue through various different ages on the earth,
such as the current age and the millennial age, and
then be renewed at the start of the new-earth age.

zeke37 posted in message #80:

the word in Gen1:20 is not heaven at all in hebrew ...

this word is never meant to imply heaven, where God
is,....but rather the physical confinds of our sky
and stars...

The Hebrew word translated as "heaven" in Genesis
1:20, which refers to the atmosphere, is the same
Hebrew word translated as "heaven" in Ecclesiastes
5:2, which refers to the place where God is, the
spiritual realm (Revelation 4:2), the third heaven
(2 Corinthians 12:2b); just as the same Hebrew word
is used to refer to outer space, where the stars
reside (Genesis 26:4). So the same Hebrew word refers
to all three levels of heaven which all exist at the
same time.

The same is true in the Greek. The Greek word
translated as "air" in Matthew 6:26, which refers
to the atmosphere, is the same Hebrew word translated
as "heaven" in Matthew 5:45, which refers to the
place where God is, the spiritual realm (Revelation
4:2), the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2b); just as
the same Greek word is used to refer to outer space,
where the stars reside (Matthew 24:29). So the same
Greek word refers to all three levels of heaven which
all exist at the same time.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #80:

there shall be not even one bad thought in Paradise
Forever...God shall totally blot out of existance all
evil people and angels...all badness just won't be
here at all....not even to fry...

Paradise is within the city of New Jerusalem, for
paradise is where the tree of life is (Revelation
2:7), and the tree of life is in the city of New
Jerusalem (Revelation 22:2,14).

When New Jerusalem descends from the third heaven to
the new earth (Revelation 21:1-3), no evil people or
evil angels will be allowed within its gates, only
those who were obedient to Christ will be allowed in
(Revelation 22:14). But all the evil people and evil
angels will not be blotted out of existence, but will
continue to exist forever in torment just outside the
walls of New Jerusalem, in the lake of fire (Revelation
22:15, 21:8, 20:10,15, 14:10-11, Matthew 25:41,46), so
that on the new earth the saved in New Jerusalem will
go out to look at the unsaved in their eternal torment
(Isaiah 66:22,24, Mark 9:45-46).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

God does not get off on people suffering...

That's right. His pleasure will not be in the
suffering of the unsaved, but that some people being
unsaved gives Him the opportunity to show His wrath
and make His power known (Romans 9:22, Proverbs 16:4,
Revelation 4:11).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

...there would be no need for Him to sentence folks
to eternal torture on one side of the fence....and
bliss on the other...especially if there was no
chance for change...no lesson to be LEARNED...

Actually, the eternal torment of the unsaved will
forever teach the lesson of God's wrath and power
(Romans 9:22), just as the eternal bliss of the saved
will forever teach the lesson of God's glory, mercy,
and wisdom (Romans 9:23, Ephesians 3:10).

And just as "up" cannot be known for what it is
without "down", and "on" cannot be known for what it
is without "off", so God's mercy cannot be known for
what it is without His wrath. When the saved in New
Jerusalem on the new earth will go out to look at the
unsaved in their eternal torment (Isaiah 66:22,24),
they will forever know what God's mercy is toward the
saved.

zeke37 posted in message #80:

the result of God completely blotting a soul out in
the lake of Fire, is eternal....it lasts forever...
pooof, no more...fear not man who can kill your flesh,
but fear Him who can completely destroy(consume) your
soul in the Lake of Fire...-our God is a consuming
fire..

but they are resurrected to face Judgement...

Actually, the Greek word translated as "destroy" in
Matthew 10:28 doesn't mean completely destroy or
consume; it can be translated simply as "marred", as
in Mark 2:22, which doesn't refer to annihilation,
but to mere damage.

Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as "consuming"
in Deuteronomy 4:24 doesn't mean completely destroying
or consuming, for it is used to refer to some people
being "devoured" by fire (Leviticus 10:2), and yet
even their bodies remained in existence (Leviticus
10:5); they weren't annihilated.

No scripture teaches the annihilation of the unsaved.
After they are resurrected to face judgment (John
5:29b, Revelation 20:12-13), both their resurrected
bodies and their souls will be cast into the lake of
fire (Revelation 20:15), not to be annihilated, but
to be forever tormented along with the devil and his
angels (Matthew 25:41,46, Revelation 20:10,15,
14:10-11, Mark 9:45-46, Isaiah 66:22,24).

zeke37 posted in message #80:

NEW JERUSALEM, a future time, not a level...and not
around today

New Jerusalem does exist today (Hebrews 12:22), above
(Galatians 4:26) in the third heaven (Revelation 21:2).

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #81:

Bible2 posted:

While Christ is the life (John 14:6), the source of
our eternal life spiritually (John 3:16), the tree of
life could be for the eternal life of our resurrection
bodies, just as Adam's physical body would have lived
forever if he had eaten of the tree of life (Genesis
3:22). The leaves of the tree of life could also help
speed the healing (Revelation 22:2b) of our
resurrection bodies should they ever be injured by
accident.

And we may still have to eat other foods for our
nourishment even after our resurrection, just as the
angels may have to eat (Psalms 78:25).

Having to eat food is a good thing as it is a daily
reminder of our dependence on God for our continued
existence. This will be important to remember
especially after our resurrection, so that we don't
become proud and rebellious against God like happened
with the angel Lucifer.

I don't think that eating was the problem with
Lucifer....that bad supposed apple in the garden is
another story all together and that is not really
about any food either (symbolically)...

Eating wasn't the problem with Lucifer, pride was
(Ezekiel 28:17). But his having to eat, as all angels
may have to eat (Psalms 78:25), could have been
instituted by God as a reminder to him of his total
dependence on God for his continued existence, to
help him to remain humble before God. Lucifer either
forgot the reason why God has His creatures need to
eat, or he thought that he could provide his own food
forever even in rebellion against God, or he was
rebelling precisely against the whole dependence-on-
God thing (Matthew 6:11), unable to bear it, and so
was driven by his pride to rebel against God no matter
what the ultimate consequences, even if it meant he
would ultimately be completely cut off from all life
and be cast into the eternal torment of the second
death, the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10,15, 21:8,
Matthew 25:41,46).

Adam and Eve's fall into rebellion had nothing to do
with eating per se, but with willfully eating one
specific food which God had commanded them not to eat
(Genesis 2:17, 3:11). They were allowed to freely eat
all manner of other foods (Genesis 2:16). So the sin
that brought about the fall of man (Romans 5:12)
wasn't eating, but willful disobedience to God
(Romans 5:19).

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

Posted by Bible2:

The scriptures were given as the evidence; the claims
are based on what the referenced scriptures say. One
will have to prove that the claims are false by
referencing other scriptures which one feels
contradicts the claims, or one will have to show
how the referenced scriptures do not support the
claims. This has not been done.

This has been done repeatedly, and you have simply
ignored everything that has been posted.

Everything has been ignored? Can one specifically
indicate even one thing that has been ignored, that
hasn't been carefully considered and then answered
in detail from the scriptures themselves? And which
answers have been shown from the scriptures
themselves to be in error?

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

Posted by Bible2:

The reasons were included in the claims and supported
by what the referenced scriptures say.

What you failed to do was to demonstrate that the
refrenced scriptures indeed taught what you claimed
they taught.

When has it been proven that the referenced scriptures
didn't teach what was claimed they taught?

For example, when has it been proven that
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 doesn't refer to the same coming
of Christ and gathering together of the Church as
Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27? When has it been
proven that 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 doesn't teach that
the coming of Christ to gather together the Church
must destroy the Antichrist? When has it been proven
that Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13, and 20:4 don't
refer to the Church having to suffer and die during
the reign of the Antichrist?

When has it been proven that any scripture teaches or
requires a pre-trib rapture?

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

Posted by Bible2:

It should be obvious to any reader with an open mind
that ...

This utterly fails as a demonstration of your point.
We can indeed say exactly the same about you. That is,
that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not
approach these scriptures with an open mind. But you
will claim that this is an ad hominem attack.

Clearly, someone with an open mind will immediately
acknowledge, for example, the connection between the
coming of Christ and gathering together of the Church
in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 and the coming of Christ and
gathering together of the Church in Matthew 24:29-31
and Mark 13:24-27. It's only those who approach the
scriptures with an a priori belief in a pre-trib
rapture who will feel the need to try to find a way
to deny the obvious connection.

This isn't ad hominem in the sense of going after
an individual personally, for example, attacking his
whole character as "ungodly" or his whole reasoning
as "irrational", instead of going after the specific
beliefs that he has presented, proving from the
scriptures themselves how the beliefs that he holds
are either not taught by the scriptures, or expressly
contradict them.

The claim that it's only those who approach the
scriptures without an open mind (but with an a priori
belief in a pre-trib rapture) who will fail to see the
obvious teaching of the post-trib rapture in the
scriptures, is not a personal attack on their whole
character or reasoning, but simply an attack on their
a priori belief in a pre-trib rapture, which is
nowhere taught by the scriptures.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

Posted by Bible2:

Paul is referring to the same coming of Jesus and
gathering together of the Church in 2 Thessalonians
2:1-8 as Jesus is referring to in Matthew 24:29-31.
There's no scriptural reason whatsoever to think that
they aren't the same.

The scriptural reasons for thinking that they are not
the same have been pointed out here again and again,
although not in this particular thread.

Which reasons for thinking that 2 Thessalonians
2:1-8 and Matthew 24:29-31 are not the same coming of
Jesus and gathering together of the Church haven't
been carefully considered and answered in detail from
the scriptures themselves, and shown to be nowhere
taught by the scriptures or even expressly
contradictory to the scriptures?

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

Posted by Bible2:

Actually, one should assume that there is only one
future coming of Christ, for that is all the Bible
ever refers to. It never refer to future comings
(plural) of Christ, but always to the singular future
coming of Christ.

Also, there is no scriptural reason to assume that
the various descriptions of that singular future
coming require plural future comings. No scriptural
proof has ever been presented that they do, so any
insistence that they do would be only because some
men wish that the Church won't have to go through the
coming tribulation, despite the Bible showing clearly
that some in the Church will have to suffer and die
during that time (Revelation 13:10, 14:12-13, 20:4,
Matthew 24:9-13).

Here, you are completely mistaken.

It is true that no scripture explicitly says that
there will be two comings. But some scriptures
describe Christ coming with his saints, and others
describe his coming for his saints. Now which is it,
with of for? these are totally contradictory concepts,
unless you realize that two different comings are
prophesied.

The single second coming will be both with and for the
saints, and in two different ways. The first way is
found in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, where at the same
second coming Jesus comes "with" the saints in
1 Thessalonians 4:14 and then raptures the saints in
1 Thessalonians 4:17. In this case the "with" in
1 Thessalonians 4:14 refers to those saints who will
have died before the second coming, and the rapture
in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 refers to both the dead saints
after their resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:16b and
the living saints after their changing into immortality
(in 1 Corinthians 15:51-53).

There is also a second sense in which Jesus will come
both with and for His saints at the single second
coming. For the rapture will catch up the entire Church
into the sky to Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17) to be
judged by Jesus (Psalms 50:4-5, cf. Mark 13:27) and
married to Jesus (Revelation 19:7) in the sky before
the Church mounts white horses and descends back down
from the sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation
19:14) to the earth to reign with Him during the
millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29).

So we see two different ways in which Jesus will come
both for and with the saints at the same single second
coming. There is simply no scriptural reason to claim
that with and for are "totally contradictory concepts"
within a single second coming.

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

This is not just far fetched interpretation, for
there is strong scriptural precedent for such a
conclusion. For not even one Old Testament prophecy
spoke of two comings of Messiah. But some of them
spoke of him coming as a suffering sacrifice, and
others spoke of him coming as a mighty conquerer.

Someone who approached these scriptures with you
logic would conclude that no scripture anywhere
spoke of two comings of Messiah. But New Testament
scripture plainly states that his first coming was
a fulfillment of some of these prophecies, but that
others remain to be fulfilled in the future.

But you have closed your mind to the possibility that
God might have done the same thing again. You want to
believe that the scriptures only speak of one future
coming of Christ, so you refuse to even consider what
we say.

The fact that the Old Testament showed Jesus coming
into the world by being born (Isaiah 7:14) and then
dying for our sins (Isaiah 53), but then elsewhere
showed Jesus coming into the world as a mighty
conqeror and reigning forever (Zechariah 14:3-4,
Isaiah 9:7), clearly required two different comings
of Jesus.

But what has been said regarding two different second
comings that has been refused to even be considered,
and hasn't instead been carefully considered and then
shown in detail from the scriptures themselves to be
unsupported by the scriptures, or even contradictory
to the scriptures?

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

An example of what I am talking about is the
scriptures about Gog and Magog. I and several others
have pointed out details in the Ezekiel 38 and 39
account that directly contradict the idea that this
happens after the millennium. But the Revelation 20
account plainly states that it happens after the
millennium. The only sober conclusion, the only
conclusion based on simple belief that the scriptures
are true, is that there will be two such attacks, one
before the millennium and one after it. You have
simply denied this conclusion, but the only proof that
it is incorrect that you have offered is that "it
should be obvious to anyone that approached the
scriptures with an open mind." What you have proved
is that your own mind is not open to interpretations
of scripture that do not line up with your own.

What details in Ezekiel chapters 38-39 that were
claimed to directly contradict the idea that this
happens after the millennium (as is expressly stated
in Revelation 20:7-9) weren't shown to not be
contradictions at all, but perfectly consistent with
a post-millennial Gog/Magog event?

Biblewriter posted in message #84:

There are very few people on this forum who are more
persuaded than myself that they know what the
scriptures teach is coming. I am normally very sure
of myself, so much so that I sometimes unintentionally
offend others with my assurance. But I have learned
things here. On a few occasions certain individuals
have convinced me that I was mistaken on a point here
or there. Others have brought up points that I had
never before considered. But unless I read with an
open mind I can learn nothing. And unless I listen to
others I can persuade them of nothing.

What hasn't been listened to with an open mind? What
hasn't been carefully considered and then answered
in detail from the scriptures themselves? And what
answer has been shown from the scriptures themselves
to be in error?

We can only persuade people to believe what we believe
about what the scriptures teach by pointing them to
what the scriptures themselves say and (often even
more importantly) what the scriptures themselves
don't say or even require. If, even after we do this,
they insist that our beliefs are wrong, then they will
have to show from the scriptures themselves how our
beliefs are not supported by the scriptures, or even
contradict the scriptures. And if they are unable to
do this, then they should reconsider their position
with an open mind. In doing so, they may discover that
their position is ultimately based on a priori beliefs
not taught by the scriptures themselves.

 

[zeke37]

EZ38-39 are the hour of temptation, pre mill.

40-48 are Millennial.

37 is a "spiritual awakening"

God is building 2 armies....one in heaven and one on earth. these in 37 are the ones on earth.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #92:

EZ38-39 are the hour of temptation, pre mill.

40-48 are Millennial.

37 is a "spiritual awakening"

God is building 2 armies....one in heaven and one on
earth. these in 37 are the ones on earth.

The Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel chapters 38-39 will
happen after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-9).

The hour of temptation of Revelation 3:10 happened
in the first century. The letters of Revelation
chapters 2-3 were written to seven first-century local
church congregations in seven cities in the Roman
province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:4,11b). The local
church congregation of Philadelphia was kept from a
persecution that came upon all the Roman world
(Revelation 3:10) while the local church congregation
in Smyrna had to suffer and die in that persecution
(Revelation 2:10).

The coming tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18
doesn't include the post-mill Gog/Magog event of
Ezekiel chapters 38-39.

Ezekiel chapters 40-48 aren't millennial because they
include animal sacrifices for sin (Ezekiel 40:39) and
there are no more animal sacrifices for sin since the
one-time all-encompassing sacrifice of Jesus Himself
(Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10:18, 10:14).

Ezekiel chapters 40-48 was a conditional vision
(Ezekiel 43:11) while the Old Covenant was still
in effect. But Israel never fulfilled it while the
Old Covenant was still in effect, and now the Old
Covenant is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18-19),
so Ezekiel chapters 40-48 will never be fulfilled.

Ezekiel 37:11 could mean that the dry bones in
Ezekiel 37:1-10 aren't literal, but symbolic of the
hopelessness that Israel felt in its Babylonian
Captivity, which was happening at the time Ezekiel
saw the vision of the dry bones.

In light of that, Ezekiel 37:12 could be symbolic of
God bringing Israel out from its hopeless condition
and returning it to the land of Israel, which happened
when the Babylonian Captivity ended (Ezra 1).

At the same time, Ezekiel 37:12 could include
reference to the ultimate, literal resurrection (John
5:28-29) which will include those in OT Israel who
died in faith (Hebrews 11:13) and were joined to the
Church when Jesus, after His resurrection, preached to
them in Hades the completion of the gospel (1 Peter
3:19, 4:6) and then drew them up into heaven
(Ephesians 4:8-9) to inhabit New Jerusalem (Hebrews
12:22-23). They, along with all the rest of the dead
in the Church, will come back with Jesus at His
second coming and their bodies will be resurrected at
that time (1 Thessalonians 4:14-16; 1 Corinthians
15:22-23). And they, along with all the rest of the
Church, will then live on the earth with Jesus during
the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29),
when He will rule the world from Jerusalem (Micah
4:1-7). Ezekiel 37:24 means that the resurrected
David will also be a local king over Israel during
the millennium.

Ezekiel 37:21-23 refers to those unbelieving elect
Israelites still alive at the second coming who will
all be saved when they see Jesus (Romans 11:26-29,
Zechariah 12:10-14).

The "army" in Ezekiel 37:10 may not be literal in the
sense of a military force sent out to attack or defend
some territory, but could simply be a figurative way
of expressing the size of the multitude of people seen
by Ezekiel in his vision, like, for example, someone
could say "there's a whole army of ants in the
kitchen", meaning that there's a huge number of ants.

There will be a heavenly army at the second coming
which will include the raptured Church (Revelation
19:14, cf. 19:8b), and there could also be an earthly
army made up of those unbelieving elect Israelites
saved at the second coming, who could be allowed by
Jesus to fight their enemies (Zechariah 14:14, 12:5-8).

 

[Biblewriter]

What hasn't been listened to with an open mind? What
hasn't been carefully considered and then answered
in detail from the scriptures themselves? And what
answer has been shown from the scriptures themselves
to be in error?

We can only persuade people to believe what we believe
about what the scriptures teach by pointing them to
what the scriptures themselves say and (often even
more importantly) what the scriptures themselves
don't say or even require. If, even after we do this,
they insist that our beliefs are wrong, then they will
have to show from the scriptures themselves how our
beliefs are not supported by the scriptures, or even
contradict the scriptures. And if they are unable to
do this, then they should reconsider their position
with an open mind. In doing so, they may discover that
their position is ultimately based on a priori beliefs
not taught by the scriptures themselves.

You have been repeatedly pointed to various scriptures that clearly state various details of coming events. The details of these events that demonstrate the conclusions of others have been clearly pointed out. You have answered by repeatedly citing scriptures that you think prove your point. But you have not (at least in any case that I have noticed) pointed out the details of even one of those scriptures that demonstrate your conclusion. You have simply stated, again and again, that your conclusion would be obvious to anyone who approached the scriptures with an open mind. But in the process you have clearly demonstrated that you do not approach the scriptures with an open mind.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the only things that count are what the scriptures say will happen. (Or what they do not say will happen.) But you repeatedly theorize about what might happen or what could happen. So you have repeatedly violated this principle.

Just saying the same things again and again is simply argumentative and pointless. I will not continue this exchange.

 

[zeke37]

Hi bible2

The Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel chapters 38-39 will
happen after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-9).

That is your opinion, many others believe that there will be two battles, one just before Christ's Coming(Rev19:11-21..not yet fulfilled), and one just before the Father's Coming to which you alluded...happening after the Millennial Sabbath.

The hour of temptation of Revelation 3:10 happened
in the first century. The letters of Revelation
chapters 2-3 were written to seven first-century local
church congregations in seven cities in the Roman
province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:4,11b). The local
church congregation of Philadelphia was kept from a
persecution that came upon all the Roman world
(Revelation 3:10) while the local church congregation
in Smyrna had to suffer and die in that persecution
(Revelation 2:10).

I and many others disagree...this is future prophesy, as John was In the Lord's Day and times surrounding that final hour in the visions given to him by Christ...and Satan is cast to earth at the 1/2 hour mark which is why there is silence in heaven for 1/2 an hour (the hour of temptation)(Rev8), the accuser is cast out and to the earth for a short season....that has not happened yet.


these are future (today's) church types...based on history, but fulfilled in the future....what they teach is what is important...Smyrna and Philadelphia have a similar doctrine, and as such are not chastised by Jesus, as the other 5 church systems are...who do not have that doctrine.

The coming tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18
doesn't include the post-mill Gog/Magog event of
Ezekiel chapters 38-39.

that is your opinion

Ezekiel chapters 40-48 aren't millennial because they
include animal sacrifices for sin (Ezekiel 40:39) and
there are no more animal sacrifices for sin since the
one-time all-encompassing sacrifice of Jesus Himself
(Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10:18, 10:14).

it is Millennial, but no animal sacrifices will be made..those animal sacrifices are symoblic...a type...a learning experience...so that those in all of history will know what we are talking about...sacrifice to God...(today we know what God wants in sacrifice...our love and prayers...not flesh)

as all prophesy is absolutely jam packed and filled with symbolic metaphores, why should this be any different...

it is Millennial, built on measurements of 8's not 7's...and it ends with the Father Coming here, just as we know He will at the end, right?

Ezekiel chapters 40-48 was a conditional vision
(Ezekiel 43:11) while the Old Covenant was still
in effect. But Israel never fulfilled it while the
Old Covenant was still in effect, and now the Old
Covenant is no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18-19),
so Ezekiel chapters 40-48 will never be fulfilled.

each promise God makes will be fulfilled...maybe not in a way that we curently can understand...there is usually a condition applied to that...."if" you do this or that, then .... but every one will be completely fulfilled. God's Word is truth.

but God still wants sacrifices, and always will....just not of flesh, because in the Millennium, and afterward, there is no flesh...Christ is here and there is no flesh. He wants your love and prayers. So take it for what it is...symbolism...connecting the act of sacrifice, but not of the picture of flesh....we know better anyway...

Ezekiel 37:11 could mean that the dry bones in
Ezekiel 37:1-10 aren't literal, but symbolic of the
hopelessness that Israel felt in its Babylonian
Captivity, which was happening at the time Ezekiel
saw the vision of the dry bones.

In light of that, Ezekiel 37:12 could be symbolic of
God bringing Israel out from its hopeless condition
and returning it to the land of Israel, which happened
when the Babylonian Captivity ended (Ezra 1).

At the same time, Ezekiel 37:12 could include
reference to the ultimate, literal resurrection (John
5:28-29) which will include those in OT Israel who
died in faith (Hebrews 11:13) and were joined to the
Church when Jesus, after His resurrection, preached to
them in Hades the completion of the gospel (1 Peter
3:19, 4:6) and then drew them up into heaven
(Ephesians 4:8-9) to inhabit New Jerusalem (Hebrews
12:22-23). They, along with all the rest of the dead
in the Church, will come back with Jesus at His
second coming and their bodies will be resurrected at
that time (1 Thessalonians 4:14-16; 1 Corinthians
15:22-23). And they, along with all the rest of the
Church, will then live on the earth with Jesus during
the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, 5:10, 2:26-29),
when He will rule the world from Jerusalem (Micah
4:1-7). Ezekiel 37:24 means that the resurrected
David will also be a local king over Israel during
the millennium.

Ezekiel 37:21-23 refers to those unbelieving elect
Israelites still alive at the second coming who will
all be saved when they see Jesus (Romans 11:26-29,
Zechariah 12:10-14).

The "army" in Ezekiel 37:10 may not be literal in the
sense of a military force sent out to attack or defend
some territory, but could simply be a figurative way
of expressing the size of the multitude of people seen
by Ezekiel in his vision, like, for example, someone
could say "there's a whole army of ants in the
kitchen", meaning that there's a huge number of ants.

IMO, the spiritual army that is raised in Ez37 is the elect Christians from all 12 tribes...readying themselves for a spiritual battle, with the armour of God on, because we do not fight forces of flesh and blood, but evil spiritual forces...Satan the fallen angel and all that follow him....this is the spiritual awakening...the sealing of the elect, IMO....also forshadowed in Ez9...

There will be a heavenly army at the second coming
which will include the raptured Church (Revelation
19:14, cf. 19:8b), and there could also be an earthly
army made up of those unbelieving elect Israelites
saved at the second coming, who could be allowed by
Jesus to fight their enemies (Zechariah 14:14, 12:5-8).

unbelieving elect Israelites???? I wonder how you ever came to that comclusion???

the elect follow The Lamb where ever He goes. Rev14...theya re not converts...all elect are sealed BEFORE the 4 winds begin their blowing....Rev7....not after. and those same 4 winds are spoken of in 2 other major prophests works...so there is no mistaking the time frame..wanna learn about it?

That blowing is the final hour of temptation, or Great Tribulation...or 70th week or what ever else you might call that time...

in Christ's service
c

 

[walt2000]

I'll tell you a story about how I got started with this .
I was looking for some pictures to paint ,down the panhandle of Alaska in northern B.C. in Canada ,the wife and kids ,a German Shepard and pup tent ,and me..
We were about midway, and I got a number stuck in my head ,27072 .Well that number was there ,and I could not get it out.It was a weird thing ,It would not leave me , when I got home ,I was talking to a friend of my daughters about this number .That I had stuck in my head for two years now.She said that, that no. sounds like my fathers gemartria ,as they were Jewish. I asked her to ask her
father if he new what, or if that meant any thing in Jewish.
about two weeks later she told me, that she asked her Rabbi, and he asked her where she got this no. from.And was surprised This should stick in my head.
He said it was a gemartria no. 27 = the no. of books in the old testament.2= union,7= pefection
.Or Revelations of the word ,prophecy.
The 0 was a spacer and was meant to separate the two no.s from each other.The no. came out to Danial and Revelations.And the 72 had a great significance to the Jew,It also meant the 72 names of God.Any way to cut a long story short, it also meant the two books were a reflection of one another.So of coarse I read them .And I found out that I could understand them.
Seven Visions of Dan. and Seven Thunders of Revelations.So I took what I had to the church and they,well ,may as well say they kicked me out. Some lead me out ,and some just changed the subject.
In other words ,I was alone .But I had this great desire to read the two books over and over again and again.I must have read the bible ten times to see how I could be so wrong.10 hours a day seven days a week my wife thought I was in trouble in the head ,When I closed my eyes at night to sleep It was there.Night after night.I went on sleeping pills,so I could get some sleep.That is when this chart came to me.It all made sense ,and all the other churches were wrong .
I decided to write my version down,showed it to more churches and they just as well as they were before toss,lead,changed the subject.Over and over again.
Just for the fun of it I counted the pages in my book and guess what 72 page's.
And that is not all ,I had a dream.

Two birds were making a commotion in the peak of our house ,I was in bed with the wife ,and told her to look at the peak of the house ,I got out of bed and had a look see.
when I got closer I could see that there was a big pure white bird with it's wings wrapped around a little gray bird,protecting it, so of coarse I yelled at the wife, to come and see this.
Mean while I made it down stairs ,and went outside to see why the birds were acting this way.There was a long thin gray,black cloud over my house ,from horizon to horizon ,scaring the hell out of the little gray bird.
Well this is when I really belted out, to the wife ,scaring her half to death. She jumped out of bed , we were sleeping .Well It turned out that I was just happening to have a dream.In color and 3d.

And that is not all about two years later, I got this letter about the dream I had ,he was a minister from the states ,he said that only I could know what this dream meant ,he knew about, and interpreted the dream.
Well He didn't know me and I didn't know him from Adam .But he had the interpretation to my dream.
The dream said that I was going to have trouble with a lot of people about the numbers ,and the interpretation ,of my dream.
That is how I got to read Revelations ,and have trouble with it .You figure.walt2000

 

[walt2000]

walt2000

 

[walt2000]

walt2000

 

[Bible2]

Biblewriter posted in message #94:

You have been repeatedly pointed to various scriptures
that clearly state various details of coming events.

None of the details of the various descriptions of
the future coming of Jesus require multiple future
comings; every last detail can happen right when the
Bible says the future coming will occur: immediately
after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31). There is
absolutely no scriptural reason whatsoever to invent
a pre-trib future coming.

Similarly, none of the details of Ezekiel chapters
38-39 and Revelation 20:7-9 require multiple Gog/Magog
events; every last detail can happen right when the
Bible says that the Gog/Magog event will occur: after
the millennium (Revelation 20:7-9). There is
absolutely no scriptural reason whatsoever to invent
another Gog/Magog event before that time.

 

[Bible2]

zeke37 posted in message #95:

Bible2 had posted:

The Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel chapters 38-39 will
happen after the millennium (Revelation 20:7-9).

That is your opinion, many others believe that there
will be two battles, one just before Christ's Coming
(Rev19:11-21..not yet fulfilled), and one just before
the Father's Coming to which you alluded...happening
after the Millennial Sabbath.

The second-coming battle of Revelation 19:11-21 makes
no reference to Gog and Magog, but is referring to a
battle between the returning Jesus and the Antichrist
(Revelation 19:19-21).

zeke37 posted in message #95:

[Re: Revelation 3:10]

...this is future prophesy, as John was In the Lord's
Day and times surrounding that final hour in the
visions given to him by Christ...and Satan is cast to
earth at the 1/2 hour mark which is why there is
silence in heaven for 1/2 an hour (the hour of
temptation)(Rev8), the accuser is cast out and to the
earth for a short season....that has not happened yet.

these are future (today's) church types...based on
history, but fulfilled in the future....what they
teach is what is important...Smyrna and Philadelphia
have a similar doctrine, and as such are not chastised
by Jesus, as the other 5 church systems are...who do
not have that doctrine.

Revelation 3:10 was a future prophecy, but only for
that first-century local church congregation in
the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11b) to
which it was addressed. Revelation 3:10, just like
Revelation 2:10, referred to a first-century
persecution.

The endtime prophecies in Revelation didn't start
until after Revelation 4:1, when John was caught up
into heaven to be shown "things which must be
hereafter". The previous letters to the first-century
local churches in Revelation chapters 2-3 were "the
things which are" (Revelation 1:19).

John wasn't in the day of the Lord when he saw
Revelation chapters 1-18, for the day of the Lord
won't begin until the second coming (1 Corinthians
1:7-8), which doesn't happen until Revelation 19.
John was simply in the Spirit on the Lord's day
(Revelation 1:10), meaning that he was in the Spirit
on one particular first-day-of-the-week, while he was
living on Patmos, when he saw Revelation (Revelation
1:9-10).

Regarding the coming tribulation of Revelation
chapters 6-18, the Bible doesn't say why there is
silence at the unsealing of the 7th seal (Revelation
8:1), and there is no silence at the later casting
down of Satan (Revelation 12:9-12). Nor does the Bible
say that the silence at the unsealing of the 7th seal
(Revelation 8:1) is at the midpoint of the coming
tribulation, for after the 7th seal comes the six
trumpets of Revelation chapters 8-9, and the 5th
trumpet alone will last five months (Revelation 9:5),
and it's not until after all of the six trumpets of
Revelation chapters 8-9 are over that the 3.5-year
world-reign of the Antichrist of Revelation chapters
11-14 will begin (Revelation 11:2b-3, 12:6,14, 13:5b).

The hour (time) of temptation in Revelation 3:10
occurred in the first century, and lasted only ten
days for one of the local churches, even though those
10 days brought that church's imprisonment, torture,
and death at the hands of Satan (Revelation 2:10).

The silence in heaven "about the space of half an
hour" in Revelation 8:1 is just that: silence in
heaven for about 30 minutes. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with Revelation 3:10 or the length of the coming
tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18.