When will Elijah the prophet appear in the world?

[Bible2]

Ezekiel 1 said in post 439:

As I read now, you'd rather expect the arrival of Elijah, not the Day of the Lord, on November 14-15?

Hopefully, no Christian expects the arrival of Elijah or the day of the Lord on November 14-15.

For the day of the Lord/Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:2) won't begin until the Lord Jesus Christ's 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), which won't occur until Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, "immediately after" the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8), which is when the rapture will occur (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

Regarding the arrival of Elijah, Matthew 17:10-13 can be understood as referring to two different comings of Elijah, the first being John the Baptist's coming "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17, Matthew 17:12-13), and the 2nd being a still-future physical coming-back of Elijah himself, when he will restore all things (Matthew 17:11), in the sense of restoring all true doctrine, i.e. all true interpretation of the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), to the church. This still-future, physical coming-back of Elijah himself could occur at the midpoint of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, when Elijah could come back bodily from heaven as one of the two witnesses (Revelation 11:3-12).

That is, in Revelation 11:3-12 the two witnesses could be literally Moses and Elijah. For the two men seen "standing before the God of the earth" (Revelation 11:4) at the transfiguration were Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:3). And in Revelation 11:4. the "two olive trees" refer back to the two men who were already standing by the Lord by the time of the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 4:11,14), which was subsequent to the times of Moses and Elijah.

Moses and Elijah could come down from heaven in their mortal bodies at the midpoint of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, just as they came down at the transfiguration. Also, the plagues that the two witnesses will cause (Revelation 11:6,5) will match plagues that Moses and Elijah caused in Old Testament times (James 5:17, Exodus 7:20; 2 Kings 1:10-14). Elijah never died, but was taken bodily into heaven (2 Kings 2:11b). And Michael retrieved Moses' dead body from Satan (Jude 1:9). Michael could have then taken Moses' body into heaven, where it could have been resuscitated back to mortal life, like, for example, Lazarus' dead body was resuscitated back to mortal life (John 12:1). This would explain how both Moses and Elijah could appear alive and well at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3).

The two witnesses will prophesy and bring plagues on the world during the future, literal 3.5 years (Revelation 11:2b,3,6) of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 12:6,14), which will be in the latter half of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. That's why the Antichrist's reign will legally end (Revelation 11:15) right after the time of the two witnesses on the earth will end (Revelation 11:12-15). The plagues that they will bring (Revelation 11:6) will be part of the tribulation's 2nd woe/6th trumpet (Revelation 11:14, Revelation 9:12-13). They will be taken up to heaven before the tribulation's 7th trumpet sounds (Revelation 11:12,15).

They may not be witnesses in the sense of evangelizing the world (Acts 1:8). For the original Greek word (martus, G3144) translated as "witnesses" (Revelation 11:3) can also refer to those who witness against people and bring punishment against them (Acts 7:58). The reason that there will be two witnesses (Revelation 11:3) who will bring plagues to torment the unrepentant world (Revelation 11:6,10b) would be because two witnesses are required to bring judgment against people (1 Timothy 5:19). At the same time, the two "witnesses" could be called that because both of them will be martyred (Revelation 11:7-9). For the same Greek word translated as "witnesses" (Revelation 11:3) can refer to "martyrs" (Revelation 17:6).

 

[Ezekiel 1]

Hopefully, no Christian expects the arrival of Elijah or the day of the Lord on November 14-15.

For the day of the Lord/Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:2) won't begin until the Lord Jesus Christ's 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10),

It is true.

It is true also however that 2 Peter letter speaks of an event called the Day of the Lord when the righteous people will be lifted up from the earth to get to a new earth. Is it simply the rapture? But Peter went on to say that everything on Earth will be burnt (on this old earth). Therefore it can't be simply the start of the Trib because we know not Everything will be urnt at that point. It can't be the Second COming either, because it is not said Jesus comes to Earth on Armageddon. it is said the earth burns while the righteous people are taken u to a new earth. Pls refer to the exact quotes of Second Peter's message or letter.

The early Christians tended to call all apocalyptic event swith one genral name the Day of the Lord. And they expected those events fervently. Until Augustine put an end of that expectation by taking the Millenial kingdom from the end and putting it right inside the history. Perhaps he hadreasons to do that, reasons that I will not enter into detail. But anyway the early Christians stopped awaiting the day of the lord, and the theologians stopped writing on it, outside of the new doctrine of Millenial kingdom "Now" and Second Coming plus Final Judgment - at the end altogether.

Today's catholic church slowly (hope surely) tries to get out of the Augustinian twisted timeline that is something quite hard if you have 15 centuries theologians and many saints to write on it.

So in conclusion, I don't know what 2 Peter refers to. It seems to me (may be wrong) that it is an event completely separated from all the others. May be it coincides with a pretrib rapture, may be not. May be it is just a rescue from planet earth in a fiery event that precedes all the end times that have to come only after a number of many years/possibly centuries.

 

[precepts]

See the "Daniel 12:11" part of post 417, and the "Daniel 11:31" part of post 406.

I don't have the time.

Regarding Daniel 8:11, it could have been fulfilled by Antiochus IV.

In Daniel 8:14, the original Hebrew words (ereb, H6153; and boqer, H1242) translated as the single word "days", mean "evenings" and "mornings" (cf. Daniel 8:26) in reference to the evening and morning lamb sacrifices of the Mosaic law (Exodus 29:38-42). So the 2,300 "evenings" and "mornings" might actually be only 1,150 days. These days could have been fulfilled in ancient times, in the time of Antiochus IV. And Daniel 8:14b could refer to the cleansing of the temple under Judas Maccabeus.

How can it be days when the abomination of desolation lasts until the "consummation," the entering into the New Shalem? Why do you keep ignoring these simple facts?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

All these facts point to the end times, years not days after the abomination of desolation. Accept the facts.

The Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one these 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms.

You're blaspheming the word, friend. Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms, but that he's one of the kings of the north. Dan 11 details the chronology of these kings, and he is actually the 6th king of the north, the great grandson of the general that established the kingdom of the north, Antioch, the ancient Babylonian territory. The king of the south was the Ptolemiac Dynasty in Egypt.

Why would you claim what you claimed? How did you come to conclude he came from what use to be one of the four horns' country and not acknowledge what's written in Dan 11?!

Face the facts!

For whereas Antiochus IV could have fulfilled Daniel 8:9,23-25 typically, the Antichrist will fulfill it antitypically.

Antiochus the IV can never fulfill Dan 8:9,23-25 because it lasts until the consummation, Dan 9:27. Why do you keep ignoring these facts?! Dan 9:27 confirms it last until the "consummation." Accept it.

The Antichrist will fulfill Daniel 8:24a because he will be mighty but not by his own power (Revelation 13:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). He will fulfill Daniel 8:24b because he will prosper and will physically destroy the holy people, the church (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13). He will fulfill Daniel 8:25a because he will magnify himself (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). And he will fulfill Daniel 8:25b because he will stand up against the Prince of princes (Revelation 19:19) and will be broken without hand (Revelation 19:20).

How many times do I have to explain the abomination of desolation is not done by the antichrist? Dan 8 and 11 is the Greek lil horn. The antichrist is not mentioned anyway in Daniel because the antichrist, as described in Revelation, is the 8th horn of the 4th beast in Dan 7, and the 8th horn of Rev's 7 headed 10 horned beast.

Dan 8 and 11 person cannot be the antichrist because they are describing the greek lil horn. If you're equating Dan 11's lil horn to the antichrist because of Dan 12's jump to the 2nd resurrection, you're still wrong. Dan 12 is the 2nd resurrection which means it's Rev 20's white throne judgment resurrection. The beast (aka the antichrist) and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire before the 1,000 reign. Dan 12 is after the 1,000 yrs reign when the books are opened and the dead are judged, the sheep and goat judgment.

Each and every question I've addressed in this post have been me providing the facts you've ignored.

Note that Daniel 7 refers to only four beasts, and it hasn't been said that the Antichrist's empire will be a revived Greek empire.

Where?!

See the 2nd and 3rd sections of post 411, which discuss Daniel 7 and how the Antichrist's empire will be a revived Babylonian empire.

That's a lie! There's nothing in Daniel that suggests a revived Babyloniian empire. You lack knowledge of scripture and prophecy. The King of the Nnrth occupied the old Babylon territory when Alexander's empire was divided into four parts. It is called Antioch, "the camp of the saints" in the NT. No where is the antichrist, the 8th horn of the Roman empire, mentioned in Dan 8 or 11. How do you expect to interpret scripture and prophecy correctly without using the facts?

Regarding the weeds/tares, in Matthew 13:38, the good seed are the elect, and the weeds/tares are the nonelect, who can't ever believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Matthew 13:40-42 refers to the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-14), after the future millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-10), when the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). In Matthew 13:43, the kingdom of the Father is after the great white throne judgment, when a new earth (i.e. a new surface of the earth) will be created and God the Father will descend from heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with the church on the new earth (Revelation 21:1-3).

Every last reply you've made has been unfactual. There's no "throne" judgment in the "Wheat and Tares" resurrection! The good are gathered directly into the New Shalem called the barn, and the wicked are carried straight to the lake of fire. There's no judgment to decide who's the wheat or who's the tares.

*******

Daniel 7:21,25, like Daniel 12:7b, refers to the future, literal 3.5-year worldwide earthly reign of the Antichrist, the individual-man aspect of the beast (Revelation 13:4-18).

It refers to Rev 4-20, the day God comes to assist the saints in heaven, sets up his throne there, and the saints possess the heavenly kingdom. The heavenly kingdom becomes Christ's eternal kingdom, dominating all nations of people which is Rev 4-20.

Why do you keep ignoring the facts? There's nowhere in scripture that supports a 3.5 yrs of antichrist rule. I provided the proof of this being in heaven in the last post.

Originally posted by precepts:
Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

Regarding "the Ancient of days", are we agreed that Daniel 7 doesn't necessarily refer to the Ancient of days and the Son of man as being different people? For the description of the Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9 matches the description of the Son of man in Revelation 1:13-14. And the judgment of people occurring in front of the throne of the Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9-10 matches the judgment of people occurring in front of the throne of the Son of man in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 20:11-15 (cf. John 5:22).

First you said God and Christ were two different persons as to why Christ didn't know when he was to return, now you're claiming God on the throne is the lamb that takes the book out of the hand of God on the throne. Though they are one, God on the throne still comes as God on the throne to help Christ and the angels because up until then God's identity was a mystery even to the angels; hence the phrase, "if Satan had known who Christ was, he wouldn't have crucified him."


Continue on next page.

 

[precepts]

Also, when Daniel 7:13 says that the Son of man came "to" the Ancient of days, the original Chaldean word (ad, H5705) translated as "to" corresponds to a Hebrew word (ad, H5704) which can be translated as "when" (Psalms 71:18, Jonah 4:2). So Daniel 7:13b can refer to "when" the Ancient of days will come, which will be when the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), which will be at his 2nd coming to the earth (Matthew 24:30), which will be when the Ancient of days will come to the earth immediately after the tribulation to set up the millennial aspect of his kingdom on the earth with the church (Daniel 7:21-22, Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). So when Daniel 7:13b says "they brought him near before him", that can refer to angels bringing the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) before the returned Son of man/Ancient of days to be judged and given to the burning flame (Daniel 7:11b, Revelation 19:20).

It is plainly stated in Rev 4 of God setting up his throne in heaven. You admitted that in the past. This is Rev 7's scene, God setting up his throne in heaven, which is also Rev 4. How many times do I have to prove this? It's the heavenly kingdom that Christ possesses and defeats the Beast and the false prophet, proven in Rev 17 because their smoke ascends up before the throne forever. The throne being set in heaven is the proof and foundation stone of everything in Revelation happening in heaven. Christ recieves his throne after the 1,000 yrs reign. It seems you're just fixed on preaching antichrist doctrine because don't care how many verses I provide proving the truth, you just ignore them. What's up with that? Why can't you accept the facts and see your doctrine is carnal and unfactual. Not to mention "prolonged!"

The Son of man can be the Ancient of days because the Son of man is "from everlasting" (Micah 5:2c, John 8:58, John 17:5).

True, but how can you mistake them for the same person when scriptures shows them doing distinctly different things. Christ comes on a cloud to the Ancient of days; God's throne is set in heaven. God comes to assist the saints; Christ inherits the kingdom after defeating the Beast and the false power. One recieves power and glory from the other; Two distinct roles.

Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" are 4 empires (Daniel 7:23) which existed in the past, so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 "kings" can be 10 major nations which currently exist. "And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The 4th king is Rome. Rev and Dan 7 says the horns are men/kings. Why do I have to keep going over this over and over again? Nebuchadnezzar and his two sons were represented by the lion with the two wings, etc. So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings? Explain why?

The judgment which will sit prior to the Antichrist's kingdom being taken away (Daniel 7:26) could occur in heaven before Jesus' 2nd coming.

What you call the second coming is Rev 4-20 and Dan 7:7-27, which happens in heaven. That's the fact.

And it could involve only the matter of the Antichrist's kingdom, which will be taken away legally at the sounding of the 7th trumpet (Revelation 11:15)

Rev 11:15 is Dan 7:9:10. The sounding of the 7th trump isn't the taking away of the antichrist's kingdom, that's Dan 7:11. The 7th trump is when Christ ascends to heaven on the cloud and is brought before God's throne. The war happens after in both Dan 7 and in Rev 19.

of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. The tribulation's subsequent vial judgments against the Antichrist and his followers (Revelations 16), and then the subsequent 2nd-coming judgment against them (Revelation 19:11-21), will both occur before the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6). Only the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) will occur sometime after the millennium and the subsequent Gog/Magog rebellion are over (Revelation 20:7-15, Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

I keep telling you the seals, vials, and trumps were visions of the past just like the vision of the woman in the wilderness. The seals, vials, and trumps all happen during the establishing of the earthly covenant. The plague of locust was the releasing of the 4th seal, the Beast from the bottomless pit, etc..

Originally posted by precepts:
Dan 7:27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

Daniel 7:27a refers to the rule of the future, earthly aspect of the kingdom of God being given to those in the church.

How can you say that and ignore all the verses I provide proving everything happens in heaven, base on Rev 4, God's throne being set in heaven, and everything else happening around it?

After Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3), those in the bodily resurrected church will be the kings and priests who will rule on the earth with Jesus for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). There will also be unsaved people on the earth during that time who won't be given the kingdom, but will be its forced subjects (Psalms 66:3-7, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:16-19), ruled with a rod of iron by Jesus and the church (Psalms 2:7-9, Revelation 2:26-29).

You're ignoring the facts. There's nothing in Daniel 7 that shows an earthly kingdom. God's throne is set in heaven, Rev 4 is the evidence.

And because even the earthly aspect of the kingdom "is an everlasting kingdom" (Daniel 7:27), sometime after the millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-15), the earthly aspect of the kingdom will continue forever on a new earth, in the sense of a new surface of the earth (Revelation 21:1-4, Revelation 22:5).

Daniel 7:27b refers to all dominions serving Jesus. After his 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:3-5), he will be King over the whole earth (Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11), ruling all nations from the earthly Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-21).

You have to provide scripture showing a change from the heavenly scene in Dan 7 and Rev 4, otherwise you're promoting folly.

Regarding the days being shortened, Mark 13:20 can mean that all flesh on the earth would die if the Lord hadn't already shortened, as in "he hath shortened" (Mark 13:20b), the number of days of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18, Matthew 24, and Mark 13. The Lord could have already determined, from the beginning of Creation (cf. Isaiah 46:10), that he will return on the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a 3rd Jewish temple (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 12:11-12, Revelation 16:15). And the Lord will return "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), immediately after its final event, the worldwide destruction during the 7th vial (Revelation 16:19, Revelation 19:2 to 20:6). So Mark 13:20 can mean that if the Lord hadn't shortened the number of days of the tribulation, then all flesh on the earth would die during the 7th vial's aftermath, which could be a nuclear-winter scenario (which the Lord will miraculously prevent at his return) brought on by the 10 kings of the Antichrist's empire nuking the cities of the earth at the 7th vial (Revelation 17:16-17a, Revelation 16:19).

 

[Bible2]

Ezekiel 1 said in post 442:

So in conclusion, I don't know what 2 Peter refers to.

Regarding 2 Peter 3:10-13, in the day of the Lord will occur the destruction of heaven (the first heaven: the sky, the atmosphere) and the earth (the surface of the earth) at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11, Revelation 21:1). And this will be followed by the creation of a new atmosphere and surface for the earth (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1) onto which New Jerusalem, the Father's house (John 14:2, Revelation 21:2-3), will descend from the 3rd heaven (Revelation 21:2-3). But the day of the Lord won't immediately bring the destruction of earth's atmosphere and surface. For the day of the Lord will begin at Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 1:7-8) as a thief (2 Peter 3:10a, Revelation 16:15). And after his 2nd coming, he will establish his kingdom physically on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:3-21).

And after the 1,000 years, the Gog/Magog rebellion will occur (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel chapters 38-39). And after its defeat, at least 7 more years will occur (Ezekiel 39:9b), before the earth's atmosphere and surface are destroyed at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11). All these events, from Jesus' 2nd coming to the great white throne judgment, will be part of the day of the Lord. For it's not a 24-hour day, but to God is like a 1,000-year "day" (2 Peter 3:8).

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 443:

There's nowhere in scripture that supports a 3.5 yrs of antichrist rule.

See the last section of post 409.

*******

precepts said in post 444:

It is plainly stated in Rev 4 of God setting up his throne in heaven. You admitted that in the past.

Actually, that idea has never been admitted. For God could have set up his throne in heaven as soon as he created heaven. For he was already sitting on his throne in heaven in ancient times (1 Kings 22:19, Psalms 11:4), whereas Revelation 4 is about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1). Also, the original Greek verb (keimai, G2749) translated as "set" in Revelation 4:2 doesn't have to refer to the initial establishment of God's throne in heaven, but can simply refer to John seeing it already established there, just as, for example, the same Greek verb is used in Revelation 21:16 to refer to how the already-existing literal city of New Jerusalem in heaven "lieth foursquare", in the sense that it's foundation has four corners.

precepts said in post 444:

Christ recieves his throne after the 1,000 yrs reign.

Actually, the resurrected Christ (Revelation 1:18) was already sitting on God's throne in heaven at the first-century AD time that Revelation was written down (Revelation 3:21b), whereas Christ's 1,000-year reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church won't begin until after his (never fulfilled) 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

precepts said in post 444:

What you call the second coming is Rev 4-20 and Dan 7:7-27, which happens in heaven.

The 2nd coming of Jesus (i.e. from heaven to earth) won't occur until Revelation 19:7-21, which won't occur until immediately after the never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31).

Jesus will return "in like manner" as he ascended (Acts 1:11b), in that just as at the end of his first coming, he was seen by literal eyes to ascend physically from the Mount of Olives into a literal cloud and on into heaven (Acts 1:9,12, cf. Luke 24:39), so at his 2nd coming, he will be seen in literal clouds by literal eyes (Revelation 1:7, Matthew 24:30) to physically descend from heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and set his feet on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:3-21).

When Jesus returns, immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Revelation 19:7-21, Matthew 24:29-31), he will descend bodily from heaven on a white horse (Revelation 19:7-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12) with all the holy angels (Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) for all the world to see (Matthew 24:27,30, Revelation 1:7). Then the church will be bodily resurrected (if dead) or physically changed (if alive) into immortality (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:4-6) and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (Matthew 24:31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1) as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

At that meeting, he will judge the church (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10, Luke 12:45-48) and marry its obedient part (Revelation 19:7-8, Matthew 25:1-12) in the clouds, before it mounts white horses and comes back down from sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the world's armies (Revelation 19:19,21) and the Antichrist and False Prophet (Revelation 19:20), and has Lucifer (Satan) bound in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).

Jesus will then make the marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 for the obedient part of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54), while the birds will feast on the corpses of the world's defeated armies (Revelation 19:17-18). Then Jesus and the obedient part of the church will rule the surviving nations with a rod of iron for the full 1,000 years of the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 2). After the 1,000 years are over, Lucifer will be released from the bottomless pit and bring about the Gog/Magog rebellion, only to be defeated for the last time (Revelation 20:7-10, Ezekiel chapters 38-39).

At least 7 years after that defeat (Ezekiel 39:9b), the great white throne judgment will occur, in which all those who hadn't been resurrected and judged at Jesus' return will be resurrected and judged (Revelation 20:11-15). Then God will create a new heaven (a new first heaven: a new sky/atmosphere for the earth) and a new earth (a new surface for the earth) (Revelation 21:1; 2 Peter 3:10b,13). Then God the Father will descend from the 3rd heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:2), the Father's house (John 14:2, Revelation 21:3), and he will dwell on the earth with Jesus and the church (Revelation 21:3).

In one area outside the walls of New Jerusalem on the new earth will be the lake of fire (Revelation 22:15, Revelation 21:8) in which all of unsaved humanity will be punished forever in fire and brimstone with Lucifer and his fallen angels (Revelation 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46).

precepts said in post 444:

There's nothing in Daniel 7 that shows an earthly kingdom.

Jesus will physically reign on the earth during the 1,000 years, for the 1,000 years will begin after his 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), when he will physically land on the earth and rule it from Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-21). And because Jesus will reign physically on the earth during the 1,000 years, so will the physically resurrected church, for the physically resurrected church will reign with Jesus during the 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6). And so in Revelation 5:10, the reference to the church reigning in the future "on the earth" includes the 1,000 years. Also, in Revelation 2:26-29, the reigning of the church physically over the nations can refer to the 1,000 years. There's no reason to exclude the 1,000 years from Revelation 5:10 or Revelation 2:26-29, just as there's no reason to exclude the earth from Revelation 20:4-6.

Also, the church will reign forever on the new earth. For the church will reign forever in New Jerusalem (Revelation 22:5, Revelation 21:10 to 22:5), which will descend from heaven to a new earth (Revelation 21:1-3, Revelation 21:10) sometime after the future millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7 to 21:3).

 

[precepts]

Originally posted by precepts:
It is plainly stated in Rev 4 of God setting up his throne in heaven. You admitted that in the past.

Actually, that idea has never been admitted. For God could have set up his throne in heaven as soon as he created heaven. For he was already sitting on his throne in heaven in ancient times (1 Kings 22:19, Psalms 11:4), whereas Revelation 4 is about "things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 4:1). Also, the original Greek verb (keimai, G2749) translated as "set" in Revelation 4:2 doesn't have to refer to the initial establishment of God's throne in heaven, but can simply refer to John seeing it already established there, just as, for example, the same Greek verb is used in Revelation 21:16 to refer to how the already-existing literal city of New Jerusalem in heaven "lieth foursquare", in the sense that it's foundation has four corners.

You tend to ignore the facts to promote false doctrine. Dan 7:8-27 clearly shows God coming to assist the saints possess the heavenly kingdom, which is Rev 4-20, because Dan 7:8-27 is from Christ being brought before the Ancient of days to the Beast and the false prophet being thrown into the lake of fire. If God was in heaven all the while, why does both text say his throne was set up and he came to assist the saints? The hereafter is because Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-20 happens after John's vision in 68 ad.

Actually, the resurrected Christ (Revelation 1:18) was already sitting on God's throne in heaven at the first-century AD time that Revelation was written down (Revelation 3:21b), whereas Christ's 1,000-year reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church won't begin until after his (never fulfilled) 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

God transcends time, but there's no scripture saying Christ was on the throne with God. The end of the 1,000 yrs reign is when Christ recieves the Great White throne. I have provided Rev 17 numerous times to show the Beast and the false prophet burning before God's throne in heaven. God doesn't move his throne from where it's placed in Revelation and Dan.

You're purposely ignoring the facts to promote the antichrist carnal doctrine by hiding the truth of who the Beast was, and what God's salvation plan and timeline are.

Originally posted by precepts:
What you call the second coming is Rev 4-20 and Dan 7:7-27, which happens in heaven.

The 2nd coming of Jesus (i.e. from heaven to earth) won't occur until Revelation 19:7-21, which won't occur until immediately after the never-fulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31).

Rev 19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great harlot, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
Rev 19:3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
Rev 19:4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
Rev 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
Rev 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

In heaven! There's no scripture claiming God moves his throne to earth. That's just plain folly. Everything revolves around God's heavenly throne. The facts can't deny that.

Jesus will return "in like manner" as he ascended (Acts 1:11b), in that just as at the end of his first coming, he was seen by literal eyes to ascend physically from the Mount of Olives into a literal cloud and on into heaven (Acts 1:9,12, cf. Luke 24:39), so at his 2nd coming, he will be seen in literal clouds by literal eyes (Revelation 1:7, Matthew 24:30) to physically descend from heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and set his feet on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:3-21).

He will return "in like manner" the same way Paul said "we shall not all die but be changed in a twinkling of and eye." He will return "in like manner' the same way the generation standing in Mat 24 wouldn't taste death until they see him returning on the clouds.

When Jesus returns, immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Revelation 19:7-21, Matthew 24:29-31), he will descend bodily from heaven on a white horse (Revelation 19:7-21; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Zechariah 14:3-4, Acts 1:11-12) with all the holy angels (Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) for all the world to see (Matthew 24:27,30, Revelation 1:7). Then the church will be bodily resurrected (if dead) or physically changed (if alive) into immortality (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Revelation 20:4-6) and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (Matthew 24:31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1) as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

Which is impossible because Dan 7:8-27 and Rev 4-20 shows who the 1st resurrected are. The 1st resurrected are the witnesses of Christ on the white horse and the Armageddon war in heaven. They were the invited guests. The 2nd resurrection after the 1,000 yrs reign were the ones invited because there was still room for more at the banquet, so those from the highways and byways were invited in, parable.

Originally posted by precepts:
There's nothing in Daniel 7 that shows an earthly kingdom.

Jesus will physically reign on the earth during the 1,000 years, for the 1,000 years will begin after his 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), when he will physically land on the earth and rule it from Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:4-21).

All this happens in heaven where God's throne is.

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

And because Jesus will reign physically on the earth during the 1,000 years, so will the physically resurrected church, for the physically resurrected church will reign with Jesus during the 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6).

In heaven.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 11:16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.



This is Dan 7 and Rev 4-5, which is where the 1,000 yrs is spent, in the heavenly temple.



Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.


They reign in heaven in the heavenly temple where the ark of his testament is seen. This is why you think Zech is earthy, but's it's not. It's the 1,000 yrs reign in heaven.

Originally Posted by Bible2"
The Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one these 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms.

You're blaspheming the word, friend. Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms, but that he's one of the kings of the north. Dan 11 details the chronology of these kings, and he is actually the 6th king of the north, the great grandson of the general that established the kingdom of the north, Antioch, the ancient Babylonian territory. The king of the south was the Ptolemiac Dynasty in Egypt. Why would you claim what you claimed? How did you come to conclude he came from what use to be one of the four horns' country and not acknowledge what's written in Dan 11?!

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Note that Daniel 7 refers to only four beasts, and it hasn't been said that the Antichrist's empire will be a revived Greek empire.

Where?!

Originally Posted by Bible2:

Regarding the weeds/tares, in Matthew 13:38, the good seed are the elect, and the weeds/tares are the nonelect, who can't ever believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Matthew 13:40-42 refers to the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-14), after the future millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-10), when the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). In Matthew 13:43, the kingdom of the Father is after the great white throne judgment, when a new earth (i.e. a new surface of the earth) will be created and God the Father will descend from heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with the church on the new earth (Revelation 21:1-3).

Every last reply you've made has been unfactual. There's no "throne" judgment in the "Wheat and Tares" resurrection! The good are gathered directly into the New Shalem called the barn, and the wicked are carried straight to the lake of fire. There's no judgment to decide who's the wheat or who's the tares.

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" are 4 empires (Daniel 7:23) which existed in the past, so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 "kings" can be 10 major nations which currently exist. "And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The 4th king is Rome. Rev and Dan 7 says the horns are men/kings. Why do I have to keep going over this over and over again? Nebuchadnezzar and his two sons were represented by the lion with the two wings, etc. So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings? Explain why?
.

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Note that nothing requires that the 490 years began in 532 BC, instead of sometime later.

SO HOW DID I COME UP WITH 532 BC?!

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 447:

He will return "in like manner" the same way Paul said "we shall not all die but be changed in a twinkling of and eye."

In 1 Corinthians 15:51, "we shall all be changed" refers to all "we" believers who will still be "alive and remain" on the earth at Jesus' (never fulfilled) 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), as distinguished from "them" (1 Thessalonians 4:17), those dead believers whose bodies will be resurrected from their graves at the 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16b-17; 1 Corinthians 15:52,51). Both those believers whose living bodies will be changed into immortality and those believers whose dead bodies will be resurrected into immortality (1 Corinthians 15:52-53) will then be "caught up together" (raptured) from the earth into the sky at the 2nd coming to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:16b-17).

precepts said in post 447:

He will return "in like manner' the same way the generation standing in Mat 24 wouldn't taste death until they see him returning on the clouds.

Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled at the subsequent transfiguration (Matthew 16:28 to 17:9, Luke 9:27-36, Mark 9:1-9; 2 Peter 1:16-18).

precepts said in post 447:

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Acts 7:48-50 and Acts 17:24 refer back to the principle of Isaiah 66:1-2a, which was true even at the time of Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 2:6). It means that the Creator God YHWH is too big to dwell only in temples made with hands. For it's not contradicting the fact that God did dwell in Solomon's temple in the earthly Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:11), and then in the 2nd temple in the earthly Jerusalem (Matthew 23:21). And so nothing requires that God won't also dwell in the 3rd temple, which will be built in the earthly Jerusalem during the future tribulation (Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and then in the 4th temple, which will be built in the earthly Jerusalem during the future millennium (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13).

 

[SG9]

Acts 7:48-50 and Acts 17:24 refer back to the principle of Isaiah 66:1-2a, which was true even at the time of Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 2:6). It means that the Creator God YHWH is too big to dwell only in temples made with hands.

Please elaborate on this concept, I gotta hear how God is TOO BIG to dwell in temples made by hands. What does SIZE have to do with it?

 

[precepts]

In 1 Corinthians 15:51, "we shall all be changed" refers to all "we" believers who will still be "alive and remain" on the earth at Jesus' (never fulfilled) 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), as distinguished from "them" (1 Thessalonians 4:17), those dead believers whose bodies will be resurrected from their graves at the 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:16b-17; 1 Corinthians 15:52,51). Both those believers whose living bodies will be changed into immortality and those believers whose dead bodies will be resurrected into immortality (1 Corinthians 15:52-53) will then be "caught up together" (raptured) from the earth into the sky at the 2nd coming to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:16b-17).

You keep making up these lame excuses. Paul said "we," placing himself among those alive and caught up.

Matthew 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1 were fulfilled at the subsequent transfiguration (Matthew 16:28 to 17:9, Luke 9:27-36, Mark 9:1-9; 2 Peter 1:16-18).

You're purposely, once again, posting folly. They were fulfilled heavenly at the heaven earth's 2nd resurrection, at the "White Throne" judgment.

Acts 7:48-50 and Acts 17:24 refer back to the principle of Isaiah 66:1-2a, which was true even at the time of Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 2:6). It means that the Creator God YHWH is too big to dwell only in temples made with hands. For it's not contradicting the fact that God did dwell in Solomon's temple in the earthly Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:11), and then in the 2nd temple in the earthly Jerusalem (Matthew 23:21).

You're contradicting what God said. Heaven is his throne. True, scriptures said God dwelt in the temples and tabernacles in the past, but there's also reference to God coming to the temple at certain times, just like Dan 7's. The same way God comes to the temple in certain days and times, is the same way he came to the heavenly temple. That's what you're not understanding. The heaven where the angels, the heavenly temple, and the heavenly Shalem dwell isn't where God dwells. Even the angels didn't know the mystery to God on the throne. There kingdom was the spiritual equivalent of the physical earth's. That's why the New Shalem comes down out of the 3rd heaven where God dwells and replaces the old heavenly shalem. The proof is in Eze 9's preserving of the mark. It follows the same pattern as Rev 7's sealing at the 6th seal followed by the high priest fulling his hands/censor with coals from off the altar and casting it into the city/earth.

And so nothing requires that God won't also dwell in the 3rd temple, which will be built in the earthly Jerusalem during the future tribulation (Revelation 11:1-2, Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31,36; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and then in the 4th temple, which will be built in the earthly Jerusalem during the future millennium (Zechariah 14:20-21, Zechariah 6:12-13).

You're not interested in the truth. You have your agenda.

Originally Posted by Bible2"
The Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one these 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms.

You're blaspheming the word, friend. Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms, but that he's one of the kings of the north. Dan 11 details the chronology of these kings, and he is actually the 6th king of the north, the great grandson of the general that established the kingdom of the north, Antioch, the ancient Babylonian territory. The king of the south was the Ptolemiac Dynasty in Egypt. Why would you claim what you claimed? How did you come to conclude he came from what use to be one of the four horns' country and not acknowledge what's written in Dan 11?!







​

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Note that Daniel 7 refers to only four beasts, and it hasn't been said that the Antichrist's empire will be a revived Greek empire.

Where?!






​

Originally Posted by Bible2:
​

Regarding the weeds/tares, in Matthew 13:38, the good seed are the elect, and the weeds/tares are the nonelect, who can't ever believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Matthew 13:40-42 refers to the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-14), after the future millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-10), when the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). In Matthew 13:43, the kingdom of the Father is after the great white throne judgment, when a new earth (i.e. a new surface of the earth) will be created and God the Father will descend from heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with the church on the new earth (Revelation 21:1-3).
​

Every last reply you've made has been unfactual. There's no "throne" judgment in the "Wheat and Tares" resurrection! The good are gathered directly into the New Shalem called the barn, and the wicked are carried straight to the lake of fire. There's no judgment to decide who's the wheat or who's the tares.








​

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" are 4 empires (Daniel 7:23) which existed in the past, so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 "kings" can be 10 major nations which currently exist. "And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The 4th king is Rome. Rev and Dan 7 says the horns are men/kings. Why do I have to keep going over this over and over again? Nebuchadnezzar and his two sons were represented by the lion with the two wings, etc. So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings? Explain why?
.





​

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Note that nothing requires that the 490 years began in 532 BC, instead of sometime later.

SO HOW DID I COME UP WITH 532 BC?!
​

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 450:

Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms, but that he's one of the kings of the north.

Daniel 8:8-9,21-25 means that the Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one of the 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms which succeeded Alexander the Great. For Daniel 8:9 means that the Antichrist will come out of one of the 4 "kingdoms" referred to in Daniel 8:22.

 

[precepts]

Originally Posted by Bible2"
The Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one these 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms.

Originally posted by precepts:
You're blaspheming the word, friend. Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms, but that he's one of the kings of the north. Dan 11 details the chronology of these kings, and he is actually the 6th king of the north, the great grandson of the general that established the kingdom of the north, Antioch, the ancient Babylonian territory. The king of the south was the Ptolemiac Dynasty in Egypt. Why would you claim what you claimed? How did you come to conclude he came from what use to be one of the four horns' country and not acknowledge what's written in Dan 11?!

Daniel 8:8-9,21-25 means that the Antichrist will come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one of the 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms which succeeded Alexander the Great. For Daniel 8:9 means that the Antichrist will come out of one of the 4 "kingdoms" referred to in Daniel 8:22.

Originally Posted by Bible2:

​

Regarding the weeds/tares, in Matthew 13:38, the good seed are the elect, and the weeds/tares are the nonelect, who can't ever believe in Jesus (John 8:42-47). Matthew 13:40-42 refers to the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-14), after the future millennium and subsequent events (Revelation 20:7-10), when the unsaved will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15). In Matthew 13:43, the kingdom of the Father is after the great white throne judgment, when a new earth (i.e. a new surface of the earth) will be created and God the Father will descend from heaven in the literal city of New Jerusalem to live with the church on the new earth (Revelation 21:1-3).

Every last reply you've made has been unfactual. There's no "throne" judgment in the "Wheat and Tares" resurrection! The good are gathered directly into the New Shalem called the barn, and the wicked are carried straight to the lake of fire. There's no judgment to decide who's the wheat or who's the tares.









​

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" are 4 empires (Daniel 7:23) which existed in the past, so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 "kings" can be 10 major nations which currently exist. "And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

The 4th king is Rome. Rev and Dan 7 says the horns are men/kings. Why do I have to keep going over this over and over again? Nebuchadnezzar and his two sons were represented by the lion with the two wings, etc. So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings? Explain why?
.






​

Originally Posted by Bible2"
Note that nothing requires that the 490 years began in 532 BC, instead of sometime later.

SO HOW DID I COME UP WITH 532 BC?!

​

 

[HannibalFlavius]

You tend to ignore the facts to promote false doctrine.






You're purposely ignoring the facts to promote the antichrist carnal doctrine by hiding the truth of who the Beast was, and what God's salvation plan and timeline are.








In heaven! There's no scripture claiming God moves his throne to earth. That's just plain folly. Everything revolves around God's heavenly throne. The facts can't deny that.






















In heaven.














You're blaspheming the word, friend. Scripture doesn't say he will come from what use to be one of their kingdoms






Where?!




Every last reply you've made has been unfactual. There's no "throne" judgment in the "Wheat and Tares" resurrection! The good are gathered directly into the New Shalem called the barn, and the wicked are carried straight to the lake of fire. There's no judgment to decide who's the wheat or who's the tares.

Chill out, can't somebody have an opinion without it being Blasphemy?


Besides being wrong yourself.

Are you blaspheming every time your wrong?


The new Jerusalem is called, '' The barn?''


What is the date of the wheat harvest?

 

[Bible2]

precepts said in post 452:

So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings?

Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" were 4 "kingdoms"/empires (Daniel 7:23), and just as the two "horns" in Daniel 8:3 which Alexander the Great himself broke in Daniel 8:7 were the two kingdoms of the Medes and the Persians (i.e. the Medo-Persian empire) (Cyrus and Darius themselves had already been dead for about 200 and 150 years, respectively, by the time of Alexander's conquest), and just as the 4 horns in Daniel 8:8 were 4 "kingdoms" (Daniel 8:22), so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 horns/"kings" can be 10 major kingdoms/nations which currently exist. "And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

 

[precepts]

Chill out, can't somebody have an opinion without it being Blasphemy?

You can't carry opinions to court.

Besides being wrong yourself.

Are you blaspheming every time your wrong?

That's the problem I have with individuals like you, false accusations and voicing opinions as facts. Where was I wrong, and since when is being wrong blasphemous?

The new Jerusalem is called, '' The barn?''


What is the date of the wheat harvest?

What is your objective? What does the text say?

 

[precepts]

Originally posted by precepts:
So, why is the 4th Beast horns not equal to kings when every beast of the 4 beast features mentioned equal kings? Cyrus and Darius were represented by the two horns on the Ram. Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals represented the horns on the goat -So why would the horns on the 4th beast that follows them not be kings?

Just as in Daniel 7:17 the 4 "kings" were 4 "kingdoms"/empires (Daniel 7:23), and just as the two "horns" in Daniel 8:3 which Alexander the Great himself broke in Daniel 8:7 were the two kingdoms of the Medes and the Persians (i.e. the Medo-Persian empire) (Cyrus and Darius themselves had already been dead for about 200 and 150 years, respectively, by the time of Alexander's conquest), and just as the 4 horns in Daniel 8:8 were 4 "kingdoms" (Daniel 8:22), so in Daniel 7:24 the 10 horns/"kings" can be 10 major kingdoms/nations which currently exist.

Says who? Dan 7:17 explained Alexander's kingdom was divided into 4 kingdoms after his death. The reason Persia/Media is described as the Ram with two horns, one coming up after and being taller, was because Darius the Mede conquered Babylon 7 yrs before Cyrus who died and was succeeded by Darius' grandson, a Mede, after the conquest of the Medes by the Persians forming the Persia/Media coalition. There's nowhere in scripture that suggests anything of the sort except for in Rev's account of them recieving kingdoms for one hour with the Beast. Rev explains that the 10 horns and the 7 hills were kings.

Eventhough you claim what you claimed about the horns being kingdom, why is there no gaps between Babylon, Persia/Media, and Grecia? Why when it comes to Christ time there's no kings or rulers mentioned? What happen to the significance of the person kings? You claim what you claim but fail to name any person post Grecoa!

"And another shall rise after them" (Daniel 7:24) can refer to the country of Lebanon, from which the Antichrist could arise and bring to a higher prominence on the world stage. The Antichrist could come from Lebanon's city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

You're taking your verses out of context. The 10 horns and the 7 heads/hills are both kings, a scriptural fact explained in Revelation. The 4 beast kingdoms in Dan 7 is the 1st beast in Revelation, and the 11th horn in Dan 7's 4th beast is the 2nd beast in Revelation.

 

[HannibalFlavius]

You can't carry opinions to court.


That's the problem I have with individuals like you, false accusations and voicing opinions as facts. Where was I wrong, and since when is being wrong blasphemous?


What is your objective? What does the text say?

The text begins in the sower for the barley, and then the wheat harvest, and then the Sukkot.


YOU have an opinion.


These are the things of my religion.


The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in 3 measures of meal.

The agriculture and harvests of Israel are connected with the appointed feast days of God, and when we are speaking of Harvests, we are speaking of a gathering, or gatherings.


But I wouldn't stop you from having an opinion, even though I already know that your not going to base your opinion on the facts of Harvests and gathering, even though you speak of the wheat harvest.

 

[precepts]

Originally Posted by HannibalFlavius:

The new Jerusalem is called, '' The barn?''
​

What is the date of the wheat harvest?
​

Originally Posted by precepts:

What is your objective? What does the text say?

The text begins in the sower for the barley, and then the wheat harvest, and then the Sukkot.


YOU have an opinion.


These are the things of my religion.


The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in 3 measures of meal.

The agriculture and harvests of Israel are connected with the appointed feast days of God, and when we are speaking of Harvests, we are speaking of a gathering, or gatherings.


But I wouldn't stop you from having an opinion, even though I already know that your not going to base your opinion on the facts of Harvests and gathering, even though you speak of the wheat harvest.

Action speaks louder than words friend, and by their fruits you will know them. What does anything you've said have to do with the "Wheat and Tares" harvest of the world?!

 

[HannibalFlavius]

​

Action speaks louder than words friend, and by their fruits you will know them. What does anything you've said have to do with the "Wheat and Tares" harvest of the world?!

Actions do speak louder than words, and it was your actions that made me speak up.

Do you ever get tired of just trying to be mean?

If I was going to look at a tree and it's fruits, what would I see from somebody that is always insulting somebody else?


You said that Jerusalem is called the barn, you were talking about the wheat and the tares.


If we discuss the wheat and the tares, then we first must discuss the Barley harvest of Passover, and then the wheat harvest of Pentecost, and then the covering of Sukkot, and these are the sower, the wheat and tares, the mustard seed, and the 3 measures of meal that a woman hid the leaven in.

My point is that you don't want to give other people an opinion, but the opinion you have of these things is just that.

____________________
Here is what you said,''
That's the problem I have with individuals like you, false accusations and voicing opinions as facts''
_________________________

You want us to believe that you are the only one with facts, but the things you are talking about are things that you do not want to look into in order to obtain the facts.

YOU have an opinion and your opinion is based upon things that you do not know, and most likely, refuse to know.

But yet, you are the one with the supposed facts.


My point is only,'' Chill out dude, If somebody has an opinion, it doesn't mean that they are blaspheming the word{as you put it}.

 

[precepts]

Actions do speak louder than words, and it was your actions that made me speak up.

Do you ever get tired of just trying to be mean?

If I was going to look at a tree and it's fruits, what would I see from somebody that is always insulting somebody else?

I'm mean without reason? You're accusing me of being mean while ignoring what caused me to act mean in the first place. I consider that to be folly and a vexation of spirit. Anyone that ignores the facts to promote folly causes vexation of spirit, that's a fact support by proverbs.

You said that Jerusalem is called the barn, you were talking about the wheat and the tares.


If we discuss the wheat and the tares, then we first must discuss the Barley harvest of Passover, and then the wheat harvest of Pentecost, and then the covering of Sukkot, and these are the sower, the wheat and tares, the mustard seed, and the 3 measures of meal that a woman hid the leaven in.

Nothing you've mentioned has anything to do with the fact of the wheat and tares parable having to do with a resurrection other than the 1st and 2nd resurrections mentioned in Revelation. How does what you're saying relate to the wheat and tares parable, in your understanding?

My point is that you don't want to give other people an opinion, but the opinion you have of these things is just that.

Action speaks louder than words. Show me one instance of me forcing anything on anyone other than the facts, and I'll show numerous occasions where I've provided facts that others totally ignore, including you. So how can you judge me justly?

Can anyone call themselves a christian and ignore the facts purposely?

____________________
Here is what you said,''
That's the problem I have with individuals like you, false accusations and voicing opinions as facts''
_________________________

You want us to believe that you are the only one with facts,

How do I do that?! Do I say your facts aren't facts when they are?

How do I want anyone to think I alone provide facts? Do I hypnotize anyone to think what I'm presenting is a fact when it's not?

but the things you are talking about are things that you do not want to look into in order to obtain the facts.

YOU have an opinion and your opinion is based upon things that you do not know, and most likely, refuse to know.

But yet, you are the one with the supposed facts.

Talk is cheap, provide the evidence. You keep accusing me instead of providing facts. Provide the facts, and stop insinuating.

My point is only,'' Chill out dude, If somebody has an opinion, it doesn't mean that they are blaspheming the word{as you put it}.

You are blasphemy the word when the word says one thing and you interpret it to mean something that has no scriptural evidence to support your claim. You can't just say something is something without any proof or inclination. How can the 144,000 in Rev 7 equal Ewes and Christians when the text doesn't say that? How can you say that, if the text doesn't say that, and have no scriptural evidence to support your claim? You can't draw conclusions without some type of merit to back up your opinion, especially in a debate or a court of law, it is pure folly, pure speculation, and carries no wieght. A debate or reasoning is just what it is, using reasoning to form an intellegent deductible conclusion. A debate without logical reasoning is folly, a vexation of spirit.