Question for Amillennialists

Spiritual Jew said:

LOL! I do those same things and never said otherwise. The difference between you and me in this respect as that I acknowledge that, while I do reference Greek resources, I do not claim or act as if I'm a Greek expert like you do. Not that being a Greek expert guarantees you will interpret everything correctly. The translators of our English translations were all Greek experts but they didn't always agree on what some verses were saying, which explains why some verses are translated quite differently in one translation than they are in another.

Click to expand...

Again, I’ve typically used sources to back up my claim. How does that make me a “self professed expert”?

Spiritual Jew said:

Actually, Paul was warning them about not believing anyone who tried to tell them that the day of the Lord had already occurred or was currently occurring. It wasn't necessarily the case that any of them were believing that. Apparently, Paul had either heard some of them were believing that or he was concerned that some of them might believe that if anyone told them that. Anyway, I guess this is beside the point, but I just wanted to throw this out there.

Click to expand...

ok

Spiritual Jew said:

So, this is a great example of what I mean when I say that you pretend to be a Greek expert. I'm fine that you're trying to apply Greek grammar rules and such to this passage, but how do you know you're applying them correctly? It seems that what you are actually doing is applying English grammar rules to the text as it was translated in the KJV? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

Here are the resources I used:

“Mystery” is the nominative noun in vs 7 according to blue letter Bible. It is the subject of the sentence based on the following:

Nominative Greek noun: This is the primary use of the nominative in pointing out that noun that is producing the action of the verb.

Lawless in vs 7 is a genitive according to blue letter Bible, and specifically a genitive of apposition by Pulpit commentary. In other words, mystery refers to the overall concept at large and lawless is more specific.

The genitive here is that of apposition - "that mystery which is lawlessness," - pulpit commentary

The Genitive of Apposition
The term apposition refers to a word of a larger group being renamed by a word of the same class, but more specific in nature. In the Greek, the genitive of apposition refers to that word that is more specific in nature, and that word would in turn be in the genitive. For example, in the statement, "the state of Colorado is one of the fifty states of the United States," the phrase, "the state of Colorado," emphasizes the fact that Colorado is one state among the overall larger group of states. The word "state," therefore, represents the larger group, and "Colorado" is a word of that same class (i.e., state), but it is referring to that which is specific. (Greek Grammar - Genitive Case)

Restraining, in vs 7, is a present active participle, according to blue letter Bible. This participle directly follows the article “the” or “ho”. Therefore, the participle is acting as an adjective to describe the article “the”, and is not acting as a verb. Therefore it is interpreted as “the one who restrains”.

Participles Used as Adjective; The Attributive Use
The participle, when used adjectively, is normally attributing a quality or defining the noun it is modifying in some way. Typically, it follows the noun and agrees with it in gender, number and definiteness. By definiteness, I mean that when the noun has a definite article, so too will the participle, and vice versa (except when the noun being modified is the name of a person and has no definite article, but the participle will). Often times when used in this fashion, the participles are translated as a relative clause and are accompanied with relative pronouns such as "who," referring to a person, or "which," typically referring to a thing or situation, or "that," which also may be describing an object or a situation. ( Hebrew Grammar - Participles)

[it], as In “the one who now restrains [it]”, in vs 7, is found in no manuscripts. It has been inserted by some but not all translators. since “the one who restrains” is not a verbal participle but instead is acting as an adjective, it wouldn’t make sense to insert and give it the object [it]. Regardless of that, we already know what is being restrained: the revealing of the man of lawlessness, according to vs 6.

Then confirm with a Greek exegetical commentary, so as to make sure I’m not misunderstanding the Greek grammatical rules:

The whole clause ought to be rendered, "The mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until he who restraineth is removed;" when that takes place, when the restraining influence is removed, the mystery of lawlessness will no longer work secretly, but will be openly manifested. - pulpit commentary.

Spiritual Jew said:

As you can see here, the NIV translators, who understood Greek much better than you or I do (I hope you are humble enough to agree) translated the verse in such a way that it indicates that while the secret of lawlessness was already at work in Paul's day, it was still being held back and restrained to some extent and would continue to be restrained until "the one who now holds it back...is taken out of the way".

So, there you go. I hate when this kind of thing turns into an argument over which translation is better, but it is what it is. I believe the NIV translation of this verse is accurate. And, since Paul was talking about something that would occur during a time before the still future second coming of Christ, it also fits with what Jesus taught in Matthew 24 about how wickedness would increase just before His second coming at the end of the age. That implies that wickedness was previously restrained to some extent before it increased.

Even you must acknowledge that Jesus taught that wickedness was restrained for some period of time, at least, since He referenced a time when wickedness would increase and the low of most would grow cold (Matthew 24:12). So, why would you not think that the time period of increased wickedness (and the implied previous time of restrained wickedness) Jesus referenced would not have ever been referenced elsewhere in scripture as well?

Click to expand...

While I don’t follow your Matthew 24 passage, as it It makes zero mention of Satan being bound for thousands of years and the released, I do agree that Paul is alluding to the OD and the increased lawlessness, which was at work in Paul’s day” and the mass falling away, which was happening in John’s day.


Jesus taught that wickedness would be multiplied leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that lawlessness was being restrained.

Spiritual Jew said:

I believe it does say that lawlessness was being restrained. You have chosen to trust one source or set of sources over another. It just so happens that the manuscripts and our English translations are not all in agreement on this verse, so we are left to spiritually discern what Paul was saying there. You made valid points based on the particular manuscripts and English translation you have decided to agree with, but the fact is that what you're showing is not the only original Greek manuscript and not the only English translation of the verse

Click to expand...

You may interpret that lawlessness was being restrained, but that’s not what the passage actually states in the Greek that we have access to. It states the “revealing” of the man of sin, was being restrained.

It seems like you’re taking your understanding of revelation 20 and interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2 to mean not what it actually says, but what you believe it says in order to fit your understanding of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released.

Spiritual Jew said:

A mass falling away lasting for at least 2,000 years or so? You really think it would make sense to conclude that Paul was talking about something that had to occur first before the second coming and that thing was something that would begin at least 2,000 years or so before the second coming? I certainly can't make any sense of that.

Click to expand...

No, I agree it make zero sense to say the falling away has been occurring for the last 2,000 years. But so does saying the “last days have been for 2,000 years”.

Spiritual Jew said:

I believe I can. I can't help it that you disagree with my interpretations of scripture. To me, passages like Matthew 24:10-12 and 2 Thess 2:1-12 clearly speak of a time of increased wickedness before Christ's yet future return at the end of the age which implies that wickedness is restrained before that time. In the 2 Thess 2 passage, Paul indicates that the increase in wickedness and revealing of the man of sin is in conjunction with Satan's power being loosed and unrestrained during that time. I say that since it refers to the powerful deception taking place through lying signs and wonders is according to Satan's works. The deceptive power comes from Satan, in other words, and appears to not be restrained at that point since it talks about it coming "with all power and signs and lying wonders". It seems that even if it was already at work before that it wasn't at work with "all power and signs and lying wonders".

Click to expand...

Matthew 24:10-12 takes place prior to the destruction of the temple, and mentions nothing of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released war.

2 Thessalonians 2 makes no mention of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released to war.

Your interpretation of these 2 passages appears to hinge on your understanding of revelation 20.

Spiritual Jew said:

That isn't talking about those who fall away unless he was talking in terms of people who refused to continue loving the truth and so be saved in the end. People who would fit the context of what he warned about in Hebrews 3:12-14, in other words. Otherwise, he would be talking particularly about those who are deceived and don't get saved and don't fall away there. You're not recognizing that the ones referenced in 1 John 2:18-19 did not fall away. How could it be said of those who were never "of us", as in were never Christians, to fall away? That's not my understanding of what the Greek word "apostasia" is referring to in 2 Thess 2.

It's also a different context from what John wrote in the sense that Paul was talking about something that would occur just before the still yet future second coming of Christ and John was not. But, you already said that if you determined that I'm correct that 2 Thess 2 relates to the still future second coming of Christ, you would still somehow think that the falling away already began almost 2,000 years ago. Again, I can't make any sense of that, but whatever.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the man of sin is to deceive those who rejected the truth of salvation so that they may be further condemned.

That doesn’t seem at all different from those who claimed to be Christians, were then influenced by the spirit of the Antichrist, and fell away in mass numbers according to John.


Paul wrote about events to occur prior to the coming of Christ. John wrote that events they were seeing (mass falling away) notified them it was the last hour.

That seems pretty similar.

claninja said:

Again, I’ve typically used sources to back up my claim. How does that make me a “self professed expert”?

Click to expand...

Because you somehow act as if you know those sources are always correct. Doing that makes you come across as if you have the same level of knowledge of Greek as you think they do. Scripture is never wrong, but people sometimes are. That includes the translators of our English translations and those who create the Greek lexicons and such that we refer to. Can you acknowledge this?

claninja said:

Here are the resources I used:

“Mystery” is the nominative noun in vs 7 according to blue letter Bible. It is the subject of the sentence based on the following:

Nominative Greek noun: This is the primary use of the nominative in pointing out that noun that is producing the action of the verb.

Greek Grammar - Nominative Case

Learn more about the Nominative Case in Biblical Greek. There are five versions: subject, predicate, renaming, independent, and exclamation.

www.blueletterbible.org

Lawless in vs 7 is a genitive according to blue letter Bible, and specifically a genitive of apposition by Pulpit commentary. In other words, mystery refers to the overall concept at large and lawless is more specific.

The genitive here is that of apposition - "that mystery which is lawlessness," - pulpit commentary

The Genitive of Apposition
The term apposition refers to a word of a larger group being renamed by a word of the same class, but more specific in nature. In the Greek, the genitive of apposition refers to that word that is more specific in nature, and that word would in turn be in the genitive. For example, in the statement, "the state of Colorado is one of the fifty states of the United States," the phrase, "the state of Colorado," emphasizes the fact that Colorado is one state among the overall larger group of states. The word "state," therefore, represents the larger group, and "Colorado" is a word of that same class (i.e., state), but it is referring to that which is specific. (Greek Grammar - Genitive Case)

Restraining, in vs 7, is a present active participle, according to blue letter Bible. This participle directly follows the article “the” or “ho”. Therefore, the participle is acting as an adjective to describe the article “the”, and is not acting as a verb. Therefore it is interpreted as “the one who restrains”.

Participles Used as Adjective; The Attributive Use
The participle, when used adjectively, is normally attributing a quality or defining the noun it is modifying in some way. Typically, it follows the noun and agrees with it in gender, number and definiteness. By definiteness, I mean that when the noun has a definite article, so too will the participle, and vice versa (except when the noun being modified is the name of a person and has no definite article, but the participle will). Often times when used in this fashion, the participles are translated as a relative clause and are accompanied with relative pronouns such as "who," referring to a person, or "which," typically referring to a thing or situation, or "that," which also may be describing an object or a situation. ( Hebrew Grammar - Participles)

[it], as In “the one who now restrains [it]”, in vs 7, is found in no manuscripts. It has been inserted by some but not all translators. since “the one who restrains” is not a verbal participle but instead is acting as an adjective, it wouldn’t make sense to insert and give it the object [it]. Regardless of that, we already know what is being restrained: the revealing of the man of lawlessness, according to vs 6.

Then confirm with a Greek exegetical commentary, so as to make sure I’m not misunderstanding the Greek grammatical rules:

The whole clause ought to be rendered, "The mystery of lawlessness is already working, only until he who restraineth is removed;" when that takes place, when the restraining influence is removed, the mystery of lawlessness will no longer work secretly, but will be openly manifested. - pulpit commentary.

Click to expand...

As I already said, I believe the NIV translators translated 2 Thess 2:7 correctly and you don't. This is coming down to which Greek experts (experts, but not infallible) we are choosing to agree with. You can go on and on like this all you want, but the fact is that not all Greek experts agree on how 2 Thess 2:7 should be translated. Explaining to me why the pulpit commentary understands it the way they do is kind of pointless since not all Greek translators had/have the same understanding of that verse.

claninja said:

While I don’t follow your Matthew 24 passage, as it It makes zero mention of Satan being bound for thousands of years and the released, I do agree that Paul is alluding to the OD and the increased lawlessness, which was at work in Paul’s day” and the mass falling away, which was happening in John’s day.

Click to expand...

You're being a bit disingenuous here since Paul did not say that "increased lawlessness" was at work in his day. He said the mystery of iniquity or lawlessness was already at work in his day, which is not exactly a straightforward comment that clearly means "increased lawlessness". Not at all.

Also, I've already said that the antichrists who John said were not "of us" did not fall away. In order to apostasize and fall away, you need to be "of us" in the first place. So, the context of what Paul was talking about (apostasizing) was not the same as what John was talking about. Please address this.

claninja said:

Jesus taught that wickedness would be multiplied leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that lawlessness was being restrained.

Click to expand...

No, He did not. He said that would be the case before "the end" and "the end" would be understood as referring to "the end of the age" that He was asked about. He said elsewhere that "this age" was the temporal age during which people get married and they die and He said "the age to come" is the age during which people will not get married and will not die (Luke 20:34-36). We have clearly not reached the end of this temporal age yet.

claninja said:

You may interpret that lawlessness was being restrained, but that’s not what the passage actually states in the Greek that we have access to. It states the “revealing” of the man of sin, was being restrained.

Click to expand...

Apparently, the Greek that the NIV translators had access to says otherwise. So, you can choose to believe that the NIV translators were wrong and/or the Greek manuscripts they translated from were wrong on this verse, but I disagree.

claninja said:

It seems like you’re taking your understanding of revelation 20 and interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2 to mean not what it actually says, but what you believe it says in order to fit your understanding of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released.

Click to expand...

My understanding of Revelation 20 is not limited to just understanding the timing of Satan's binding, but also of Christ's reign, of His people reigning with Him, of the resurrection of the dead and of the judgment. So, I take all of these things into account in trying to understand what Revelation 20 is about. But, I don't make Revelation 20 a part of the foundation of my overall doctrine like Premils do.

claninja said:

No, I agree it make zero sense to say the falling away has been occurring for the last 2,000 years. But so does saying the “last days have been for 2,000 years”.

Click to expand...

According to Peter it's the time period during which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Acts 2:16-21). Is that not the time period we are still in today? And, with that, I need to go now.

Spiritual Jew said:

Because you somehow act as if you know those sources are always correct. Doing that makes you come across as if you have the same level of knowledge of Greek as you think they do. Scripture is never wrong, but people sometimes are. That includes the translators of our English translations and those who create the Greek lexicons and such that we refer to. Can you acknowledge this?

Click to expand...

blue letter Bible, strongs, thayers, and helps word studies are all academic sources. If you have a problem with the academic sources i provide, then demonstrate, with your own academic sources, why the definitions are wrong and why the grammatical constructions are wrong.

Simply quipping “you are not expert” is a deflective non-argument.

Spiritual Jew said:

As I already said, I believe the NIV translators translated 2 Thess 2:7 correctly and you don't. This is coming down to which Greek experts (experts, but not infallible) we are choosing to agree with. You can go on and on like this all you want, but the fact is that not all Greek experts agree on how 2 Thess 2:7 should be translated. Explaining to me why the pulpit commentary understands it the way they do is kind of pointless since not all Greek translators had/have the same understanding of that verse.

Click to expand...

The NIV inserts [it] in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 after the attributive participle “one who restrains”. It is not in the original text. In other words, there is no expressed direct object, but the translators are interpreting that the attributive participle takes on a direct object: the one who who restrains [it]. Additionally, [one] is inserted after lawlessness in vs 8 but not vs 7, in the NIV, despite lawless being the same noun in both instances.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds [it] back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way And then the lawless [one] will be revealed

So what does the inserted [it] refer to that the restrainer is holding back?

Well, contextually, it is the man of lawlessness’ “revealing” that is restrained or held back as clearly stated in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:7b-8a.

So In sticking with the context, the inserted [it] that is being held back from being revealed is the Mystery or Secret of the lawless that was already at work. So I have no issue with the NIV translation. But I do disagree with your interpretation of that passage, which never explicitly nor clearly states lawlessness was being held back.

Spiritual Jew said:

You're being a bit disingenuous here since Paul did not say that "increased lawlessness" was at work in his day. He said the mystery of iniquity or lawlessness was already at work in his day, which is not exactly a straightforward comment that clearly means "increased lawlessness". Not at all.

Also, I've already said that the antichrists who John said were not "of us" did not fall away. In order to apostasize and fall away, you need to be "of us" in the first place. So, the context of what Paul was talking about (apostasizing) was not the same as what John was talking about. Please address

Click to expand...

I never said Paul stated lawlessness was increasing, I simply said Paul stating the mystery of the lawless [one] was already at work is an “allusion” to the OD.


As to the apostasy, understanding this really comes down to the Arminianism vs Calvinism argument. I was raised in the reformed church, as such I do hold to Calvinistic teachings.

Calvinism argues that true Christians can never fall away. Truly being born of God means one cannot go on sinning, and thus would not fall away.

1 John 3:9-10 “9No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’sb seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”

Therefore the idea of apostasy, under calvinism, is that those who tasted of the Holy Spirit and powers of heaven and professed Christ, and then sometime later fell away, were never truly apart of the church in the first place, despite being amongst the church and playing along for awhile (whether they truly believed in it or not). If they had been truly changed, they would have remained. And so this my understanding of apostasy.
Regardless, mass numbers of the church had left them according to John and that is how they knew it was the last hour.

Spiritual Jew said:

No, He did not. He said that would be the case before "the end" and "the end" would be understood as referring to "the end of the age" that He was asked about. He said elsewhere that "this age" was the temporal age during which people get married and they die and He said "the age to come" is the age during which people will not get married and will not die (Luke 20:34-36). We have clearly not reached the end of this temporal age yet.

Click to expand...

the events of Matthew 24:9-10 all began to happen or were fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of your interpretation of “the end”.

The book of acts records the persecutions, deaths of the disciples, as well as being hated by the nations leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

the book of acts records false prophets arising, and even Josephus records many false Christs and prophets arising prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Paul records that the mystery of the lawless [one] was already at work. Josephus records the terrifying amount lawlessness that occurred leading up to and during the destruction of Jerusalem

Paul records that the gospel had been preached to the every creature under heaven and to the whole “oikoumene” prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Spiritual Jew said:

Apparently, the Greek that the NIV translators had access to says otherwise. So, you can choose to believe that the NIV translators were wrong and/or the Greek manuscripts they translated from were wrong on this verse, but I disagree.

Click to expand...

I have no issue with the NIV translation as it can agree with my position, so not sure what you mean.

Spiritual Jew said:

My understanding of Revelation 20 is not limited to just understanding the timing of Satan's binding, but also of Christ's reign, of His people reigning with Him, of the resurrection of the dead and of the judgment. So, I take all of these things into account in trying to understand what Revelation 20 is about. But, I don't make Revelation 20 a part of the foundation of my overall doctrine like Premils do.

Click to expand...

You have no problem providing clear gospel and epistolic evidence when it comes to Christ’s reign, or the saints being a kingdom of priests, or the saints not facing the second death……. The problem is, I never asked for that. Unfortunately, you’ve provided zero clear gospel or epistolic evidence for Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released to war against the saints.

Spiritual Jew said:

According to Peter it's the time period during which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved (Acts 2:16-21). Is that not the time period we are still in today? And, with that, I need to go now.

Click to expand...

The destruction of Jerusalem doesn’t stop the nations from being saved.

Interestingly enough the removal of the heavens and earth doesn’t stop the nations from needing healing either.

claninja said:

The NIV inserts [it] in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 after the attributive participle “one who restrains”. It is not in the original text. In other words, there is no expressed direct object, but the translators are interpreting that the attributive participle takes on a direct object: the one who who restrains [it]. Additionally, [one] is inserted after lawlessness in vs 8 but not vs 7, in the NIV, despite lawless being the same noun in both instances.

2 Thessalonians 2:7 NIV 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds [it] back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way And then the lawless [one] will be revealed

So what does the inserted [it] refer to that the restrainer is holding back?

Well, contextually, it is the man of lawlessness’ “revealing” that is restrained or held back as clearly stated in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:7b-8a.

So In sticking with the context, the inserted [it] that is being held back from being revealed is the Mystery or Secret of the lawless that was already at work. So I have no issue with the NIV translation. But I do disagree with your interpretation of that passage, which never explicitly nor clearly states lawlessness was being held back.

Click to expand...

You are not making any sense here. In the NIV text it doesn't refer to the secret power of the lawless one, it refers to "the secret power of lawlessness". How can you say that you have no issue with the NIV translation when you clearly do? It says ""the secret power of lawlessness" and you don't accept that and change it to the secret power of the lawless one instead. And you don't accept that they have the word "it" there instead of "he", so, again, how can you say you have no issue with the NIV translation when you clearly do have an issue with it? They clearly translated it as the secret power of lawlessness being held back in verse 7 and you clearly do have an issue with that.

claninja said:

I never said Paul stated lawlessness was increasing, I simply said Paul stating the mystery of the lawless [one] was already at work is an “allusion” to the OD.

Click to expand...

An allusion to what exactly in the OD? You don't think anything Paul said in 2 Thess 2 relates to the increase in wickedness that Jesus alluded to in Matthew 24:12?

claninja said:

As to the apostasy, understanding this really comes down to the Arminianism vs Calvinism argument. I was raised in the reformed church, as such I do hold to Calvinistic teachings.

Click to expand...

I was raised in the Reformed church as well and very much do not hold to Calvinistic teachings. Obviously, we are not obligated to agree with the teachings of the church we are raised in.

claninja said:

Calvinism argues that true Christians can never fall away. Truly being born of God means one cannot go on sinning, and thus would not fall away.

1 John 3:9-10 “9No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’sb seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.”

Therefore the idea of apostasy, under calvinism, is that those who tasted of the Holy Spirit and powers of heaven and professed Christ, and then sometime later fell away, were never truly apart of the church in the first place, despite being amongst the church and playing along for awhile (whether they truly believed in it or not). If they had been truly changed, they would have remained. And so this my understanding of apostasy.

Click to expand...

Not sure if we should turn this into a full fledged Calvinist vs. Arminianism debate (probably not), but what do you make of a passage like this...

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;...12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Surely, a reference to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" only includes true believers. Unbelievers would never be called "holy". Yet, Paul warned these "holy brethren" to "Take heed....lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God". Did he warn them to be careful about not departing from God while at the same time it was not possible for them to do so? That obviously wouldn't make sense. Seems like a warning that believers should take seriously. Also, he said "we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". Is the confidence and faith we have at the beginning of our Christian walk all God expects of us with no regard for where we go from there? If so, why did he say "we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end"? It doesn't seem to me that he was saying that believers holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end was a guarantee.

claninja said:

Regardless, mass numbers of the church had left them according to John and that is how they knew it was the last hour.

Click to expand...

Yes, but was that a case of falling away and turning their backs on Christ if they were not "of us" in the first place? It doesn't seem so to me.

claninja said:

the events of Matthew 24:9-10 all began to happen or were fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of your interpretation of “the end”.

The book of acts records the persecutions, deaths of the disciples, as well as being hated by the nations leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem.

the book of acts records false prophets arising, and even Josephus records many false Christs and prophets arising prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Paul records that the mystery of the lawless [one] was already at work. Josephus records the terrifying amount lawlessness that occurred leading up to and during the destruction of Jerusalem

Paul records that the gospel had been preached to the every creature under heaven and to the whole “oikoumene” prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

I never said that none of those things could have started happening back then. But, they were still happening to the church well beyond that and still today. Also, as I've said before, I believe Matthew 24:14 doesn't have the same context as what Paul recorded about the scope of the preaching of the gospel. I believe Jesus was talking from the perspective of the whole world even beyond the known world of that time while I believe Paul was only speaking of the known world as of that time. Also, Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered then.

claninja said:

I have no issue with the NIV translation as it can agree with my position, so not sure what you mean.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You only have no issue with it as long as you change "lawlessness" to "the lawless one" and remove the word "it" or change it to "he".

claninja said:

You have no problem providing clear gospel and epistolic evidence when it comes to Christ’s reign, or the saints being a kingdom of priests, or the saints not facing the second death……. The problem is, I never asked for that.

Click to expand...

But, that's all part of what Revelation 20 is about. I guess you don't care about that, though.

claninja said:

Unfortunately, you’ve provided zero clear gospel or epistolic evidence for Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released to war against the saints.

Click to expand...

I have, but you don't see it. So be it.

claninja said:

The destruction of Jerusalem doesn’t stop the nations from being saved.

Interestingly enough the removal of the heavens and earth doesn’t stop the nations from needing healing either.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my point. I was saying that the last days are the days during which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. Did people stop calling on the name of the Lord to be saved in 70 AD? No. So, we are still in the last days today.

Spiritual Jew said:

You are not making any sense here. In the NIV text it doesn't refer to the secret power of the lawless one, it refers to "the secret power of lawlessness". How can you say that you have no issue with the NIV translation when you clearly do? It says ""the secret power of lawlessness" and you don't accept that and change it to the secret power of the lawless one instead. And you don't accept that they have the word "it" there instead of "he", so, again, how can you say you have no issue with the NIV translation when you clearly do have an issue with it? They clearly translated it as the secret power of lawlessness being held back in verse 7 and you clearly do have an issue with that.

Click to expand...

There are things I disagree with in the NIV’s translation of 2 Thessalonians 2 such as:

-the falling away being changed to rebellion in vs 3
- “is” being changed to “will” in vs 9
-removing “the” from lawlessness In vs 7
-inconsistently inserting [one] in vs 7 but not vs 8, considering the nouns for “the lawlessness” are the exact same in both vs 7 and 8.

BUT I don’t necessarily disagree with the NIVs inserted [it], as long as the [it] refers to the revealing of the mystery of lawlessness.

Bill Mounce, a member of the committee that translated the NIV, on vs 7:

“For me the real challenge is μόνον. Its meaning in context is clear; the working of evil will remain a mystery μόνον the restrainer gone.”

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/if-only-we-knew-what-μόνον-means-2-thess-2-7

So lawlessness was not being restrained. It’s revealing was. It was working in secret already in Paul’s days.

Spiritual Jew said:

An allusion to what exactly in the OD? You don't think anything Paul said in 2 Thess 2 relates to the increase in wickedness that Jesus alluded to in Matthew 24:12?

Click to expand...

Paul neither says increasing nor decreasing lawlessness. Paul just says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. I believe this to be an allusion to the OD - rise of false prophets and multiplied lawlessness.

Spiritual Jew said:

Not sure if we should turn this into a full fledged Calvinist vs. Arminianism debate (probably not), but what do you make of a passage like this...

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;...12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Surely, a reference to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" only includes true believers. Unbelievers would never be called "holy". Yet, Paul warned these "holy brethren" to "Take heed....lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God". Did he warn them to be careful about not departing from God while at the same time it was not possible for them to do so? That obviously wouldn't make sense. Seems like a warning that believers should take seriously. Also, he said "we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end". Is the confidence and faith we have at the beginning of our Christian walk all God expects of us with no regard for where we go from there? If so, why did he say "we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end"? It doesn't seem to me that he was saying that believers holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end was a guarantee.

Click to expand...

Here’s my take:

The “if” is conditional and the verb “might hold fast” is subjunctive - we are only made partakers in Christ IF from the beginning of assurance to the end we might hold firm. In other words, IF we don’t hold firm from the beginning of assurance to the end, we are not partakers in Christ. I believe this is what John meant when he said “they were not of us”. They may have had assurance in the beginning, but they continued on in sin, were corrupted by the spirit of antichrist and left the church in masses, obviously not holding firm to the end.

Based on this passage from Hebrews - a believer is only made a partaker IF from the beginning of assurance to the end they might remain firm. So how can a partaker in Christ fall away?

Spiritual Jew said:

I never said that none of those things could have started happening back then. But, they were still happening to the church well beyond that and still today. Also, as I've said before, I believe Matthew 24:14 doesn't have the same context as what Paul recorded about the scope of the preaching of the gospel. I believe Jesus was talking from the perspective of the whole world even beyond the known world of that time while I believe Paul was only speaking of the known world as of that time. Also, Jesus did not come in 70 AD and the elect were not gathered then.

Click to expand...

Jesus said the gospel would go to the whole “oikoumene”. Paul said the gospel had gone to the whole oikoumene. There’s reason to believe Paul taught anything different than Christ.

I agree the 2nd advent didn’t occur in 70ad.

Spiritual Jew said:

But, that's all part of what Revelation 20 is about. I guess you don't care about that, though.

Click to expand...

I already agree with your very clear gospel and epistolic passages of Christ being the first resurrection and presently reigning, and the saints being a kingdom of priests who won’t ever die, so don’t conflate me not discussing those things with not caring.

I’m not discussing the whole of revelation 20. I’m discussing Satan’s little season.

Spiritual Jew said:

I have, but you don't see it. So be it.

Click to expand...

You haven’t. You’ve provided clear gospel and epistolic teachings on every other point, but not that one.

Spiritual Jew said:

That has nothing to do with my point. I was saying that the last days are the days during which people call on the name of the Lord and are saved. Did people stop calling on the name of the Lord to be saved in 70 AD? No. So, we are still in the last days today.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don’t believe the destruction of Jerusalem stops people from being saved, and I don’t believe the passing away of heaven and earth stops the nations from needing healing.

claninja said:

There are things I disagree with in the NIV’s translation of 2 Thessalonians 2 such as:

-the falling away being changed to rebellion in vs 3

Click to expand...

claninja said:

- “is” being changed to “will” in vs 9
-removing “the” from lawlessness In vs 7
-inconsistently inserting [one] in vs 7 but not vs 8, considering the nouns for “the lawlessness” are the exact same in both vs 7 and 8.

BUT I don’t necessarily disagree with the NIVs inserted [it], as long as the [it] refers to the revealing of the mystery of lawlessness.

Bill Mounce, a member of the committee that translated the NIV, on vs 7:

“For me the real challenge is μόνον. Its meaning in context is clear; the working of evil will remain a mystery μόνον the restrainer gone.”

https://www.billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/if-only-we-knew-what-μόνον-means-2-thess-2-7

So lawlessness was not being restrained. It’s revealing was. It was working in secret already in Paul’s days.

Click to expand...

Would you like to take back your claim that you "have no issue with the NIV translation" of that verse? You obviously do. It made no sense for you to say that.

You said you "don’t necessarily disagree with the NIVs inserted [it], as long as the [it] refers to the revealing of the mystery of lawlessness". But, if their translation is correct then that means it was the secret power of lawlessness that was being held back until the time when it would be unrestrained. I believe they have it right when they talking about how it will be (not is) working through Satan's power by way of "all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders" in the future. That was not happening yet at that time.

claninja said:

Paul neither says increasing nor decreasing lawlessness.

Click to expand...

He indicated the lawlessness was being held back to an extent at that time and would no longer be held back at a future time. That implies a future time of increased lawlessness. Why would you think Paul wouldn't have anything to say about that when Jesus Himself said there would be a future time of increased wickedness in relation to many people turning away from the faith (Matthew 24:10-12)?

claninja said:

Paul just says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. I believe this to be an allusion to the OD - rise of false prophets and multiplied lawlessness.

Click to expand...

But he also said it was being held back. So, it was already at work, but not completely unrestrained. There was not yet a mass falling away that would result from lawlessness no longer being held back (restrained).

claninja said:

Here’s my take:

The “if” is conditional and the verb “might hold fast” is subjunctive - we are only made partakers in Christ IF from the beginning of assurance to the end we might hold firm. In other words, IF we don’t hold firm from the beginning of assurance to the end, we are not partakers in Christ.

Click to expand...

Right. That implies that holding firm right now does not guarantee that we will be partakers of Christ, right? Only holding firm in our faith until the end of our lives guarantees that, right? That's the conditional part. So, why do you believe that those who have held firm in their faith up to this point will automatically do so until the end of their lives when that contradicts what is written in Hebrews 3:12-14?

claninja said:

I believe this is what John meant when he said “they were not of us”.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 3:12-14 cannot possibly be talking about people who "were not of us". It's a message given directly to "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling". You can't say that "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling", if they fall away, were never "of us".

claninja said:

They may have had assurance in the beginning, but they continued on in sin, were corrupted by the spirit of antichrist and left the church in masses, obviously not holding firm to the end.

Click to expand...

What does this even mean? What "assurance in the beginning" would people who were "not of us" and were never of us have had? How can you compare them to the "holy brethren, partakes of the heavenly calling" that Hebrews 3 is addressing?

claninja said:

Based on this passage from Hebrews - a believer is only made a partaker IF from the beginning of assurance to the end they might remain firm. So how can a partaker in Christ fall away?

Click to expand...

Well, in the sense of what Hebrews 3:14 is talking about a partaker of Christ can't fall away because they aren't considered a partaker of Christ until they have held the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end of their lives. Obviously, a person can't fall away after they are dead. So, it seems that the writer is talking about the point at which a person is sanctified rather than the point at which a person can be said to be saved. So, your question is not really the right question to ask. The question to ask is, how can a person who has put their faith in Christ and has been saved, and is now on the journey to sanctification, fall away? The answer can be found, at least partly, within the passage we're talking about.

Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Look at verse 12. What if one of the "holy brethren" who is a partaker of the heavenly calling does not take heed and is not careful about examining their hearts? It seems in that case they are putting themselves in danger of "departing from the living God". What if one of the "holy brethren" does not take part in the exhorting of "one another daily"? It seems that they are then putting themselves in danger of being "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin". And, finally, what if someone does not make any effort to "hold the beginning of" their "confidence stedfast unto the end"? Then that puts them in danger of falling away.

What is the point of all these warnings given to saved people (only saved people are "holy brethren") if it's not actually possible for them to fall away? It makes the whole thing pointless in that case.

claninja said:

Jesus said the gospel would go to the whole “oikoumene”. Paul said the gospel had gone to the whole oikoumene. There’s reason to believe Paul taught anything different than Christ.

Click to expand...

The same word would be used to describe literally the whole world even beyond the known world as would be used to describe the known world of that time, so this doesn't prove anything. There is reason to believe that Jesus was speaking from a different context than Paul since He was speaking of what would be the case just before His yet future coming at the end of the age while that was obviously not the context that Paul was using.

claninja said:

I agree the 2nd advent didn’t occur in 70ad.

Click to expand...

I said that Jesus didn't come at all in 70 AD. You don't agree with that, do you?

claninja said:

I already agree with your very clear gospel and epistolic passages of Christ being the first resurrection and presently reigning, and the saints being a kingdom of priests who won’t ever die, so don’t conflate me not discussing those things with not caring.

I’m not discussing the whole of revelation 20. I’m discussing Satan’s little season.

Click to expand...

The whole of Revelation 20 helps establish the context of Satan's little season. Why try to understand it in isolation from the rest of the passage?

claninja said:

You haven’t. You’ve provided clear gospel and epistolic teachings on every other point, but not that one.

Click to expand...

Are you unable to believe anything unless it is explicitly spelled out for you? Do you think that spiritual discernment is never required to understand some of these things? Not everything is just all explicitly spelled out for us.

claninja said:

Like I said, I don’t believe the destruction of Jerusalem stops people from being saved,

Click to expand...

What does this even mean in relation to what we're talking about? Who said otherwise?

claninja said:

and I don’t believe the passing away of heaven and earth stops the nations from needing healing.

Click to expand...

What does this mean? No more healing will be needed after the literal passing away of heaven and earth.

Spiritual Jew said:

Would you like to take back your claim that you "have no issue with the NIV translation" of that verse? You obviously do. It made no sense for you to say that.

You said you "don’t necessarily disagree with the NIVs inserted [it], as long as the [it] refers to the revealing of the mystery of lawlessness". But, if their translation is correct then that means it was the secret power of lawlessness that was being held back until the time when it would be unrestrained. I believe they have it right when they talking about how it will be (not is) working through Satan's power by way of "all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders" in the future. That was not happening yet at that time.

Click to expand...

I said i had no issue with the NIV inserting [it] in verse 7 as long as [it] refers to the mystery being restrained from its revealing. Since Bill Mounce, one of the committee members of the translation team for the NIV, agrees with this understanding, there’s nothing to “take back”.

Spiritual Jew said:

He indicated the lawlessness was being held back to an extent at that time and would no longer be held back at a future time. That implies a future time of increased lawlessness. Why would you think Paul wouldn't have anything to say about that when Jesus Himself said there would be a future time of increased wickedness in relation to many people turning away from the faith (Matthew 24:10-12)?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

But he also said it was being held back. So, it was already at work, but not completely unrestrained. There was not yet a mass falling away that would result from lawlessness no longer being held back (restrained).

Click to expand...

Paul never stated lawlessness was being held back. Paul said Lawlessness was already at work in secret. It’s revealing was being held back, which Bill Mounce, a translator of the NIV, agrees with.

Spiritual Jew said:

Right. That implies that holding firm right now does not guarantee that we will be partakers of Christ, right? Only holding firm in our faith until the end of our lives guarantees that, right? That's the conditional part. So, why do you believe that those who have held firm in their faith up to this point will automatically do so until the end of their lives when that contradicts what is written in Hebrews 3:12-14?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

What does this even mean? What "assurance in the beginning" would people who were "not of us" and were never of us have had? How can you compare them to the "holy brethren, partakes of the heavenly calling" that Hebrews 3 is addressing?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

Well, in the sense of what Hebrews 3:14 is talking about a partaker of Christ can't fall away because they aren't considered a partaker of Christ until they have held the beginning of their confidence steadfast until the end of their lives. Obviously, a person can't fall away after they are dead. So, it seems that the writer is talking about the point at which a person is sanctified rather than the point at which a person can be said to be saved. So, your question is not really the right question to ask. The question to ask is, how can a person who has put their faith in Christ and has been saved, and is now on the journey to sanctification, fall away? The answer can be found, at least partly, within the passage we're talking about.

Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Look at verse 12. What if one of the "holy brethren" who is a partaker of the heavenly calling does not take heed and is not careful about examining their hearts? It seems in that case they are putting themselves in danger of "departing from the living God". What if one of the "holy brethren" does not take part in the exhorting of "one another daily"? It seems that they are then putting themselves in danger of being "hardened through the deceitfulness of sin". And, finally, what if someone does not make any effort to "hold the beginning of" their "confidence stedfast unto the end"? Then that puts them in danger of falling away.

What is the point of all these warnings given to saved people (only saved people are "holy brethren") if it's not actually possible for them to fall away? It makes the whole thing pointless in that case.

Click to expand...

According to Hebrews 3 someone is considered a partaker in Christ IF they stand firm to the end. Obviously then, Someone cannot fall away if they stand firm to the end. Calvinism is, in part, the idea that God already knows who will stand firm to the end and who will not, while we don’t necessarily know. Therefore, since we don’t know, we exhort daily.

Keeping that in mind, John states IF they would have remained they would have been of us, But their falling away “manifests” or “reveals” they were never of us. So John doesn’t know that some are not of us, until they fall away.

The author of Hebrews stated that those that can taste of the heavenly powers, and yet fall away, are never to be restored (Hebrews 6). So I would consider those that tasted of the heavenly powers (assurance in the beginning) but fell away to never be restored, were “manifested” to never have been of us. That would be apostasy.

Benson
They went out from us — Separated themselves from the communion of the true church of Christ. Hence it is one of the marks of antichrist, that he had been once in the Christian Church, and a teacher by profession, but had left it or apostatized; but they were not of us

Gill
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us; the word "all" is left out in the Syriac version. The defection and apostasy of these persons were permitted by God, that it might appear they had never received the grace of God in truth

Barnes
They went out from us - From the church. That is, they had once been professors of the religion of the Saviour, though their apostasy showed that they never had any true piety.

Cambridge
Apostasy is possible, but only for those who have never really made Christ their own, never fully given themselves to Him.

Spiritual Jew said:

The same word would be used to describe literally the whole world even beyond the known world as would be used to describe the known world of that time, so this doesn't prove anything. There is reason to believe that Jesus was speaking from a different context than Paul since He was speaking of what would be the case just before His yet future coming at the end of the age while that was obviously not the context that Paul was using.

Click to expand...

“Oikoumene” doesn’t mean beyond the known world. I don’t know where you get that from?

Spiritual Jew said:

I said that Jesus didn't come at all in 70 AD. You don't agree with that, do you?

Click to expand...

You already know I believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a sign of Christs presence. I simply don’t agree with your interpretation that the OD refers to the 2nd advent

Spiritual Jew said:

The whole of Revelation 20 helps establish the context of Satan's little season. Why try to understand it in isolation from the rest of the passage?

Click to expand...

Right, you rely on revelation 20 to establish your doctrine of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released.

Spiritual Jew said:

Are you unable to believe anything unless it is explicitly spelled out for you? Do you think that spiritual discernment is never required to understand some of these things? Not everything is just all explicitly spelled out for us.

Click to expand...

Revelation says horsemen with stingers will come out of a pit, should believe this literally? Revelation says Jesus wars with a sword in his mouth, should I take this literally? Revelation says a giant beast with 7 heads and 10 horns will rise out of the sea. Should I take this literally?

If you are going to create a doctrine from revelation of Satan being bound for thousands of years and then released, you better have some clear gospel or epistolic evidence. Otherwise it’s all personal interpretation.

Spiritual Jew said:

What does this even mean in relation to what we're talking about? Who said otherwise?

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

What does this mean? No more healing will be needed after the literal passing away of heaven and earth.

Click to expand...

You used peters words of “in the last days…..anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” to mean the last days = the last 2,000 years.

1.) Peters context was Israel - the last days of Israel.

2.) The nations still need healing post the passing away of the OHOE

Revelation 22:2 2down the middle of the main street of the city. On either side of the river stood a tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit and yielding a fresh crop for each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

Spiritual Jew said:

What does this mean? No more healing will be needed after the literal passing away of heaven and earth.

Click to expand...

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


You don't think verse 2 is meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away? Does not this verse say---and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations? Obviously, if the context is eternity this means verse 2 is meaning forever, otherwise one has to conclude eternity is not meant here if what is recorded in verse 2 can have an end eventually. Except eternity has no end eventually. It sounds like to me then, the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends unless eternity has an end eventually, or that verse 2 is not even involving eternity, that it is not even meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away. Only the first option seem reasonable, though--- the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends.

DavidPT said:

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


You don't think verse 2 is meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away? Does not this verse say---and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations? Obviously, if the context is eternity this means verse 2 is meaning forever, otherwise one has to conclude eternity is not meant here if what is recorded in verse 2 can have an end eventually. Except eternity has no end eventually. It sounds like to me then, the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends unless eternity has an end eventually, or that verse 2 is not even involving eternity, that it is not even meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away. Only the first option seem reasonable, though--- the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends.

Click to expand...

What do you think that verse means exactly then? What kind of literal healing would be needed? I don't believe that is how it is meant to be understood. I believe it's talking figuratively about the continual perfect spiritual health of those of us who will dwell in the new heavens and new earth for eternity.

1Tonne said:

I have a question that I have not been able to figure out.
Amillenialist believe that we are in the 1000-year reign right now.
If this is correct, why is there so much evil in the world? Why are their false religions deceiving people, murder, rape, theft and many other things.
In the 1000 reign of Christ, satan was not only bound but he was also put into a pit and sealed so that he was unable to deceive people until the 1000 years were up. But many are being deceived right now.
In Rev 20:1-3 "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he took hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time."
So, how does the Amilleniall viewpoint reconcile this?

Click to expand...

Satan is only one evil spirit. There are many evil spirits on the loose in the world. When Satan is released from the bottomless pit, things will get much worse. I believe the 1,000 years is a literal 1,000 year period. Weather or not we are in that now, I'm not sure. Christ rules from Heaven. His saints are ruling with him. He does not force people against their will. People make choices. Some choose evil.

DavidPT said:

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.


You don't think verse 2 is meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away? Does not this verse say---and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations? Obviously, if the context is eternity this means verse 2 is meaning forever, otherwise one has to conclude eternity is not meant here if what is recorded in verse 2 can have an end eventually. Except eternity has no end eventually. It sounds like to me then, the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends unless eternity has an end eventually, or that verse 2 is not even involving eternity, that it is not even meaning after the heavens and earth have already passed away. Only the first option seem reasonable, though--- the healing of the nations is an ongoing thing that never ends.

Click to expand...

I do not think that eternity is meant in that passage, Revelation 22:2, such that the scene has existence with no beginning and no end ever, this eternity is just that of God alone, along with transcendence with no limits. I can understand it is a scene from what has been made in heaven, maybe over a long time as the Lord said "I go to prepare a place for you." It then from being in heaven would appear on the new earth, which has yet to appear, the restoration from God's creation of it. That the new city is descending from heaven to earth is referring to its great height, I am sure. The tip at the top is high in heaven, hundreds of miles above, like a tall pyramid with a square base, it is an extremely high mountain, reaching from the peak in heaven to the base on the new earth, which must certainly be very different with that.

This future, which will continue with that scene with the street having the tree of life bearing fruits continually growing on both sides along it, would go on endlessly, the redeemed with the restored creation with creatures that groaned for that with the hope mentioned in the Bible will be there.

It is much more preferable to a future with Pangea Ultima.

Eternity is not the same as everlasting, they have different meanings.