Premillennialism ignores the tenses in the original Greek in order to sustain its teaching

[claninja]

I would say some of the rewards are given when someone's soul goes to heaven and some rewards will be given at His future second coming. What is the reason for these questions?

The OP says believers are reigning now and associates this argument with verb tenses. Although the OP was unable to post any present tense verbs for believers presently reigning in the same magnitude that Christ reigns.

So, to revelation 2-3, All of the “overcoming verbs” are present tense. All of the “I will” verbs in regards to doling out rewards are future tense. Additionally, Christ is clear that he rewards at his coming (revelation 22:12).

So when does Christ award the authority over the nations to the overcoming saints?

Revelation 2:25-26 Nevertheless, hold fast to what you have until I come And to the one who overcomes and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations.

When does Christ award the overcoming saints the privilege of sitting on the throne? (When did Christ sit on the throne? Before or after His resurrection?)

Revelation 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Amil does not say that believers come to life upon death. I've talked to you about this before and I see that you still don't get it. Our souls never die. Our bodies die. When our bodies die, our souls go to heaven to be with Christ. So, believers do not come to life upon death. They have already been brought to spiritual life from having previously been dead in sins (Eph 2:1-6) and because of that their souls go to heaven when they die.

You seem to think that this passage is talking about people being up in heaven and just laying around waiting for the day for Christ to return. No. All it's saying is that they should be at peace and not worry about it for a little while longer at that point (when the 5th seal is opened) for the time when Christ will take vengeance on His enemies. It does not say they are not reigning with Christ. You are seeing things in the passage that aren't there.

I’m simply stating that revelation 20 (the saints lived and reigned with Christ) is usually interpreted as the souls of dead believers being in heaven to reign with Christ by traditional Amil. The verb in revelation 20:4 of “lived” can be understood as “lived” or “lived again”. Your cross examining the wrong point. My argument is not whether the souls lived or lived again. But for argument sake so you don’t keep side tracking my argument, sure the souls simply “lived”.

Anyways back to my point….
Revelation 20 states the souls of saints are living and reigning with Christ. However, the 5th seal, in revelation 6, represents the souls of the saints as crying out under the alter, resting, and waiting to be avenged. revelation 20 and revelation 6 are completely opposite in terms of the activity of the saints post death.

you’ve added to my argument, things I didn’t say. All I’ve done is point out the differences between the activity of the souls between revelation 20 and 6. Such is another discrepancy for traditional Amil.

I disagree. I know we've talked about this before, but the context just does not support that idea. This thread is all about the tense in which these scriptures are written in and you're not taking that into account when reading Ephesians 2:6, which is written in the present tense, not in the future tense.

Im focusing on “being seated with Christ”. Please demonstrate anywhere else in the epistles, where Paul uses “being seated in heaven with Christ” as solely figurative.

Honestly, it makes no sense that you believe Paul’s being seated in heaven with Christ is only figurative and not literal, revelations 20’s souls being heaven and reigning with Christ is literal, but revelation 20 and Ephesians 2:6 are about the same thing. It’s really inconsistent.

 

[Douggg]

The OP says believers are reigning now and associates this argument with verb tenses. Although the OP was unable to post any present tense verbs for believers presently reigning in the same magnitude that Christ reigns.

So, to revelation 2-3, All of the “overcoming verbs” are present tense. All of the “I will” verbs in regards to doling out rewards are future tense. Additionally, Christ is clear that he rewards at his coming (revelation 22:12).

So when does Christ award the authority over the nations to the overcoming saints?

Revelation 2:25-26 Nevertheless, hold fast to what you have until I come And to the one who overcomes and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations.

When does Christ award the overcoming saints the privilege of sitting on the throne? (When did Christ sit on the throne? Before or after His resurrection?)

Revelation 3:21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.




I’m simply stating that revelation 20 (the saints lived and reigned with Christ) is usually interpreted as the souls of dead believers being in heaven to reign with Christ by traditional Amil. The verb in revelation 20:4 of “lived” can be understood as “lived” or “lived again”. Your cross examining the wrong point. My argument is not whether the souls lived or lived again. But for argument sake do you don’t keep side tracking my argument, sure the souls simply “lived”.

Anyways back to my point….
Revelation 20 states the souls of saints are living and reigning with Christ. However, the 5th seal, in revelation 6, represents the souls of the saints as crying out under the alter, resting, and waiting to be avenged. revelation 20 and revelation 6 are completely opposite in terms of the activity of the saints post death.

you’ve added to my argument, things I didn’t say. All I’ve done is point out the differences between the activity of the souls between revelation 20 and 6. Such is another discrepancy for traditional Amil.




Im focusing on “being seated with Christ”. Please demonstrate anywhere else in the epistles, where Paul uses “being seated in heaven with Christ” as solely figurative.

Honestly, it makes no sense that you believe Paul’s being seated in heaven with Christ is only figurative and not literal, revelations 20’s souls being heaven and reigning with Christ is literal, but revelation 20 and Ephesians 2:6 are about the same thing. It’s really inconsistent.

Your posts would be much easier to read if you did not bold all the text.

 

[Bob_1000]

Heb 9
but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Thank you for this post Jeff. I have been trying to understand this verse for years and God just allowed me to understand it. We're all born dead, it's appointed to us from birth. After this we're judged based on what we did with Christ... those who reject him will die the 2nd death those who accept him won't.

I believe the underlined part is Jesus coming for the believer when it's time to go home as he did with Stephen when it was time for him to go home.

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Romans 8:23
And not only that, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons and daughters, the redemption of our body.

I don't understand the argument on this one. I believe were are waiting eagerly for the adoption of our glorified bodies. That bible version you're using is garbage, it makes it sound like we're waiting to be adopted as sons and daughters... we're already adopted as the children of God, the only thing we're waiting on is the adoption of the glorified body.

2Tim 4
6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Also see post 296

I don't understand the argument on this one either. Paul is saying that we will get our rewards when we die, which I believe also. Again, maybe "His appearing" is what you are pointing out, as in that's a reference to the 2nd coming. As I said before, Jesus comes for every believer when it's time to go home.... we're told to comfort one another with these words.

 

[claninja]

Your posts would be much easier to read if you did not bold all the text.

how so? What makes it more difficult?

 

[The Righterzpen]

The way I look at it Amils first need to prove that the thousand years can fit in this age before someone can take on the arguments in the OP. What good are those arguments unless the thousand years can fit in this age? Revelation 12 is the perfect place to prove it can fit in this age assuming it actually can fit in this age.

The phrase "thousand years" is actually in the plural. It's not "1000 years" it's "duel thousand years". Now is it a literal "duel thousand years". (That I don't know.) If it is though, a literal "duel 1000 years" post pentecost would land us on 2033 AD.

And this does fit into Revelation 12; because we have this "woman" giving birth to a man child that this dragon is trying to destroy. That is given as 1260 days. Now historically: from the point the angel came to the father of John the Baptist in the temple, to the point Herod the Great killed all the boys under 2 in Bethlehem was.... wait for it = 1260 days!

Once Herod the Great died in 4 BC Jesus came back to Judea. That correlates to the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14. It says that "king who understands dark sayings" was "broken without hand". Herod the Great was not conquered by anyone; according to secular records he just died of a massive infection. (Hold that thought a minute; because that "form of death" is also connected to Herod Agrippa 1.)

Herod the Great is the "king" that sets up the "abomination that causes desolate".

And here's another interesting "present tense" gem. When Jesus says to the disciples "when you see the abomination that causes desolate standing in the holy place....." That phrase is present tense; meaning "the abomination that causes desolate" as "standing" at the point Jesus was speaking to them. (despite the fact that they didn't "see" it yet). Jesus made this statement just before the crucifixion. They wouldn't "see" "the abomination that causes desolate" until after Pentecost; because the Holy Spirit would "teach them all things".

Now the 1290 days and the 1335 days?

There's 1290 days between the death of John the Baptist and the week before / of the crucifixion. The week of the crucifixion is what the dispensationalists call "the great tribulation"

There's 1335 days between the death of John the Baptist and Pentecost.

Now the "42 months" is also correlated as 3.5 days.

There's an interesting historical caveat in the 42 months here. Herod Agrippa 1 reigned over the entirety of the land Herod the Great had reigned for ..... wait for it = 42 months. We know by what the book of Acts says, that Herod Agrippa 1 was stuck down by God. (Acts 12:23) This happened after Passover; because the text says he'd put Peter in prison during Passover. Herod Agrippa 1 reigned over an area prior to reigning over all of Judea for..... wait for it = 3.5 years. Then he reigned over the entire area another 3.5 years. Thus Herod Agrippa 1 reigned an entirety of.... wait for it = 7 years!

Herod Agrippa 1 began to reign over all of Judea when Caligula died; which was January 22 (ish) of 41 A.D. Herod Agrippa 1 died in 44 A.D. probably in some time in June or July. "42 months" (or 1260 days) is a lunar calendar measurement, not a solar calendar one. So it's not exactly 3.5 solar calendar years.

Now why is this 11 years post crucifixion? I don't know? Revelation 2:10 speaks of Smyrna's "tribulation" being "10 days". Was Steven (the first martyr) martyred by Paul one year post the crucifixion? (That's possible.) And so thus was Smyrna's "tribulation" "10 years"; or was it a literal 10 days? James was beheaded just before Peter was put in prison. (Acts 12:2) Which fits with what Revelation 2 says about Smyrna.

Now the "3.5 days"? 2 Peter 3:8 says "1000 years is a day and a day is as 1000 years". That's 3500 years. Well, what happened 3500 years ago? Wait for it.... = Exodus! Exodus commenced the penning of the Scripture. Humanity has had the written revelation of Scripture now for almost 3500 years. The actual 3500 years, again would land us on 2033 A.D.

That all fits Revelation 12!

 

[sovereigngrace]

Thank you for this post Jeff. I have been trying to understand this verse for years and God just allowed me to understand it. We're all born dead, it's appointed to us from birth. After this we're judged based on what we did with Christ... those who reject him will die the 2nd death those who accept him won't.

I believe the underlined part is Jesus coming for the believer when it's time to go home as he did with Stephen when it was time for him to go home.

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

I don't understand the argument on this one. I believe were are waiting eagerly for the adoption of our glorified bodies. That bible version you're using is garbage, it makes it sound like we're waiting to be adopted as sons and daughters... we're already adopted as the children of God, the only thing we're waiting on is the adoption of the glorified body.

I don't understand the argument on this one either. Paul is saying that we will get our rewards when we die, which I believe also. Again, maybe "His appearing" is what you are pointing out, as in that's a reference to the 2nd coming. As I said before, Jesus comes for every believer when it's time to go home.... we're told to comfort one another with these words.

You are promoting full preterism which is not allowed on this board. No wonder you would not answer my questions.

 

[Bob_1000]

You are promoting full preterism which is not allowed on this board. No wonder you would not answer my questions.

And exactly how am I promoting full preterism?

 

[The Righterzpen]

Now; "time of Jacob's trouble" and "the great tribulation"?

When did those things happen?

The Friday before the crucifixion Mary anoints Jesus's feet. This is "6 days before Passover". (John 12:1)
This commences the week of "the great tribulation". (Danial 9:27) What do we know about "the great tribulation"? Matthew 24 says it will be "cut short or no flesh would be saved". (Matthew 24:22) When is the atonement secured? (death burial and resurrection of Christ).

Saturday is the sabbath.

Sunday is the triumphant entry into Jerusalem. This is the public "confirmation of the covenant".

Monday & Tuesday Jesus "heals and casts out demons" (Luke 13:32)
Tuesday night Jesus goes to Bethany for a dinner at the house of Simon the Leper. While he's eating, some anonymous woman pours oil over his head. He says "She's done this for my burial". (Matthew 26:2-13)

Sunset on Tuesday night commences the "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth". (This is technically "Wednesday". I.E. the Messiah "cut off in the middle of the week" - Daniel 9:27) (Exactly 3 days and 3 nights later; Jesus is dead.) The "3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth" is talking about the atonement. "For as Jonah was in the whale's belly; so is the son of man in the heart of the earth". We know from the book of Jonah that him being in the whale's belly was symbolic of "hell" (I.E. the wrath of God). This is where Jesus took up atoning for sin.

The "wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sigh and the only sign given it will be the sign of the prophet Jonah...." The manifestation of the atonement that the "wicked and adulterous generation" was given was the crucifixion. Jesus was not in the public eye from that Tuesday night to the point of being crucified.

The "time of Jacob's trouble" says that Jacob is released from this on account of his own righteousness. (Jeremiah 30:7-10?) No one gets out of the wrath of God "on account of their own righteousness" except Christ. This is why he is the appropriate sacrifice; because he has no sin of his own.

Wednesday - washing the disciples' feet.

Thursday / Passover: The night of Passover, they leave the upper room and go into Gethsemane. A "gethsemane" is a cave where an olive press is located where they squashed olives for the oil that was used in the temple. During Passover, people often stayed in these caves as shelter. There was more than one "gethsemane" in the Mount of Olives. So Jesus goes into a gethsemane and he's confronted by an angel. (Luke 17). Now... what angel comes through the land "at midnight" on "Passover"? (The angel of death!)

What does the angel of death do? (The angel of death removes the breath of life which causes a person to die; because the removal of the breath of life (that made Adam "a living soul") is what condemns the soul to Sheol. So, Jesus's human soul descends into hell. "You have not left my soul in hell." (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27 and Acts 2:31) Jesus is not dead though; (because he has a Divine nature)!

This is where "the great tribulation" is "cut short"; because if it wasn't "no flesh would be saved". Why would no flesh be saved. Well Jeremiah 25 gives us a clue. Jeremiah 25 talks about the wrath of God causing the nations to go insane. Facing God's wrath is too overwhelming for mortals. We "lose it" and if you look at how Jesus was acting prior to Passover; that's where he was headed. It was either that or forfeit the atonement (and no one would be saved). Now, would Pilate have allowed Jesus to be crucified if he thought he was insane? (Probably not.) Now think about the other possible consequence if Jesus had "lost it". He could have brought the wrath of God down on these people immediately. He talks about that when he tells Peter that he could call down legions of angels.

Friday / the crucifixion: So Jesus goes through the trial before the Sanhedrin, stands before Pilate, is crucified 'without his soul' so to speak. Note the difference in how he behaves before this and after. Prior to this encounter with this angel, he's in a lot of emotional distress. Afterwords though, he's not. He basically goes through the trials and the crucifixion emotionless.

"Immediately after the tribulation is the sun darkened and the moon does not give her light." What happens at the crucifixion! (The sun is darkened. Luke 23:45)

Now; What actually kills Jesus though? (The renting of the Divine nature from the human nature.) The indication of when this happens, as it related to the "end" of the Old Testament system of animal sacrifices, is indicated by the tearing of the veil in the temple. Now everyone at the crucifixion site actually saw this happen. Because the crucifixion took place on the Mount of Olives somewhere in the vicinity of the Red Heifer alter; which was facing the temple. The text actually says that the centurion witnessed this. (Matthew 27:51-54)

Now look at what Matthew 27 actually says. It talks about people rising from the dead and "walking around in the holy city", "after his resurrection". This is not earthy Jerusalem though. They make their appearance in the new Jerusalem in "heaven".

Now before Jesus dies, he says two things of interest related to the completion of the atonement.
1. He says to one of the thieves: "Today you will be with me in paradise."
2. Just before he dies he says: "It is finished."

So we know at the point Jesus dies that the atonement is complete. Revelation 5 talks about the "lamb slain" appearing in heaven before the Father. Who's there with him? (Those who've come out of "great tribulation".) When Jesus died, he'd ransomed those from Sheol, who'd he'd atoned for (who'd already died) and he took them to paradise with him. And thus we have this event in Revelation 5. Also see Daniel 7:13 the "son of man" is "coming in the clouds" to the ancient of days. So thus the "coming in clouds" in Matthew 24 is not talking about Jesus's final return; it's talking about his soul's ascension upon death.

Now go past that in Matthew 24. Jesus actually gives the apostles more information than they ask for. He talks about the end of Judaism, the beginning of the New Testament era; but also the end of the current cosmos too. "when heaven and earth pass away..."

This also correlates with the "Battle of Armageddon". We have a "battle of Armageddon" and we have a "battle of Gog and Maygog". One occurs at the crucifixion, the other occurs at the end of time when all the dead are physically raised and the current heavens and earth are recreated.

Important thing to note here as to why the premileenial dispensationalist narrative of eschatology CAN NOT happen.

Back in Exodus; Moses wanted to see God's face. God said "No." Why? (Because no man can see God in his glory and live.) Why? (Because that which is corrupted by sin can not stand in the presence of God in His glory.) Now when Jesus returns; He returns in glory. And here's how we know the heavens and earth are necessary to be recreated at the return of Christ because a corrupted cosmos can not stand in the glory of God. The fact that Jesus returns in glory is what causes the destruction of the current cosmos.

 

[The Righterzpen]

And exactly how am I promoting full preterism?

I think he's referring to this statement:

I don't understand the argument on this one either. Paul is saying that we will get our rewards when we die, which I believe also. Again, maybe "His appearing" is what you are pointing out, as in that's a reference to the 2nd coming. As I said before, Jesus comes for every believer when it's time to go home.... we're told to comfort one another with these words.

The "second coming" isn't when a believer dies. The second coming constitutes an event where the entire cosmos is recreated and there is no sin, no death and no possibility to be corrupted again.

If you believe there is a material second coming; than no, you would not be a "full Preterist".

 

[Bob_1000]

I think he's referring to this statement:



The "second coming" isn't when a believer dies. The second coming constitutes an event where the entire cosmos is recreated and there is no sin, no death and no possibility to be corrupted again.

If you believe there is a material second coming; than no, you would not be a "full Preterist".

The funny thing is I don't promote any doctrine, all I do is point out where the timing of certain events can be found in the bible.

 

[The Righterzpen]

The funny thing is I don't promote any doctrine, all I do is point out where the timing of certain events can be found in the bible.

So all these 1260 days, 1290 days 1335 days, 2300 days, 42 months, 3.5 years, one week, 1000 years etc. Where in the Bible does it explain the fulfillment of those? (You'd know my answer to those questions if you read my posts?)

Also, are you asserting that the second coming has already happened?

 

[DavidPT]

The phrase "thousand years" is actually in the plural. It's not "1000 years" it's "duel thousand years". Now is it a literal "duel thousand years". (That I don't know.) If it is though, a literal "duel 1000 years" post pentecost would land us on 2033 AD.

I have heard that argument before, that it is in the plural. I argued against that idea in the past but can't recall what I argued at the time. Maybe it will come to me again? Currently it has slipped my mind.

As to the remainder of your post, I'm not a Preterist, so most of those things you bring up don't make much sense to me. I would never be able to get on the same page with you about those things since I don't even understand your arguments. One first needs to at least understand another's arguments if they are going to be discussing/debating things with one another.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have heard that argument before, that it is in the plural. I argued against that idea in the past but can't recall what I argued at the time. Maybe it will come to me again? Currently it has slipped my mind.

As to the remainder of your post, I'm not a Preterist, so most of those things you bring up don't make much sense to me. I would never be able to get on the same page with you about those things since I don't even understand your arguments. One first needs to at least understand another's arguments if they are going to be discussing/debating things with one another.

LOL - well all you have to do is look this stuff up in the Bible.

(Is 1000 years really in the plural - if that's true than what does that mean?)

As for the rest of it; simply compare Scripture to itself. Is there 70 weeks between the death of John the Baptist and Pentecost? Are the things I pointed out about the crucifixion true? Are these passages not in the Bible? Did I "make up" that the sun was darkened the day of the crucifixion?

I gave you the references. All you have to do is compare them to each other. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Bob_1000]

So all these 1260 days, 1290 days 1335 days, 2300 days, 42 months, 3.5 years, one week, 1000 years etc. Where in the Bible does it explain the fulfillment of those? (You'd know my answer to those questions if you read my posts?)

Also, are you asserting that the second coming has already happened?

I'm not asserting anything. The bible says that Jesus came in the flesh as a babe then left at the cross and literally came the 2nd time on resurrection day. He returned that day in the clouds with all power and glory and every eye saw him, even them who pierced him. To say otherwise goes directly against the bible. If that's considered heresy then this isn't a Christian forum.

I'm still reading over your post so I won't comment on that yet.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I'm not asserting anything. The bible says that Jesus came in the flesh as a babe then left at the cross and literally came the 2nd time on resurrection day. He returned that day in the clouds with all power and glory and every eye saw him, even them who pierced him. To say otherwise goes directly against the bible. If that's considered heresy then this isn't a Christian forum.

I'm still reading over your post so I won't comment on that yet.

The resurrection was not the "second coming in glory" though. Look up the phrase "come in glory" in the New Testament. It's like in 4 or 5 different places.

Also though, when Paul refers to the "second coming"; he doesn't connect that to the resurrection.

 

[Bob_1000]

The resurrection was not the "second coming in glory" though. Look up the phrase "come in glory" in the New Testament. It's like in 4 or 5 different places.

Here's one instance that should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 2nd coming was at the resurrection. People standing in front of Jesus were told they would not die before they see Jesus coming in his kingdom.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom

 

[The Righterzpen]

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom

Note carefully; this passage DOES NOT SAY "coming in glory". It says "coming in his kingdom".

YOU HAVE TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE!

If you don't, you'll mess yourself up.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Now look at the other places where the term "come in glory" are used.

Matthew 25:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Note; ALL the resurrected are standing before Him "in his glory"; that did not happen at the resurrection.

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

NONE of what's described in THIS passage, happened at the resurrection!

Here's another one: Mark 8:
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

What happened with Peter at the trial of Jesus and what did Jesus say to Peter after he'd risen from the dead? Did Jesus tell Peter that Peter was condemned for being "ashamed of me"? If the resurrection was "the second coming" than Peter would have been cast into hell.

Now note verse 1 of Mark 9:
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Note, he uses the word "power" BUT NOT the word "glory". Who was "missing" when Jesus rose from the dead? (Judas had committed suicide.)

Now here's another little context to this "coming in glory":

Luke 9:
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Note again; he DOES NOT use the phrase "come in glory" in verse 27. Now look at the rest of this passage. Who is seeing the glory? It's NOT everyone on earth!

28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Note too is says "appeared in glory". It does NOT say "saw coming in glory". Very important distinction.

33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

You HAVE to pay very close attention to the language; because if you don't, you come up with goofy ideas like the resurrection was the "second coming in glory." It wasn't

 

[Timtofly]

It figures that when SG finally decides to agree with you about something, it would be something like this. IMO, one of the most damning doctrines that there is, is the doctrine that teaches, that no one, once they are saved, can ever lose that salvation. Obviously, in some cases that is 100% true, no doubt. But we are talking about in all cases. Is that 100% true in all cases? There is a major difference between some cases and all cases.

It is the difference between belief and reality.

Not all 100% of cases based on belief are actual reality. Belief is the sense that one is right, when they are wrong. It is belief that leads to your point of damnation, not reality.

An example would be a child told since birth they are a Christian, and that child accepting "that" without even choosing to be a Christian. They accepted what someone told them or did to them. They could have real emotions all their life about that, but were never spiritually born from the Holy Spirit.

 

[The Righterzpen]

He returned that day in the clouds with all power and glory and every eye saw him, even them who pierced him. To say otherwise goes directly against the bible. If that's considered heresy then this isn't a Christian forum.

Now this phrase "them who pierced him"? It's used in 3 different places:
Zachariah 12:10
John 19:37
Revelation 1:7

Note the context of John 19:37 though. The contextual reference is the crucifixion; not the resurrection!

Now Zachariah 12:
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

When was the "Spirit poured out"? (Pentecost) What happened to Judaism when that happened? (The "fig tree" came to be no more eventually.) Acts 6:7 says many in Jerusalem came to believe.

Now Revelation 1:7
He comes (present tense middle voice) in clouds (still note though; it DOES NOT SAY GLORY) and every eye shall see him, (shall see is future tense) and they also which pierced him: (aorist active indicative - meaning those that pierced him are witnessing this happen) and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. (future tense) Even so, Amen.

Now, are the souls in hell conscious? (Yes.) At the point where those who wanted Christ dead died, were they confirmed as to where they would spend the rest of eternity? (Yes they were.) Anyone who dies from the resurrection on; as soon as they die, they know where they will end up based on where their soul goes upon death. If one ascends to heaven; they are redeemed. If they don't; they are not.

So are those in hell mourning now? (Yes they are.) Why? (Because they know they will be eternally condemned for their sin.

"Every eye shall see him" (meaning all those who'd lived and died on earth to the time of the crucifixion) "and all kindreds of earth shall wail because of him". Those are the unregenerate who die post resurrection.

 

[Timtofly]

Who said it said that? What i am saying is: there is no mention of a future millennium because it will never happen. That is based on the faulty reading of one passage in the most obscure location in Scripture in the most symbolic book.

It is also avoiding history of the last 1991 years. No one prophecied that the Gentiles would have almost 2,000 years to be brought into the kingdom. That happened. Preterist deny the last 1991 years. Amil deny the coming 1000 years.

 

[DavidPT]

It is the difference between belief and reality.

Not all 100% of cases based on belief are actual reality. Belief is the sense that one is right, when they are wrong. It is belief that leads to your point of damnation, not reality.

An example would be a child told since birth they are a Christian, and that child accepting "that" without even choosing to be a Christian. They accepted what someone told them or did to them. They could have real emotions all their life about that, but were never spiritually born from the Holy Spirit.

IOW, what some of you are suggesting is, even if someone is genuinely sincere in the beginning, thus are seeking Christ and the salvation it brings, but as time goes on, that if they were to fall away eventually, this means they were never saved to begin with, this means God simply ignored them when they initially were seeking Him, thus didn't even give them a chance to be saved to begin with.

As to your example you used about a child being told something since birth, good example. I fully agree with the point you make there. But that is different than the point I'm making here.