Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Mon May 02, 2011 5:20 pm

[This thread was split from another thread on Tithing here...
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2874&p=33401#p33401}


nude together wrote:RE: "Matt 24:20 "Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath Day." This event occurred in 70AD, some 40 years after Christ's death, burial, ressurrection and ascention."

** My answer: This was not a reference to the events of 70AD, Jesus was referring to the flight of the Jews after the anti-christ sets up his idol in the newly built temple and declares himself to be god and to be worshipped. The "abomination that causes desolation." But, that is a whole other debate. I’m curious, natman, would you classify yourself as a "a-millennialist?" If so, that would help me understand you much better.


Indeed I AM.

If you read Matt 24 in context, Jesus is talking about the Herodian Temple and Jerusalem and their "soon", within "this generation" destruction, which destruction did occur precisely as Jesus prophesied a mere 40 years later in 70AD.

nude together wrote:No possible way the statements of Jesus in Matt. 24 came to pass by 70AD! Here it is in context...

** My answer: Jesus was asked three SEPARATE questions here in the beginning of Matt: 24. And that is a very important point concerning His answers in Matt. 24 and what they pertain to.

“Tell us,” they said, “when will THIS happen;" the "this" is referring to in Jesus' statement concerning the temple of "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” The "this" must have ONLY referred to His statement about the temple being totally destroyed because that is ALL He had said to them.

Jesus did not mention anything at that time (when referring to the temple) about the end of the world or what would happen before the end. Nothing. Later on, while Jesus was sitting on the Mt. of Olives His Disciples asked the THREE separate and distinct questions. And His answers address them as such.

> First question - Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen?" Again, THIS" is referring to the destruction of the temple. You can't apply His total answer to the events of 70AD simply because the events He mentioned to happen by 70AD DID NOT HAPPEN before the destruction of the temple in 70AD. If everything was to happen, all of Matt. 24, before the temple destruction in 70AD, then Jesus got it completely wrong.

> Second question - "and what will be the sign of your coming?" (Jesus DID NOT come right after the events of 70AD and therefore could not being tying His second coming to 70AD, but rather a time in the future. He is STILL yet to come back to Earth).

> Third question - "and of the end of the age?" (Not sure about your opinion, brother natman, but the END OF THE AGE did not happen right after 70AD unless you know something I don’t.)


Let's examine the three Synoptic Gospels that discuss these questions.

Matt 24:1-3
"Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Mark 13:1-4
"As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”

Luke 21:5-7
"Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”
“Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”

It appears obvious that the disciples ask a series of two conjoined and related questions, not three separate and disjointed questions.

They ask "When will these things happen?" What things? The destruction of the Temple that they had just spent 40 years rebuilding and remodeling. Then, associated with that question, "What will be the sign that it is about to happen?"


The "end of the age" is not a question about the "end of time" or the "Last Day". It was a question about when the end of the Temple or the Temple Age would come.



If we had a similar conversation in the early 2001, if someone had said they knew that the Twin Towers were going to be destroyed soon. They would be asked, "When will this happen, what will be some of the signs so that we can save ourselves and warn others and will it be the end of the US as we know it?" The would not likely ask, "When will this happen, what will be some of the signs so that we can save ourselves, oh and what will happen at the end of time?"

nude together wrote:The things that DID NOT happen before (and just after) the temple was destroyed in 70AD are...

** BEFORE 70AD...

- "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars" (no indication that they had heard such things before 70AD)

- "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (no indication that they had heard or experienced such things before 70AD)


Actually, there were rumblings of war for about five years before the destruction of the Temple. The Jewis Zealots began an uprising when the Roman Standards were placed inside the Temple so that Caesar could be worship alongside Jehovah. As the situation escalated, Rome began sending troops in preparation for the ultimate siege that would occur in 70AD.

nude together wrote:- "and you will be hated by all nations because of me ("HATED BY ALL NATIONS" ...all the nations on Earth didn't even know about them or that they even existed at 70AD, how could they hate them?)


"All nations" refers to all of the nations that were know in that region at that time. Certainly, history shows that Christians were persecuted wherever they went from the moment Christ ascended until the Destruction of the Temple and even beyond.

nude together wrote:- "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations" (the Gospel HAD NOT been yet been preached to the ALL NATIONS, it was not too long after. But, I have to mention here…had the gospel been preached to American Indians, The Chinese, All of South America, Japan, India by 70AD? I think not!)


Again, the "whole world" was understood to be the world as it was known at that time. The rest of the world had not been occupied or discovered.

nude together wrote:- So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

> No "abomination that causes desolation, spoken of through the prophet Daniel" (had NOT happened by 70AD, STILL has yet not happened in 2011AD)


The abomination that causes desolation was the aforementioned Roman Standards which desecrated the temple. They were the cause of the Jewish uprising that ultimately resulted in the desolation of both Jerusalem, the Temple as well as about 2 million Jews.

nude together wrote: > For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. (Are you telling me that the sacking of Jerusalem and the tearing down of the temple qualifies as "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again?" NOT HARDLY!!)


This is clearly apocalyptic language, used elsewhere in Scripture to describe HORRIFIC events.

Ezekiel 5:8-9 - Describing the Seige of Jerusalem in 586BC
“Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again."

Exodus 11:6 - Describing the Plague of the first born in Egypt
"There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."

Joel 2:2 - Lamentations for the repentence of Israel
"A day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness. Like dawn spreading across the mountains a large and mighty army comes, such as never was in ancient times nor ever will be in ages to come."

nude together wrote:- "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." (What days are shorten? And, NO ONE would survive? No one on Earth would survive the sacking of Jerusalem and the tearing down of the temple unless the days be shortened?!! Again, NOT HARDLY, and DID NOT HAPPEN at the sacking of the temple. Last I looked, the rest of the world survived the events in Jerusalem in 70AD without much bother and those days did not have to be shortened.)


Fortunately, the Romans limited their seige to Jerusalem and did not extend it beyond into the mountains, where the Christians had fled during the run up.

Matt 24:15-16
"So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."



This exodus was recorded by Josephus and by Eusebius...

"The members of the Jerusalem church by means of an oracle, given by revelation to acceptable persons there, were ordered to leave the city before the war began and settle in a town in Peraea called Pella." (Eusebius: Book III, 5:4)

nude together wrote:Oops, Jesus must have got it wrong.


This is the precise danger in taking Scripture out of context.

nude together wrote:** JUST (OR IMMEDIATELY) AFTER 70AD...

“Immediately after the distress of those days" (Could NOT be immediately after 70AD, because the following DID NOT happen right after the "distress OF THOSE DAYS / 70AD."

- "the sun will be darkened," (no historical record of that happening immediately after 70AD.)

- and the moon will not give its light" (no historical record of that happening immediately after 70AD.)

- "the stars will fall from the sky," (no historical record of that happening immediately after 70AD.)

- and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. (Did this happen right after? Don't think so, natman, not that I can recall reading about)

- “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (NONE of this happned "immediately after the distress of those days." NONE. No one on Earth saw "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory" though we will soon!)


Again, all of these are a the same apocalyptic language use by the OT prophets.

Isaiah 13:9-10 - Pertaining to the fall of Babylon
"See, the day of the LORD is coming —a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light."

Ezekiel 32:7 - Written about the destruction the Temple in 586BC
"And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light."

"Coming clouds" is an apocalytic reference to God coming in judgement. The reference to clouds and judgement is peppered throughout the Old Testament. Wherever God was, there was almost always a mention of clouds.

Isaiah 19:1 - A prophesy of God's judgement against Egypt
"The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it."

Isaiah 44:22 - God coming to cleans Israel
"I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee."

Jeremiah 4:13 - Describing the Babylonian seige of Jerusalem in 598BC
"Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled."

Remember, in Matt 26:64, Jesus told the Sanhedrin,

Matt 26:64
“But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Please note that Jesus said "YOU", not "THEY" or "Someone in the distant future" will see the Son of Man (Jesus Himself) "coming on the clouds of Heaven." He was affirming His return as God, in Judgement against Jerusalem and it's leaders within their own generation. It is the reason they took up stones to kill him. This is referred to as a "perusia". Just as God never needed to appear physically in order to bring judgement in the OT, neither did God the Son need to appear physically to bring judgement. The destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple occurred because the Jewish leaders and the people REFUSED to accept Christ as Lord and Savior, refused to stop offering up blood sacrifices and because of all the people of the world who SHOULD have recognized their Messiah, it should have been them.

nude together wrote:** Point to make; I have noticed that when I post a comment and/or scripture strongly calling into question one of your beliefs you counter with an answer that I am "reading out of context" but do not establish what said context should be.


I did not think I had to. In general, it is understood that the "context" of a piece of Scripture (or any literature for that matter) is usually the chapters in which the Scripture is found, sometimes several before and after. Otherwise, we can make the Bible say just about anything we want.

However, if a context is not obvious to you, please ask and I will spell it out.

nude together wrote:I have a a-millennialist friend who does EXACTLY the same thing.

...
Also, another highly alarming problem with a-millennialism is the massive use of algorizing large sections of scripture to twist scripture into conforming to a-millennialist doctrine. I find that highly disturbing and deceptive. Not to mention causing a lot of confusion among Christians.


Funny! That is precisely what many of my amillennial friends say about millennialists and dispensationalists.

nude together wrote:** Interesting wiki article on a-millennialism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism

"The first two centuries of the church held both premillennial and amillennial opinions. Although none of the available Church Fathers advocate amillennialism in the 1st century,"


It is understandable, especiallly in the light of the fact that even now, after we have had 2000 years to figure things out, to recognize what was euphemism, algory, apocalyptic language and what was literal, we are STILL discussing it.

nude together wrote:OK, done for now, natman.

(** This post was sent by email to my a-millennialist friend, John)
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Wed May 04, 2011 4:08 am

Natman, when I get time (very soon), I will show where you error in your interpretation of Matt. 24, I will take each point as I have done in tithing. But in the meantime I will point out a couple of examples of the error I refer to.

** RE: Funny! That is precisely what many of my amillennial friends say about millennialists and dispensationalists. "

** My answer: You must have a problem with Paul the Apostle; he was clearly a dispensationalist. As he stated...

Eph. 3:1 - 2 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward..."


You don't refer to a period of time, a period in history, as "the dispensation of the grace of God..." unless you are a dispensationalist, natman. And in case you want to refer to the Greek, here ya go...

> English - "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given (5685) me to you-ward:"

> Greek - "ei ge hkousate thn oikonomian thv xaritov tou qeou thv doqeishv (5685) moi eiv umav,"

dispensation = oiÎkonomiða in Greek (oy-kon-om-ee'-ah)...

i.e, dispensation, administration or stewardship

It, the Greek term "
oiÎkonomiða," can accurately be translated "dispensation" with no problem at all. It is a period of time when a principle is foremost, as in "the dispensation of the grace," a section of Biblical history, a period when there is a focus of attention on a principle uppermost, again, as in "the dispensation of the grace."

Yup, good ole' Brother Paul was your basic
dispensationalist, natman.

** RE: "Fortunately, the Romans limited their seige to Jerusalem and did not extend it beyond into the mountains, where the Christians had fled during the run up."

** My answer: It doesn't matter if the Romans limited their siege to Jerusalem or not, that means nothing. Jesus said that the destruction He was referring to would be of a such magnitude that, and I quote "


"unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

And again...the destruction of the temple in 70AD was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again." Jesus could not have been referring to a minor event in 70AD (minor that is relative to ALL OF HISTORY ON EARTH He was speaking of) like of the sacking of Jerusalem or the tearing down of the temple. To say so is ridiculous. Jesus was referring to a future event (still future for us) that would be so catastrophic that the world would "NEVER"... again... "NEVER" see such a event again. You say that happened in 70AD?! What?! Surely you jest!

We have MANY events far worse on Earth since 70AD (remember, Jesus states that what He was referring to would be UNEQUALED in all of history); now some recent history...hitler's sacking of most of Europe. That made your Roman friends look like a bunch of petty choir boys, killing 6,000,000 Jews and bringing about massive destruction of Europe in WWII. I would say that hitler did a lot more than Rome ever did in 70AD!! Rome was a bunch of light weight amateurs compared to hitler. We won't even talk about "Uncle Joe" stalin and his shenanigans. The Roman's? HA! They were kindergarteners compared to Adolf and Joe.

The sacking of Jerusalem was hardly an Earth shaking event, neither was the tearing down of the temple. Not even close!

You refer to the siege of Jerusalem as such an event? That is stretching things way too far, brother.


** RE: "Again, all of these are a the same apocalyptic language use by the OT prophets."

** My answer: And they, the wording of Jesus, mean nothing, right? Like I warned of before..."everything is a symbol" to Amillennialists. That is one of the dangers of Amillennialism and why I reject it. Luther, to make a point, should have known better, he brought Amillennialism, which began about 290AD right into the reformation. Luther was a great man, but he made his mistakes. Amillennialism was one of them.

You seem to be saying that these terms being used by Jesus are "just theater of the mind, just symbols, just ho hum, frivolity, mere everyday language" or "causal slang used by the prophets, just meaningless apocalyptic language."

Again; one of the MAIN reason I wholly reject Amillennialism is because of the massive amount of scripture wrote off by Amillennialist as such. VERY dangerous!

One (almost) last point before I go; Amillennialism should have been universally discarded by the Christian church when, as predicted over and over again, Israel became a nation again against all odds in 1948 AND has fulfilled many prophecies since. Amillennialism should have been abandoned at that point in Church history IMHO.

Also, to make a quick point. Jesus stated that the "end would come" right after these events He spoke of in Matt. 24, AND that He would return to Earth right after these events. NEITHER happen right after the events of 70AD, and are still yet to happen. I wonder; is Jesus late?


Do you believe Jesus is returning to Earth, natman? If so, when? He said we would know the times and seasons of His returning. What are they, natman? What are those times and seasons if not what HE SAID THEY WERE in Matt. 24?


OK, I'll deal with the rest later.
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Wed May 04, 2011 4:29 pm

nude together wrote:** My answer: You must have a problem with Paul the Apostle; he was clearly a dispensationalist. As he stated...

Eph. 3:1 - 2 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward...

It, the Greek term "[b]oiÎkonomiða,"
can accurately be translated "dispensation" with no problem at all. It is a period of time when a principle is foremost, as in "the dispensation of the grace," a section of Biblical history, a period when there is a focus of attention on a principle uppermost, again, as in "the dispensation of the grace."


Just because Paul uses the word "dispensation" does not mean that he is a "dispensational-ist".

The word "dispensation" in this context (there's that premise again) simply means the "administration", "application" or "outpuring". God has "administered", "applied" or "poured out" grace to Paul by revealing to him the Truth of Christ Jesus, Who's followers he once oppressed an killed. It has nothing to do with a "period of time"

Infact, the definition of the word "oikonomia" (Strongs G3662) is as follows...

1) the management of a household or of household affairs
a) specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property
b) the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship
c) administration, dispensation

No mention of time.

What is "dispensing"?

a : to deal out in portions
b : administer <dispense justice>
2: to give dispensation to : exempt
3: to prepare and distribute (medication)


Can you think of other uses of the word "dispensation". I go to the pharmacist to get a dispensation of medicine. I go to the ATM to get a dispensation of money. I go to the refrigerator get a dispensation of water or to grab the milk carton and dispense some milk.

"Dispensational-ism", on the other hand, a concept introduced in the early 1800s and taught by John Nelson Darby, is a belief in the idea that history is broken up into three to eight sections of time referred to as "dispensations" consisting of either the "Law", "Grace" or "Kingdom"; the "Patriarchial", "Mosaic", "Ecclesial" or "Zionic"; or the "Edenic", "Antediluvian", "Civil", "Patriarchal", "Mosaic", "Church", "Millennial" or "Eternal" periods.

nude together wrote:** RE: "Fortunately, the Romans limited their seige to Jerusalem and did not extend it beyond into the mountains, where the Christians had fled during the run up."

** My answer: It doesn't matter if the Romans limited their siege to Jerusalem or not, that means nothing. Jesus said that the destruction He was referring to would be of a such magnitude that, and I quote "


"unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."

And again...the destruction of the temple in 70AD was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."
...

You refer to the siege of Jerusalem as such an event? That is stretching things way too far, brother.


No I did NOT. The destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple were never LITERALLY meant to be the absolute worst devastaion in the history of man. Certainly history has shown there have been more devastating events in terms of destruction and numbers killed than the destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple in 70AD.

The phrase "unequaled from the beginning of the world" is "hyperbole". It is similar to someone saying "That was the worst accident in the world", when they know there have been greater accidents. It was an "euphamism" that the first century Jews would have been well familiar with to mean that a terrible event was going to happen soon because their earlier prophets used similar language over and over again just prior to God pouring out His judgement upon a nation, none of which were the worst disasters in all of human history either.

Again, you obviously did not read my post. I have you examples.

nude together wrote:** RE: "Again, all of these are a the same apocalyptic language use by the OT prophets."

** My answer: And they, the wording of Jesus, mean nothing, right? Like I warned of before..."everything is a symbol" to Amillennialists. That is one of the dangers of Amillennialism and why I reject it. Luther, to make a point, should have known better, he brought Amillennialism, which began about 290AD right into the reformation. Luther was a great man, but he made his mistakes. Amillennialism was one of them.

You seem to be saying that these terms being used by Jesus are "just theater of the mind, just symbols, just ho hum, frivolity, mere everyday language" or "causal slang used by the prophets, just meaningless apocalyptic language."

Again; one of the MAIN reason I wholly reject Amillennialism is because of the massive amount of scripture wrote off by Amillennialist as such. VERY dangerous!


Do you not recognize the fact that not everything in the Bible is written in a "wooden literal" sense? The Bible is constructed of all genre of writing literary styles, including historical, poetic, metaphorical, allegorical, parabolic, hyperbolic, sarcastic, euphamistic and apocalyptic, and that each verse of the Bible MUST be read in it's intended genre? The GREATEST danger of misinterpreting Scripture is in not recognizing the genre in which a verse or set of verses are intended to be read within.

I would offer you a suggestion, if you are not so closed as to be unwilling to at least read the writings of those who's viewpoints contradict your own. I often PURPOSELY read the writings of those who's viewpoints are directly opposite mine in order that I would have greater insight into their line of thinking and even possibly make corrections in my own. Consequently, I have a library full of the writings of dispensationalists, millennialists, Zionists, Mormons, Muslims and Bhuddists as well as evolutionists.

I recommend that you at least read through a book by Hank Hannegraaff titled, "Apocalypse Code". It is sort of a primer on reading the Bible in the various genre in which it was intended to be read.[/b]
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Wed May 04, 2011 5:56 pm

I'll answer more later, but you make my point that Amillennialism seeks to prove it's doctrines by turning as much scripture as possible into mere symbols open for wild interpretation when you say (and I quote you)...

"...The destruction of Jerusalem and it's Temple were never LITERALLY meant to be the absolute worst devastation in the history of man."

"...The phrase "unequaled from the beginning of the world" is "hyperbole".

"...It was an euphamism"


Natman, was Jesus using a "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal" when He told His disciples that "not one stone would be left laying on another" when referring to the temple and it's destruction? Obviously not. It happened exactly as He foretold; it was not a statement using euphemisms, hyperbole or not being literal. He said what He meant, and He meant exactly what He said.

Why then would He suddenly switch from being very precise in His statements using NO "euphemisms," "hyperbole" concerning the temple and then to making detailed claims such as events he described such as "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" USING "euphemism," or "hyperbole" or merely employing symbols?

And I ask, why can't Jesus just simply be saying what He meant and mean exactly what He said in Matt 24? Why do you Amillennialists immediately jump on the "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal" bandwagon every time a scripture is in question that disproves Amillennialist doctrine? A body of "doctrine," by the way, that denies the 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth, denies the rapture of the church, and as we are discussing here, reduces Jesus' words to mere "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal?" Why?

Can't Jesus' statements simply be as exactly as He stated? Is there no room for that in your Amillennialist thinking?

Yes, there is the use of symbols in the Bible, BUT, there is NO indication that Jesus was using such symbols in Matt 24. I must conclude that your claim that He was is wholly incorrect. He was clearly speaking of events yet NOT seen on earth, events in our future, events of catastrophic nature.

The sacking of Jerusalem came to pass just as He said, as did the destruction of the temple...exactly as He said it would happen. I see no reason to believe or conclude that His words of "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" will happen any different than He stated. I see no reason to reduce them to "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal." He meant exactly what He said, He said exactly what He meant.

Its almost like you are saying that Jesus made statements concerning the future in Matt 24; detailed and exact statements, but, had His fingers crossed behind His back and then told those who were listening "king's X, I don't really mean what I said." "I'm just using nebulous symbols, so don't worry, it's not going to happen as I say."

To me, that IS Amillennialism...king's X, the Bible doesn't really mean it! 1000 year reign of Christ...king's X, I don't really mean it, the rapture of the church...king's X, I don't really mean it, dispensation of grace...king's X, I don't really mean it. On and on and on with Amillennialism.

Natman, did Jesus return to earth after the events of 70AD? He said He would after the events of Matt 24. And I quote...

“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Did THIS HAPPEN right after the events of 70AD? If not, if your interpretation of Matt 24 is true, Jesus lied or at best did know what He was talking about because CLEARLY Jesus DID NOT return right after 70AD as He stated He would in Matt. 24:30. Or is His statement here also only "euphemism," or "hyperbole" or merely employing symbols not to be taken literally?

By the way, a man (Paul, Eph. 3:2) who blatantly refers to our time as "the dispensation of grace" is clearly a dispensationalist. Though I have to say, I really don't like such label as Dispensationalist, Amillennialists, Millennialists because they serve only to divide the body of Christ. I use them here ONLY as points of clarification as to what camp a person is in. I wish we, The Body of Christ, would get over such things and silly labels. We will someday!
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby Larryk1052 » Wed May 04, 2011 9:20 pm

Brothers, have fun and argue away, but be assured it will all pan out the way God has planed it. Just be watchful for His return and you will see the signs. Or not.
Larry in Kentucky

"Nude" just means barefoot all over.
User avatar
Larryk1052
Native Resident
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Thu May 05, 2011 12:37 am

Larryk1052 wrote:Brothers, have fun and argue away, but be assured it will all pan out the way God has planed it. Just be watchful for His return and you will see the signs. Or not.


That is good advice, brother!
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Thu May 05, 2011 1:47 pm

nude together wrote:Natman, was Jesus using a "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal" when He told His disciples that "not one stone would be left laying on another" when referring to the temple and it's destruction? Obviously not. It happened exactly as He foretold; it was not a statement using euphemisms, hyperbole or not being literal. He said what He meant, and He meant exactly what He said.


Nude Together, it appears that you do not understand the use of "euphamisms" (figures of speech). They usually consist of a single line or phrase within a conversation of other genre.

Was Jesus using a "euphamism" in describing the destruction of the Temple. No, I do not see any "euphamism" there. Was He using "hyperbole". Possibly. While it is true that every stone of the Temple was removed, the Temple also consisted of the Temple Mount. Apparently, only about half of the original mount was removed. At any rate, it is sufficient to say that the Temple was completely destroyed.

nude together wrote:Why then would He suddenly switch from being very precise in His statements using NO "euphemisms," "hyperbole" concerning the temple and then to making detailed claims such as events he described such as "unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" USING "euphemism," or "hyperbole" or merely employing symbols?


Jesus used the apcalyptic "euphamism" ""unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" to point out that what He was revealing was a prophetic vision what would surely come to pass soon. He does this by using the precise same language that the prophets had used over and over again in the past.

nude together wrote:And I ask, why can't Jesus just simply be saying what He meant and mean exactly what He said in Matt 24?


Because Jesus was expressing His divinity, utilizing language that His first century Jewis audience would clearly understand.

nude together wrote:Why do you Amillennialists immediately jump on the "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal" bandwagon every time a scripture is in question that disproves Amillennialist doctrine?


We do not "immediately" jump to declaring everything that Millennialists perport to disagree with our doctrine as "euphamism", "hyperbole", "non-literal" etc. However, we do recognize that the Bible is written in various genres and do not try to pack everything into a "wooden literal" interpretation. Otherwise you have people walking around with planks of wood sticking out of their eyes or plucking their eyes out alltogether, people swallowing camels or squeezing them through the eye of a needle, being commanded to "hate" their mothers and fathers, having everyone who falls on a stone breaking into pieces, people drinking some kind of water such that they will never be thirst again.

Referring to John the Baptist, the Bible says "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him." Do you honestly think that every single person in Judea or even Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist? Yeah, right.

nude together wrote:A body of "doctrine," by the way, that denies the 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth...


Take the time to do a little word search on the use of 1000 or "a thousand" and you will quickly see that it is generally not a literal 1000 (999=1). It is usually used to represent a "very large but limited quantity" of something.

A good example is the phrase, "God owns the cattle on a thousand hills." (Psalm 50). Does God only own the cattle on 1000 hills? Aren't there more than 1000 hills? What about the 1001st hill? Who owns those cattle? The Psalm is saying that God owns the cattle on ALL the hills.

Does God only love up to the 1000th generation? (Ex 20:6, Deut 7:9). We have well surpassed the 1000th generation since Moses wrote that. Does that mean that God does not love any of us anymore? No. I'm pretty sure He contines to love those who love Him and keep His commandments and will continue to do so until the Last Day.

Have you never been told or heard someone say, "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times..."?

Amillennialists believe that Jesus' reign began when He defeated death and ascended to the right hand of the Father. On the day of His death He said, "But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." We believe that He will reign for a "large but limited number of years" (as the "a thousand years" implies), after which time, He will return ONCE, to restore Heaven and Earth and to judge and separate those who's names are written in the Book of Life into eternal life and those who are not in eternal condemnation.

nude together wrote:...denies the rapture of the church...


There is not denial of the quickening and the resurrection. However, that there would be some sort of removal of the church, then a delay of some extended period of time and then another return of Christ, there is no evidence of that in Scripture.

In 1 Thes 4:13, Paul is using language and imagery familiar to the Thessolonians of a triumphant king returning from battle in which the king would wait outside of town as the citizens would all rush out to meet him and escort him back into the city. When Jesus returns, He is not going to partially come down, gather up a some followers then go back into Heaven. He is going to come and like the citizens, we will meet and greet Him as He joins us here forever and ever on the newly restore Earth.

nude together wrote:Yes, there is the use of symbols in the Bible, BUT, there is NO indication that Jesus was using such symbols in Matt 24.


That is true only if you are completely unfamiliar with the rest of Scripture and the vast use of symbology.

nude together wrote:Natman, did Jesus return to earth after the events of 70AD? He said He would after the events of Matt 24.


In a manner of speaking, yes. In fact, His presense was there throughout the entire event in the form of judgement against Jerusalem and it's religious leaders, in the same manner as God was present during the judgement of nations described in precisely the same language in the OT. I have already talked about this.

nude together wrote:By the way, a man (Paul, Eph. 3:2) who blatantly refers to our time as "the dispensation of grace" is clearly a dispensationalist.


Read the verse again. There is no mention of "time". He is referring to "the dispensation (administration, application, outpouring, dispensing) of grace"... period. You (and the "Dispensationalists") have added the word "time" and I have already addressed the use of the word "dispensation".

By the way, I USED to be in your camp. I believed in the early (before the Last Day) rapture of the church and a separate 1000 year reign of Christ. I rejoiced when the "Left Behind" series came out and read the "Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey. However, the more I went down that path the more it disturbed me when they tended to pick a portion of a verse here and another portion of a verse there and went through all sorts of gyrations to get to a point, especially when there were so many missed "date" calculations. When I read the same verses in their context, I NEVER came to the same conclusions. The Bible appeared to be a disjointed patchwork quilt or puzzle in which the pieces had to be hammered together to force them to fit. I thought I must have been missing something.

Then I began listening to and reading the writings of RC Sproul, D James Kennedy, Gary De Mar and Hank Hanegraaff. Suddenly, the Bible took on a cohesive, well connected picture, much easier to understand, reason and apologize to others.

Again, I strongly urge you to take the time to read "Apocalypse Code" by Hank Hanegraaff. It is a relatively easy read of only about 270 pages. If you don't like it, that is okay, but at least you will have a better understanding of how others read and understand Scripture.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby jochanaan » Thu May 05, 2011 4:55 pm

I hesitate to jump into this discussion. My position can best be described as "keeping an open mind;" I've read the Bible passages and several books about these things but don't subscribe to any "school of thought" about them. But I'm wondering, Natman, what you and the other amillenialists do with Acts 1:10-11: "And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." There is no indication here that the angels' language is symbolic, yet we have not seen Jesus physically come down to the Mount of Olives...
:?:
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Thu May 05, 2011 5:23 pm

jochanaan wrote:Natman, what you and the other amillenialists do with Acts 1:10-11: "And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." There is no indication here that the angels' language is symbolic, yet we have not seen Jesus physically come down to the Mount of Olives...
:?:



The two men did not say exactly WHEN Jesus would return in like manner. I would presume that particular return will be at the Final Judgement on the Last Day, after which we will live with Him forever here on the restored Earth. That does not preclude His coming in the mean time (70AD) in "Judgement" against Jerusalem (non-physically or in human form) as He (being God) did against the nations in the OT.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Fri May 06, 2011 7:42 am

** RE: "it appears that you do not understand the use of "euphamisms" (figures of speech). They usually consist of a single line or phrase within a conversation of other genre.

** My answer: Yes, I understand the use of euphemisms, but there is no proof here that He was using any. You are presupposing that He was, AND, are you saying that He was using euphemisms when He stated that He would return IMMEDIATELY after these things. Using your concept of explaining away what Jesus said in Matt. 24 as mere euphemisms makes no sense. How do you know when He is NOT using them, euphemisms that is?

Again I ask you; WHY can't His words be taken literally? Why not? Why should they not be? Please, I ask you with all due respect, to answer this question. Why not? Why is your claim that He is not to be taken literally such an absolute?


RE: "Jesus used the apcalyptic "euphamism" ""unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again" to point out that what He was revealing was a prophetic vision what would surely come to pass soon. He does this by using the precise same language that the prophets had used over and over again in the past. "

** My answer: Again, I ask, why can His words can NOT be taken literally? Why not? One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that the Bible says what it means, and means exactly what it says...UNLESS there is obvious, strong and clear reasons to believe otherwise. For Jesus' statements in Matt. 24, we see no reason to read them as anything other than literal.

** RE: "Because Jesus was expressing His divinity, utilizing language that His first century Jewis audience would clearly understand. "

** My answer: I see, so they couldn't understand ANYTHING He said unless it was in the form of "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal." That is patently absurd.

So, when Jesus stated that He would return, He really didn't mean it, He was not telling the truth, He was only fooling us with "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal." I'm glad that Jesus was using "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal" when He said "he who believes on me, though he were dead, will live again."

I'm sorry, I simply reject that as silly, a deception, poor Biblical scholarship...AND, I might add, echoes of the past...satan: "has God REALLY said?...etc." LOL, Amillennialist answer: No, satan, God was just using "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal." He really didn't mean it. (Sorry, couldn't resist the humor.)

You know something, Natman, Adam and Eve found out the hard way that God meant exactly what He said; they died in the day that they ate. They died in the most absolute sense; cut off from the life of God. God was NOT using "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal." But they, and the rest of us, have had to find out the hard way. satan's game was to try and convince Eve that God didn't really mean what He said.


** RE: "We do not "immediately" jump to declaring everything that Millennialists perport to disagree with our doctrine as "euphamism", "hyperbole", "non-literal" etc. However, we do recognize that the Bible is written in various genres and do not try to pack everything into a "wooden literal" interpretation. Otherwise you have people walking around with planks of wood sticking out of their eyes or plucking their eyes out alltogether, people swallowing camels or squeezing them through the eye of a needle, being commanded to "hate" their mothers and fathers, having everyone who falls on a stone breaking into pieces, people drinking some kind of water such that they will never be thirst again.

Referring to John the Baptist, the Bible says "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him." Do you honestly think that every single person in Judea or even Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist? Yeah, right. "


** My answer: Will simply repeat...

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that the Bible says what it means, and means exactly what it says...UNLESS there is obvious, strong and clear reasons to believe otherwise. For Jesus' statements in Matt. 24, we see no reason to read them as anything other than literally.

And I will add that if Jesus' statements in Matt. 24 are not to be taken literally, He is and was a liar. And you and I both know that Jesus was The TRUTH, He has never lied.


** RE: "Take the time to do a little word search on the use of 1000 or "a thousand" and you will quickly see that it is generally not a literal 1000 (999=1). It is usually used to represent a "very large but limited quantity" of something.

A good example is the phrase, "God owns the cattle on a thousand hills." (Psalm 50). Does God only own the cattle on 1000 hills? Aren't there more than 1000 hills? What about the 1001st hill? Who owns those cattle? The Psalm is saying that God owns the cattle on ALL the hills.

Does God only love up to the 1000th generation? (Ex 20:6, Deut 7:9). We have well surpassed the 1000th generation since Moses wrote that. Does that mean that God does not love any of us anymore? No. I'm pretty sure He contines to love those who love Him and keep His commandments and will continue to do so until the Last Day.

Have you never been told or heard someone say, "If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times..."?


** My answer; This is all true, but does not prove that there will NOT be a literal and physical reign of Jesus on Earth for a literal and physical 1000 years. One reason is because there are too many statements made in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) describing a literal and physical 1000 year reign.

(I will post them if you want; you know them…the lion laying down with the lamb, children playing with deadly snakes because they will no longer be deadly, righteousness covering the whole earth, satan bound up for a 1000 years, long life restored [men living as trees], Jesus ruling with a rod of iron…NONE of which are a reality now on earth. If satan is bound up then his chains are TOO LONG FOR ME ).

Can you prove that there will NOT be a 1000 year reign? Claiming that, once again, that this is all symbols does not disprove a future 1000 year reign.


RE: "Amillennialists believe that Jesus' reign began when He defeated death and ascended to the right hand of the Father. On the day of His death He said, "But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God." We believe that He will reign for a "large but limited number of years" (as the "a thousand years" implies), after which time, He will return ONCE, to restore Heaven and Earth and to judge and separate those who's names are written in the Book of Life into eternal life and those who are not in eternal condemnation. "

My answer: Well, for one thing, His reign will not in any way end. He will not be stepping down off the throne ever for any reason, including "returning ONCE, to restore Heaven and Earth and to judge and separate those who's names are written in the Book of Life into eternal life and those who are not in eternal condemnation."

And I quote Isaiah concerning the eternal reign of Jesus specifically (Isaiah 9:6-7)...

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.


** RE: "There is not denial of the quickening and the resurrection. However, that there would be some sort of removal of the church, then a delay of some extended period of time and then another return of Christ, there is no evidence of that in Scripture.

In 1 Thes 4:13, Paul is using language and imagery familiar to the Thessolonians of a triumphant king returning from battle in which the king would wait outside of town as the citizens would all rush out to meet him and escort him back into the city. When Jesus returns, He is not going to partially come down, gather up a some followers then go back into Heaven. He is going to come and like the citizens, we will meet and greet Him as He joins us here forever and ever on the newly restore Earth. "

** My answer; Oh boy, imagery again! I have heard the "meet, greet and back to Earth" interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 before, and again I ask, why can it not be "meet, greet and eat?" That is to say; rapture, taken to heaven, marriage supper of the Lamb?" ...and after the tribulation (70th week of Daniel) back to reign with Christ for a 1000 years and then into the Kingdom? That is a very viable and Biblical timeline if you ask me.

Besides, why rapture us up to the clouds to meet Him in the air and then right back to earth again? A quick U turn. Why not just meet us on earth? The rapture of the church is important because it is the evacuation of true believes off the earth before judgement begins. And, as the Book of Revelation records; you definitely DON"T want to be here in the 7 years right after the rapture! We will, however, be returning with Him to reign after Daniel's 70th week is completed. The church will not be here for the tribulation period. And I for one, am VERY glad we will not be.

** My answer: I have had several Amillennialists (Including my friend John who I sent some of this to) tell me that any concept of a "rapture of the Church" is a lie, not in the Bible and false doctrine. In fact, John claimed that...

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 (King James Version)

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

...was referring to, and I quote, "back sliding Christians." We're good friends, so all I could do was laugh, laugh, laugh and then laugh some more!

In fact, that rapture of the Church is also mentioned in1 Cor. 15:51-53 (King James Version)

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality"


** Side note: The word "rapture" comes from Paul's "caught up" remark in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The words "caught up" are translated from the Greek word harpazo, which means "to carry off," "snatch up," or "grasp hastily." The translation from harpazo to "rapture" involved two steps: first, harpazo became the Latin word raptus; second, raptus became the English word "rapture."

** RE: "Natman, did Jesus return to earth after the events of 70AD? He said He would after the events of Matt 24.

In a manner of speaking, yes. In fact, His presense was there throughout the entire event in the form of judgement against Jerusalem and it's religious leaders, in the same manner as God was present during the judgement of nations described in precisely the same language in the OT. I have already talked about this.


** My answer; Well, there we go again "In a manner of speaking." I think it's obvious that Jesus did not come back to earth in 70AD IN THE MANNER that He Himself described. Not even close. I quote Jesus...

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

That, as Jesus described it, has NOT happened yet.


** RE: "Again, I strongly urge you to take the time to read "Apocalypse Code" by Hank Hanegraaff. It is a relatively easy read of only about 270 pages. If you don't like it, that is okay, but at least you will have a better understanding of how others read and understand Scripture."

** My answer: I will, it would be interesting reading. I'll look it up.

All of course IMHO.
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby bn2bnude » Fri May 06, 2011 9:22 am

nude together wrote:** My answer: Will simply repeat...

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that the Bible says what it means, and means exactly what it says...UNLESS there is obvious, strong and clear reasons to believe otherwise. For Jesus' statements in Matt. 24, we see no reason to read them as anything other than literally.


I am not so sure about that... I did a quick "Rules of Bible interpretation" search and selected the first link. Apologetics Index has 8 rules and that one isn't on there.

I have heard that rule previously but usually only in certain groups.

I appreciate your passion on this but I'm much closer to Nathan than to you on this topic so that does bias my belief of "the rule".

A couple of books I'd recommend on just learning how to study the Bible are "The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible" and "How to read the Bible for all It's Worth.

They approach things from different angles. Personally, I'd suggest starting with "How to Read..."
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1 NLT)



If I speak with the tongues of men and angels but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Cor 13:1)
User avatar
bn2bnude
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:09 am
Location: Denver

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Fri May 06, 2011 12:59 pm

bn2bnude wrote:
nude together wrote:One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that the Bible says what it means, and means exactly what it says...UNLESS there is obvious, strong and clear reasons to believe otherwise. For Jesus' statements in Matt. 24, we see no reason to read them as anything other than literally.


Apologetics Index , "The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible" , "How to read the Bible for all It's Worth.


Thank you Joel. Those are some GREAT resources to recommend.

nude together wrote:How do you know when He is NOT using them, euphemisms that is?


The best way is to read the entire Bible through and through several times so that you become familiar with Biblcial idiums (euphamisms or figures of speech).

As a "Christian naturist", you should be familiar with the idiums to "know" someone or to "look upon the nakedness of...". We understand that these do not simply mean to "know about someone" or to "see someone else naked". They are both idiums for "to have sexual relations with". When we encounter them in Scripture, we understand what the author is trying to say.

By become so familiar with Scripture that we know when we see an idium, we can tell instantly that it is not intended to be taken in it's wooden literal sense.

Jesus uses the reference to "coming in clouds" twice in the book of Matthew, once in front of the Sanhedrin (Mt 26:64) and in conversation about the destruction of the Temple in Matt 24. In both cases, the language is used to point to the fact that Jesus is indeed God and that He Himself will rain down judgement on the city, it's leaders and it's Temple.

nude together wrote:Again I ask you; WHY can't His words be taken literally? Why not? Why should they not be? Please, I ask you with all due respect, to answer this question. Why not? Why is your claim that He is not to be taken literally such an absolute?


For the simple reason that they were never INTENDED to be.

nude together wrote:** RE: "Because Jesus was expressing His divinity, utilizing language that His first century Jewis audience would clearly understand. "

** My answer: I see, so they couldn't understand ANYTHING He said unless it was in the form of "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal."


No. They (his disciples and those around Him) understood PERFECTLY what He was saying because they had studied the Torah as is required of all first century Jewish men. They were VERY familiar with the language that Jesus was using and exactly what it referred to.

nude together wrote:So, when Jesus stated that He would return, He really didn't mean it, He was not telling the truth, He was only fooling us with "euphemism," "hyperbole" and "not being literal."


Now you are the one who is using a bit of "hyperbole". :?

Of course Jesus meant what He was saying when He said He would "come" again. However, there are different ways in which God "comes" (referred to as "perusia"). Throughout Scripture, God has "come physically" several times; in the Garden with Adam and Eve; as the "dinner guest" of Abraham; as the "wrestler" with Jacob; as the fourth person in the furnace with Meshack, Reshack and Abendeggio and as Jesus Christ. We typically refer to the "comings" as Theophanies or Christophanies. As Christ has promised, He will "physically come" again on the Last Day to judge the living and the dead and to join us phsyically forever and ever on a restored Earth.

However, also throughout Scripture, God has "come in judgement" every time He repremanded the Israelites or the nations that surrounded them. In most cases aside from Soddom and Gammorag, He would either use the Isaelites to judge the nations around them, or the nations around the Israelite to judge the Israelites. This is the kind of "coming" and the very language that Jesus is using in Matthew 24.

nude together wrote:And I will add that if Jesus' statements in Matt. 24 are not to be taken literally, He is and was a liar.


I would conclude exactly the opposite because Jesus told His audience that THEY would see Him coming on clouds. When the last of that generation passed away and NONE of THEM had SEEN Jesus literally coming out of the sky on a literal cloud, then they would have assumed that He was a liar and that would have been the end of Christianity.

nude together wrote:** RE: "Take the time to do a little word search on the use of 1000 or "a thousand" and you will quickly see that it is generally not a literal 1000 (999=1). It is usually used to represent a "very large but limited quantity" of something....

** My answer; This is all true, but does not prove that there will NOT be a literal and physical reign of Jesus on Earth for a literal and physical 1000 years. One reason is because there are too many statements made in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) describing a literal and physical 1000 year reign.

(I will post them if you want; you know them…the lion laying down with the lamb, children playing with deadly snakes because they will no longer be deadly, righteousness covering the whole earth, satan bound up for a 1000 years, long life restored [men living as trees], Jesus ruling with a rod of iron…NONE of which are a reality now on earth. If satan is bound up then his chains are TOO LONG FOR ME ).


That would be interesting. Perhaps we can examine them one at a time.

nude together wrote:Can you prove that there will NOT be a 1000 year reign? Claiming that, once again, that this is all symbols does not disprove a future 1000 year reign.


I would say that I cannot prove that there will absolutely NOT EVER be a literal 1000 year reign. However, I believe that I can show that if we are reading Scripture, properly, in the proper context and genre it is intended, that there is not Scriptural support for such.

nude together wrote:RE: "Amillennialists believe that Jesus' reign began when He defeated death and ascended to the right hand of the Father....

My answer: Well, for one thing, His reign will not in any way end. He will not be stepping down off the throne ever for any reason, including "returning ONCE, to restore Heaven and Earth and to judge and separate those who's names are written in the Book of Life into eternal life and those who are not in eternal condemnation."


Nothing I have said nor Amillennialists nor Scripture itself indicates that Christ's CURRENT reign will ever come to an END, not even briefly. It merely states that at the end of this long, but limited time period, Christ WILL return to judge the living and the dead.

nude together wrote:I have heard the "meet, greet and back to Earth" interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 before, and again I ask, why can it not be "meet, greet and eat?" That is to say; rapture, taken to heaven, marriage supper of the Lamb?" ...and after the tribulation (70th week of Daniel) back to reign with Christ for a 1000 years and then into the Kingdom? That is a very viable and Biblical timeline if you ask me.


Because, again, simply, that is not the intent of the author.

Also, if you do the calculations in Daniel's 70 weeks (of years, or 490 years) you will see is the most amazing and accurate prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.

The timeline begins in 457 BC with the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the temple. Ezra 7:8-17 shows that the decree went out in the seventh year of the reign of Artzxerxes, so history can confirm the year.


This prophecy is split into three sections. Seven weeks (49 years, which is the time it took to rebuild the temple), 62 weeks (434 years) till Messiah the Prince. This takes us to the year the year AD27, which is the year that Jesus was "annointed" and began His ministry, and finally there is another week, 7 years.


It says that in the midst of the final seven years the Messiah will be "cut off, but not for himself" (showing that Jesus would die after 3 1/2 years of ministry) and would cause the "sacrifice and oblation to cease". Jesus' one time perfect sacrifice on Calvary put an end to the need for animal sacrifices once and for all in 30AD.


What happened in the final 3 1/2 years of this prophecy? The gospel message was still preached exclusively to the Jews, but at the end of this period, Stephen was stoned, marking the final decision of the Jewish leaders to reject Christ as the Messiah and from this time on the gospel was taken to the gentiles.

This prophecy also predicted the destruction of the temple "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" which occurred in AD70, and signified the final "desolation". The destruction of both the first and the second temple were both as a result of the people's rejection and disobedience to God.

nude together wrote:Besides, why rapture us up to the clouds to meet Him in the air and then right back to earth again? A quick U turn. Why not just meet us on earth?


Because that is not the imagery that Paul was trying to convey. As I said before, he was trying to paint the picture of the triumphal king returning to his citizens after winning a grand battle, an image the citizens of Thessalonia could EASILY relate to.

nude together wrote:The rapture of the church is important because it is the evacuation of true believes off the earth before judgement begins.


But Scripture does not say that. Jesus Himself says, "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28-29)

This is a direct discussion about "The Judgement". Note that it does NOT say, "ONLY those who have believed in Me" or "ONLY those who have never believed in Me". It says "ALL who are in their graves". We ALL will be present and accounted for on that day, the Last Day.

nude together wrote:And, as the Book of Revelation records; you definitely DON"T want to be here in the 7 years right after the rapture! We will, however, be returning with Him to reign after Daniel's 70th week is completed. The church will not be here for the tribulation period. And I for one, am VERY glad we will not be.


Interesting. And precisely WHERE does it say this?

nude together wrote:I have had several Amillennialists (Including my friend John who I sent some of this to) tell me that any concept of a "rapture of the Church" is a lie, not in the Bible and false doctrine. In fact, John claimed that...1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 ...was referring to, and I quote, "back sliding Christians."


I would disagree with your friend's conclusion on that matter as well. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "back sliding".

nude together wrote:In fact, that rapture of the Church is also mentioned in1 Cor. 15:51-53

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality"


This is not speaking of the "rapture" so much as it is speaking of the "resurrrection" referred to in the verse I just gave you, John 5:28-29.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Fri May 06, 2011 9:10 pm

bn2bnude wrote:
nude together wrote:** My answer: Will simply repeat...

One of the first rules of Biblical interpretation is that the Bible says what it means, and means exactly what it says...UNLESS there is obvious, strong and clear reasons to believe otherwise. For Jesus' statements in Matt. 24, we see no reason to read them as anything other than literally.


I am not so sure about that... I did a quick "Rules of Bible interpretation" search and selected the first link. Apologetics Index has 8 rules and that one isn't on there.

I have heard that rule previously but usually only in certain groups.

I appreciate your passion on this but I'm much closer to Nathan than to you on this topic so that does bias my belief of "the rule".

A couple of books I'd recommend on just learning how to study the Bible are "The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible" and "How to read the Bible for all It's Worth.

They approach things from different angles. Personally, I'd suggest starting with "How to Read..."


On the "Official List" or not, I think it is common sense to start with the premise that God means what He says. If He is using symbols, if symbols are used in the Bible, we will know. One example would be the dove that landed on Jesus' shoulder after He was baptized by John. The dove was a symbol, not an actual bird that the Holy Spirit had perhaps "incarnated into." How do we know it was a symbol or at the very least not a real dove? Simple; the bible says so...

Mark 1:8-10:

"I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Notice "LIKE a dove." This is a clear indication that we are not to take literally that it was an actual physical dove. It was something that looked like a dove, or a symbol of a dove, NOT a real dove.

Back to Matt. 24; I see nothing in Matt. 24 indicating that Jesus' words are to be taken as symbols and not literally. You would (and would have to) claim that position if you are trying to prove that these events occurred in 70AD. His comment on the temple came to pass literally, just as He spoke. Why not the rest?

Relative to this debate; if Jesus' words in Matt. 24 are to be taken literally, a good portion of the traditional position of Amillennialism is called into question. That is one of the reasons, I believe, that Amillennialists fight any literally acceptance and interpretation of Matt. 24 and claim that all of the events Jesus spoke of happened by 70AD. Unfortunately, one has to do a lot of converting scripture from meaning what it says to nebulous symbols subject to anyone's interpretation.

Natman, it would be helpful if you would take each statement in Matt. 24 and indicate where and how each statement of Jesus came to pass by 70AD. We know the temple was destroyed exactly as He stated, but what about the rest, symbols or not, how did each thing that Jesus predicted take place by 70AD?
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby nude together » Sat May 07, 2011 3:19 am

** RE: "In fact, that rapture of the Church is also mentioned in1 Cor. 15:51-53
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality"

This is not speaking of the "rapture" so much as it is speaking of the "resurrection" referred to in the verse I just gave you, John 5:28-29.


** My answer: How could this verse (1 Cor. 15:51-53) ONLY be talking about the resurrection of the dead when Paul is referring to people who have yet to die? How can you be resurrected when you have not died? I.e., "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," "We shall not all sleep" is a reference to people still alive on earth and fits perfectly into the rapture of the church statement, using the same verbiage I might add, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 where Paul states "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."

"Alive and remain" are people yet to die and therefore cannot be resurrected, BUT, can be "changed" into immortality. That is to say "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality."

Cleary Paul, in both verses (Cor. 15:51-53 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) is referring to a change of people who are NOT dead, but are taken in the rapture along with people who were dead or "asleep" and will be resurrected.

Also, Jesus makes an interesting reference to the rapture when He told Martha (sister of Lazarus) of TWO separate categories of people (John 11)...

> Category 1. "He who believes in me, THOUGH HE WERE DEAD, will live..."

Rapture - 1 Thessalonians 4:16 - "...and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first..."

> Category 2. "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me SHALL NEVER DIE..."

Rapture - 1 Thessalonians 4:16 - Then we which are alive and remain (i.e., still alive on earth) shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

He could not have been speaking of the people of His time, because they all died NOT having been taken in the rapture.

Your limiting of 1 Cor. 15:51-53 to exclude the rapture does not make sense. Also, if you read both verses one can see that they use the exact same verbiage and are addressing the same issues in both churches. Would Paul change his revlaltion about the rapture of the living to one church (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) and then to another one with no rapture to the other (1 Cor. 15:51-53)? I think not.


** RE: "Also, if you do the calculations in Daniel's 70 weeks (of years, or 490 years) you will see is the most amazing and accurate prophecy about the coming of the Messiah. The timeline begins in 457 BC with the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the temple. Ezra 7:8-17 shows that the decree went out in the seventh year of the reign of Artzxerxes, so history can confirm the year.

** My answer: I think you have your timeline wrong. Jesus went to the cross at the end of the 69th "week (or 62 weeks after the building of the walls)," in the 483rd year after the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild the temple, with 7 more years to go which would complete the 490 years as revealed to Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27. The last seven years is generally referred to as the 7 Year Tribulation where God once again focuses His attention on Isreal who will, as a nation, finally come to see that Jesus is their Messiah the Prince and their King.

> Please consider...

Is April 6, 32 A.D. the exact prophetic date that Daniel spoke of concerning the arrival of the Messiah to Jerusalem. This is the event we now know as the the triumphal entry when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. Daniel 9:25, "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.”

There are four possible decrees that were given to restore Jerusalem all around a hundred years of each other, however there is only one that mentions the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, which makes it the strongest candidate. Artaxerxes gave the command during the month of Nisan, which would be between February 27 to March 14, 445 B.C.

Nehemiah 2, “In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes, when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before; so the king asked me, “Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart.” I was very much afraid, but I said to the king, “May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?” The king said to me, “What is it you want?” Then I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king, “If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it.” Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, “How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?” It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time. I also said to him, “If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah? And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?” And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests. So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave them the king’s letters. The king had also sent army officers and cavalry with me. When Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official heard about this, they were very much disturbed that someone had come to promote the welfare of the Israelites.”

We know that a week equals seven years as used in the context mentioned in Daniel. "Seven weeks and sixty two weeks" would tally up a total of sixty nine weeks. The Jewish calendar has a three hundred and sixty day year, so sixty nine weeks of three hundred and sixty day years would equal 173,880 days, Artaxerxes gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem no later than March 14, 445 B.C., Jesus pronounced Himself King on April 6, 32 A.D., from March 14th, 445 B.C. to April 6, 32 A.D. is an EXACT total of 173,880 days. Right on target!!

Let's look further and do the math using the Jewish calendar using a 360 day year.
69 weeks of years equates to 69 (weeks) x 7 (years) = 483 (years)
483 (years) x 360 (days of the year) = 173,880 (days until Messiah)
March 14, 445 B.C. to April 6, 32 A.D = 173,880 days

This also works if we use the 365 day calendar year.
476 years (from March 14, 445 B.C. to March 14th, 32 A.D.) x 365 days per year = 173,740 days
173,740 days + 116 days (leap years) + 24 days (March 14th to April 6th) = 173,880 days.

So is there any way to verify the triumphal entry of Jesus Christ on April 6, 32 A.D.? In the book of Luke we find that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius, in which his reign began on August 19, 14 A.D. This places the starting point of Jesus' ministry in the year 28 A.D., which spanned three and a half years. Placing the triumphal entry on April 6, 32 A.D. Anyways, couple this with the prophecy of Genesis 49:10 and many of the Jewish writings concerning the appearance and timing of the Messiah and you have a significant display of God's foreknowledge. There are other aspects to this, one of them being that the Messiah would be cut off and so forth, but I'll address those at a later time.


** RE: " And, as the Book of Revelation records; you definitely DON"T want to be here in the 7 years right after the rapture! We will, however, be returning with Him to reign after Daniel's 70th week is completed. The church will not be here for the tribulation period. And I for one, am VERY glad we will not be.
Interesting. And precisely WHERE does it say this? "


** My answer: My point was that if one were to read what is stated in the Book of Revelation concerning what is going to happen on earth when God's judgment hits this planet during the tribulation, no one in their right mind would want to be here. Although, Jesus did say "pray that you will be found worthy to escape these things."

>> Luke 21: 29 to 36 -

29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

My guess is that you are going to say that the above verse has nothing to do with escaping the tribulation. Am I right?


** RE: ''I would disagree with your friend's conclusion on that matter as well. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "back sliding".

** My answer: Well, all I can say is that he is a staunch Amillennialist and firmly in your camp. Glad that you disagree with him. His comment was ridiculous.

** RE: "But Scripture does not say that. Jesus Himself says, "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (John 5:28-29)

This is a direct discussion about "The Judgment". Note that it does NOT say, "ONLY those who have believed in Me" or "ONLY those who have never believed in Me". It says "ALL who are in their graves". We ALL will be present and accounted for on that day, the Last Day. "


** My answer: Yes, but It does NOT say that they will "come out of their graves" at the same time. Those in Christ could come out to be with Jesus well before those who come out (those who did not die in faith) to face Him as Judge. Where does it say that these two categories of people will be raised at the same time? Point: some people will be raised to every lasting life, others will be raised to everlasting condemnation. But where does it say they will be raised together? It doesn't.

** RE: "Nothing I have said nor Amillennialists nor Scripture itself indicates that Christ's CURRENT reign will ever come to an END, not even briefly. It merely states that at the end of this long, but limited time period, Christ WILL return to judge the living and the dead."

** My answer: Yes, but when and under what circumstances? I believe this will happen after the 7 year tribulation. Jesus returns to earth to judge the nations and the people on earth. Also, it does not say that the living and the dead, or the righteous and unrighteous will be judged at the same time.

** RE: "That would be interesting. Perhaps we can examine them one at a time. "

** My answer: OK, sounds good.


** RE: "I would say that I cannot prove that there will absolutely NOT EVER be a literal 1000 year reign. However, I believe that I can show that if we are reading Scripture, properly, in the proper context and genre it is intended, that there is not Scriptural support for such. "


** My answer: I think there is plenty of support a literal 1000 year reign, and one VERY interesting scripture to support a literal 1000 year reign, and partially what it wil be like, is found in...

Isaiah 65: 19 to 22...

19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.

22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

> Question: If not the 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth, when will this scripture be fulfilled?

Times that it can't be fulfilled...

Isaiah's era? No.
Right after Isaiah? No.
When Jesus was on earth? No.
From Jesus' time on earth to now? No.
In heaven? No.

Could only be during the 1000 year reign on earth which is still not a perfect era yet, much better than now, but NOT yet perfect; Jesus will still have to reign “with a rod of iron.” He will NOT be ruling with a “rod of iron” in heaven.

OK, done for now :-)
The human body was made by God, it is a thing of nude beauty!

User avatar
nude together
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Millennialism vs Amillennialism

Postby natman » Sat May 07, 2011 7:56 am

nude together wrote:If He is using symbols, if symbols are used in the Bible, we will know. One example would be the dove that landed on Jesus' shoulder after He was baptized by John. The dove was a symbol, not an actual bird that the Holy Spirit had perhaps "incarnated into." How do we know it was a symbol or at the very least not a real dove? Simple; the bible says so...

Mark 1:8-10:

"I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


At least you understand that God uses symbols at times, in this case an "analogy". However, not ALL of the symbols are analogies and not all symbols preceeded by the word "like". There are tons of anthropomorphisms which give God or some natural force similarity to humans, such as the "hand of God" (Does God literally have hands with five fingers etc?), being under "God's feet" (Does God literally have feet and toes etc?), the "breath of God" (Does God literally have a mouth and lungs out of to blow or breath?) , being a man of "God's own heart" (Does God literally have a beating heart?).

Similarly, in the OT, whenever God was present there was generally mention of "clouds". Does that mean that there were literal "clouds" hanging around during every battle and devastation? Also, when God "came in judgement" there was generally mention of "earthquakes, stars falling from the sky, darkness of the sun and moon". Did this literally happen each and every time a nation came to ruin?

nude together wrote:Natman, it would be helpful if you would take each statement in Matt. 24 and indicate where and how each statement of Jesus came to pass by 70AD. We know the temple was destroyed exactly as He stated, but what about the rest, symbols or not, how did each thing that Jesus predicted take place by 70AD?


I will attempt to put together a synopsis of each verse or set of verse.

In the mean time, please read the resources we have directed you to.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Next

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests