The Doctrine of Millennialism is destroy by Personal Symbolizing of Scripture.

[ewq1938]

That description in Daniel is nothing like the description and purpose described by John in his epistles

I just showed how there is a match. How about commenting on what I said not just making empty statements like this that avoid the content of the post.

 

[robert derrick]

Simple rule for Symbology in Scripture:

It is not necessary to do away with the literal truth of Scripture, in order to understand the spiritual significance, nor to acknowledge the symbolic parts of it.

False teaching is to make the literal parts symbolic only, and so turn it into myth.

Mythologists speak of unreal events in heaven and earth, solely to impart spiritual meaning.

And yet, many people who say that myths also have 'kernels of truth' in them, will refuse to give the Bible any similar credit whatsoever, unless something is spoken of that agrees with the myths, such as the flood.

But then, they only agree with that part of truth in the Bible, because they only agree with myth-making men, not with the truth-revealing God.

Those who turn parts of Scripture, that are plainly written as literal truth, into symbolic myth only, are exactly the same as the mythologists, that deny the literal facts, while posing to teach spiritual truth.

And like mythologists, they do so, because they love their own imaginations more than sound Scripture of God.

It's akin to to being lovers of our own selves, more than lovers of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How can you think that John got the antichrist from Daniels little horn when his description is nothing like the little horn? I can understand people thinking that the beast of revelation is like the little horn but not the antichrist

I understand. I never saw the connection for years. But when I began to do studies on the origins of NT doctrines in the OT Scriptures I discovered that the *only* genuine teaching on Antichrist emerged from Dan 7. The reason I hadn't seen the importance of this before is because the word "Antichrist" was not used in Dan 7--instead, the word was "Little Horn."

But I couldn't find any other source for clear unbridled prophecy of the coming of Antichrist except this one reference. It then seemed incredibly important that I look into how John chose to use the word "Antichrist" instead of "Little Horn," if indeed he was drawing from that source.

I came to believe that John used "Antichrist" because Christ had already come. Instead of using "Little Horn" he felt it needed to be brought closer to home by showing not just that the Little Horn would speak boastfully against God and militarily defeat the saints but his defeat at the coming of the Son of Man would mean the advent of God's Kingdom on earth, as the Son of Man descends from heaven.

These are all the words of Paul in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and the description of John in the book of Revelation. And we should note that Jesus warned about the pseudo-Christs and false prophets in his own day, who thought they could stand in the name of God against the Roman Army. For John, then, this "Little Horn" would be an Anti-Christ, as he will seek to defeat God's People right before the advent of Christ's Kingdom.

Anyway, you have to go by your own mind and judgment. This isn't critical doctrine for Christian living. I think the doctrine of Antichrist is most important for us in the sense that we have Antichrists in our own time and experience, and must harden ourselves to resist their false Gospel. We should expect some measure of "defeat," before our ultimate vindication. The future will take care of itself, however the scenario works out.

 

[MatthewG]

Can ruins peoples faith due to the fact that people do not have to adhere to traditional ways of thinking.

Most things are taught by tradition. Anything that runs different than tradition - requires a break down and building again of once had ideas.

Which everything of man can be shook down to the ground even our thoughts and ideas. The only thing that last is what has eternal value which are the things pertaining to God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Simple rule for Symbology in Scripture:

It is not necessary to do away with the literal truth of Scripture, in order to understand the spiritual significance, nor to acknowledge the symbolic parts of it.

False teaching is to make the literal parts symbolic only, and so turn it into myth.

Mythologists speak of unreal events in heaven and earth, solely to impart spiritual meaning.

And yet, many people who say that myths also have 'kernels of truth' in them, will refuse to give the Bible any similar credit whatsoever, unless something is spoken of that agrees with the myths, such as the flood.

But then, they only agree with that part of truth in the Bible, because they only agree with myth-making men, not with the truth-revealing God.

Those who turn parts of Scripture, that are plainly written as literal truth, into symbolic myth only, are exactly the same as the mythologists, that deny the literal facts, while posing to teach spiritual truth.

And like mythologists, they do so, because they love their own imaginations more than sound Scripture of God.

It's akin to to being lovers of our own selves, more than lovers of God.

I wouldn't personally put all Christians in the same category as mythologists because any of us Christians may erringly do this on occasion. We may all experience unbelief and join the Liberal Theologians and deny something that sounds too fantastic, too supernatural for us. Or, we may actually be right on occasion, and see through symbolism and hyperbole to avoid over-literalization, or hyper-literalization.

Anyway, your comparison is spot on in this respect that some of the recent arguments we've heard for Amill do precisely this. There is a doubt that God will have a literal Kingdom on earth, and so they "mythologize" it. But instead of doing this out of doubting God's power they think that a Millennial Kingdom sounds too carnal and unlikely to represent God's Eternal Kingdom.

Instead of considering why God would begin His Eternal Kingdom with a flawed earthly Kingdom on earth for a thousand years it is simply dismissed. It could've been prompted initially by disappointment with the pace at which Israel was coming to national salvation, or it could've been pride in the new Kingdom of God on earth, the Catholic Church?

Anyway, I personally believe it should've been given more credit to see the Kingdom of God as fulfilled on earth for a final period of prophetic realization of all the prophecies and promises that God had made in the past. The fulfillment of Israel as a nation of faith and the fulfillment of many nations as nations of faith, as the inheritance of Abraham, had to have a time in which these things would be fulfilled, *before* the eternal state of the Kingdom was fully realized.

Your point, therefore, is well taken. The literal value of Millennial teaching stands in my mind. To dispose of it in the same way Liberal Theologians dispose of the supernatural has no basis, but appears to be using the very same process of mythologization.

 

[Marty fox]

I understand. I never saw the connection for years. But when I began to do studies on the origins of NT doctrines in the OT Scriptures I discovered that the *only* genuine teaching on Antichrist emerged from Dan 7. The reason I hadn't seen the importance of this before is because the word "Antichrist" was not used in Dan 7--instead, the word was "Little Horn."

But I couldn't find any other source for clear unbridled prophecy of the coming of Antichrist except this one reference. It then seemed incredibly important that I look into how John chose to use the word "Antichrist" instead of "Little Horn," if indeed he was drawing from that source.

I came to believe that John used "Antichrist" because Christ had already come. Instead of using "Little Horn" he felt it needed to be brought closer to home by showing not just that the Little Horn would speak boastfully against God and militarily defeat the saints but his defeat at the coming of the Son of Man would mean the advent of God's Kingdom on earth, as the Son of Man descends from heaven.

These are all the words of Paul in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and the description of John in the book of Revelation. And we should note that Jesus warned about the pseudo-Christs and false prophets in his own day, who thought they could stand in the name of God against the Roman Army. For John, then, this "Little Horn" would be an Anti-Christ, as he will seek to defeat God's People right before the advent of Christ's Kingdom.

Anyway, you have to go by your own mind and judgment. This isn't critical doctrine for Christian living. I think the doctrine of Antichrist is most important for us in the sense that we have Antichrists in our own time and experience, and must harden ourselves to resist their false Gospel. We should expect some measure of "defeat," before our ultimate vindication. The future will take care of itself, however the scenario works out.

But those studies are wrong because the character and purpose of the antichrist is nothing like the little horn

What John describes in his epistles is the perfect description of apostate Israel in Johns day remember he said that some had already come

To me it’s a demonic being influencing apostate Israel in Johns day. That would of been satans Maine goal at that time

 

[Randy Kluth]

But those studies are wrong because the character and purpose of the antichrist is nothing like the little horn

What John describes in his epistles is the perfect description of apostate Israel in Johns day remember he said that some had already come

To me it’s a demonic being influencing apostate Israel in Johns day. That would of been satans Maine goal at that time

Well, it seems that your designated purpose for the Antichrist has no basis in OT theology? What John describes about the Antichrist is reflective of the general spirit of Antichristianity, and gives no basis for Antichrist himself. Why not just call it Paganism, instead of "Antichristianity?" Paganism is against Christianity as much as apostate Judaism.

But I believe it is called Antichristianity precisely because of Dan 7. So yes, from your perspective my studies would be wrong. But I find no other source of the origins for Antichrist other than in Dan 7. Jesus' reference to "false Christs" and "false prophets" do not use the term "Antichristianity." But it appears to also reflect the general spirit of the "Little Horn" depicted in Dan 7. All of these boast over God and claim to have the truth over Christ, and end up conspiring to end true Christianity.

 

[Timtofly]

Armageddon is not mentioned in Rev 19. You force it in there where it does not belong. Anyway, you do not see the spiritual application of these literal OT places because it cuts across your error. That is why you cannot address the arguments.

Revelation 17:12-14

"And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

"And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

"And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."


Are you literally going to keep posting that at 3 separate times the Lamb literally kills every human on earth?

Do they keep coming back to life each time it happens so it can happen again and again?

Chapter 16, 17, and 19 are talking about the same event. That is not even recap. The 6th vial is the preparation. Chapter 17 is the parenthetical definition of those involved. Chapter 19 is the actual event.

 

[ewq1938]

But those studies are wrong because the character and purpose of the antichrist is nothing like the little horn

That's like saying Jesus in the early gospels does not match the guy who overthrew the money changer's tables because the descriptions "don't match".

This whole idea that the AC is not mentioned by that exact name in other books is bad theology. John said AC would come and that means he is mentioned in other prophecies. Jesus haars many different names and titles, and so does the AC.

 

[Marty fox]

Well, it seems that your designated purpose for the Antichrist has no basis in OT theology? What John describes about the Antichrist is reflective of the general spirit of Antichristianity, and gives no basis for Antichrist himself. Why not just call it Paganism, instead of "Antichristianity?" Paganism is against Christianity as much as apostate Judaism.

But I believe it is called Antichristianity precisely because of Dan 7. So yes, from your perspective my studies would be wrong. But I find no other source of the origins for Antichrist other than in Dan 7. Jesus' reference to "false Christs" and "false prophets" do not use the term "Antichristianity." But it appears to also reflect the general spirit of the "Little Horn" depicted in Dan 7. All of these boast over God and claim to have the truth over Christ, and end up conspiring to end true Christianity.

Because apostate Israel was against Jesus Christ

 

[Timtofly]

This is difficult for me to explain, and it took me many years to get to this place. It may or may not be true, but just FYI this is how I see it.

The entire overall emphasis in the book of Revelation is on the endtime development of the 4th Beast of Dan 7. In the endtime scenario there are 10 horns, who are 10 kingdoms, and 3 of them are defeated, leaving 7 leaders and 10 nations.

And that's just what we have in the book of Revelation, the Beast Empire, centered in Europe/Roman tradition, that has been dividing for some time into independent states. Ultimately, a coalition of 10 will form, and the Antichrist will appear to assume control over them, defeating 3 national leaders. This is how we know it is the Antichrist, in my view.

So in Rev 17, the Harlot is the city of Rome, who has, like ancient Israel, turned away from Christianity to modern paganism. She rides upon the Beast system, or the European confederation of 10 nations. The Antichrist assumes control over this Empire, and at some point burns the city of Rome.

John explains this Beast of 10 horns and 7 heads by cryptically showing Christians that he is indeed referring to the Roman Empire. He dare not come out and say it, because that would appear to be a form of rebellion or sedition. So God leads John to depict "Mystery Babylon" through the use of two figures. The 7 heads of the Beast, John says, present a figure of seven historical kingdoms, the 6th of which is ruling in his own time. The Roman Empire was ruling in John's time, so John was identifying Rome to Christians without coming out and saying it.

The 2nd figure John uses to show the 7 heads represent the Roman Empire is by using the figure of seven, once again, to depict 7 hills. Again, 7 hills were associated with the 7 hills of Rome, which the Christians would've known.

The Harlot is called "Mystery Babylon," indicating it is a cryptic reference. Babylon was the 1st of the 4 Kingdoms that would lead to the Roman Empire. So "Mystery Babylon" is a cryptic reference to the Roman Empire, in my view. And it is clearly identified at the end of the chapter as a city that rules everywhere in that part of the world. It had to have been Rome that John was referring to.

The beast is the entire image in Daniel 2. The rest of Daniel portrays this image as separate beasts. The statue only had 5 parts. 5 are fallen and will not return. The beast has not been since the Reformation. Babylon will return as those 42 months allowed in Revelation 13. That is the beast that was, is not, but yet is, for the last 42 months of Adam's 6,000 years of sin and death.

Babylon was the first, then the Medes and Persions. Greeks are the third beast. Rome was the fourth beast, and the Holy Roman empire the 5th beast of ten toes.

There has been no beast kingdom since then, even though Satan has tried several times and several wars. Now one can say that the 6th and 7th beast were failures.

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition."

So this 8th kingdom is the 6th beast that both is and is not at the same time. The 7th kingdom is very short, but not mentioned at all, really. So this 6th beast comes back as the 8th, and is both of the 6th and 7th. No one is still around from the original 5 parts of the image of this Babylonian empire.

Yes even Greece and Rome were still of the Babylonian image. The ten toes as well. I see the Reformation as being the stone cut out and becoming a mountain that fills the whole earth. But I don't see the British Empire as being the 6th beast. The industrial revolution also saw the explosion of the Gospel going out all over the world in the footsteps of the British Empire, that was taken apart during the 2 World Wars. Not sure how this 6th beast can be the mountain of Christianity that also occurred at the same time.

It seems that since the mountain was the kingdom that filled the whole earth, until the Second Coming the church would restrain the 6th beast kingdom. That is why it is, but is only dormant until after the final harvest of the first 6 Trumpets and 7 Thunders. Only at the 7th Trumpet will it be decided if there is a 7th or 8th/6th beast kingdom. This is the beast Satan forms out of the sea (of humanity) left after the Second Coming and final harvest. It will only last for 42 months, the 7th beast. Then one hour, Armageddon, as the 8th beast.

 

[Timtofly]

There is actually a direct match:

Daniel - ten horned beast arises, little horn comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. Little horn is the antichrist.

Revelation - ten horned beast arises, false prophet with two little horns comes next and is the person of authority and power over the ten horned beast. False prophet is the antichrist.

How about the little horn is the false prophet, was Antiochus Epiphanes? Otherwise you only have some antichrist pop up throughout history, and no antichrist after the Second Coming at all.

There is no 10 horned beast in Daniel 8 nor Daniel 11. Daniel 8 is about Antiochus Epiphanes and Hanukkah. Daniel 11 is too ambiguous. Daniel never defined the ten toes. They came way after even the time of Jesus on the earth.

Now going back to Daniel 7 means Daniel is not in chronological order. How are any today or yesterday going to figure out the chronological order of Daniel, if they cannot even figure out Revelation? Daniel is still sealed, no?

If Daniel 7 is the same as Revelation 13, then there is no antichrist, only the FP. There is only one human mentioned in Revelation 13, the FP. The other beings mentioned are Satan and the image that came to life. Both are beast. In the 6th vial still only Satan, the FP, and the beast are mentioned. So the beast is the image come to life. That image is the closest thing to an AC you are going to see in Revelation. It is the epitome of every thing Christ is not. This image is not even equal to the first Adam created by God. This is Satan's Adam in total opposition to God's creation. An Adam that cannot even think on it's own but is only programmed to serve Satan. Basically free will is the flaw that Satan takes issue with God over. Both in Adam and Eve, and later in Job.

Most here really balk at this image playing a roll in the future, and basically demand a human antichrist. But every timeline and chart contradicts Revelation and to a degree, even Daniel. Even Paul is misquoted, because there is no AC that was alive then and still alive after 1900 years. Satan is the son of perdition in contrast to Jesus as the Son of man.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,"

That wicked is the image of AoD set up by the FP and Satan. The image is not set up prior to the Second Coming in the 6th Seal. That image is only set up if Satan is allowed to set it up in the midst of the week of the 7th Trumpet. Revelation 19 is not the Second Coming. Revelation 19 is when that image, that John calls a beast, is destroyed, and cast into the LOF. Paul says spirit of His mouth. John describes it as a sword in His mouth.

The 42 months of the Aod is not the same period as the GT. One is tribulation, and the other is just Satan's wickedness as normal life. People killing and being killed.

The GT is the final harvest because the angels are removing souls out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. That is tribulation because all of humanity are physically dying, not just killing each other. Neither periods are God's wrath. God's wrath is only poured out during the 7 vials, the 3.5 days between the end of Satan's 42 months of AoD, and Armageddon.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Because apostate Israel was against Jesus Christ

Yes, that explains why Judaism might be called an "Antichrist." But it doesn't explain why Paul said he had already taught the Thessalonians about the "Man of Sin," expecting that his readers would know also, likely from OT prophecy. That prophecy would be from Dan 7, and explain why Paul put the appearing of Antichrist before the 2nd Coming of Christ.

2 Thes 2.5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

Paul here indicates that Paul not only calls upon the memory of the Thessalonians, but God expects those of us outside of Thessalonica to know what he was talking about! So it had to be a well-known Scripture Paul was referring to.

Again, Paul does not want to spell out the Roman Empire as the thing that here is associated with Antichrist. But that is what we see in Dan 7, that the "Little Horn" is associated with the 4th Beast, commonly associated with the Roman Empire. Paul is suggesting that the Thessalonians should recall that he had taught them about this, likely from Dan 7.

The thing that restrains the appearing of Antichrist is the Roman Empire itself, whose Caesars would prevent the rise of Antichrist, since a united Empire would prevent Antichrist from assuming power over a divided Empire. Anyway, that's my theory.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How about the little horn is the false prophet, was Antiochus Epiphanes? Otherwise you only have some antichrist pop up throughout history, and no antichrist after the Second Coming at all.

There is no 10 horned beast in Daniel 8 nor Daniel 11. Daniel 8 is about Antiochus Epiphanes and Hanukkah. Daniel 11 is too ambiguous. Daniel never defined the ten toes. They came way after even the time of Jesus on the earth.

Now going back to Daniel 7 means Daniel is not in chronological order. How are any today or yesterday going to figure out the chronological order of Daniel, if they cannot even figure out Revelation? Daniel is still sealed, no?

If Daniel 7 is the same as Revelation 13, then there is no antichrist, only the FP. There is only one human mentioned in Revelation 13, the FP. The other beings mentioned are Satan and the image that came to life. Both are beast. In the 6th vial still only Satan, the FP, and the beast are mentioned. So the beast is the image come to life. That image is the closest thing to an AC you are going to see in Revelation. It is the epitome of every thing Christ is not. This image is not even equal to the first Adam created by God. This is Satan's Adam in total opposition to God's creation. An Adam that cannot even think on it's own but is only programmed to serve Satan. Basically free will is the flaw that Satan takes issue with God over. Both in Adam and Eve, and later in Job.

Most here really balk at this image playing a roll in the future, and basically demand a human antichrist. But every timeline and chart contradicts Revelation and to a degree, even Daniel. Even Paul is misquoted, because there is no AC that was alive then and still alive after 1900 years. Satan is the son of perdition in contrast to Jesus as the Son of man.

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,"

That wicked is the image of AoD set up by the FP and Satan. The image is not set up prior to the Second Coming in the 6th Seal. That image is only set up if Satan is allowed to set it up in the midst of the week of the 7th Trumpet. Revelation 19 is not the Second Coming. Revelation 19 is when that image, that John calls a beast, is destroyed, and cast into the LOF. Paul says spirit of His mouth. John describes it as a sword in His mouth.

The 42 months of the Aod is not the same period as the GT. One is tribulation, and the other is just Satan's wickedness as normal life. People killing and being killed.

The GT is the final harvest because the angels are removing souls out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. That is tribulation because all of humanity are physically dying, not just killing each other. Neither periods are God's wrath. God's wrath is only poured out during the 7 vials, the 3.5 days between the end of Satan's 42 months of AoD, and Armageddon.

I don't see it like that, but there's a lot of this that I'm only making educating guesses about. It really stumps me, for example, that in Rev 17 there is surprise that the symbolism isn't understood--I can't come close to understanding it myself!

What on earth is the Beast that was, is not, and is still to come? And is this related to the 1st Beast in Rev 13, one of the heads suffering a fatal wound? And what on earth is the image of the Beast that becomes able to speak and demand worship of the 1st Beast?

I just can't fathom what these things mean. And it's slightly upsetting that the angel seems to think we should understand these things!

Rev 17.6 When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. 7 Then the angel said to me: “Why are you astonished?

However, I did find interesting your sense that the image of Nebuchadnezzar pictures all of the Kingdoms at once, as if all 4 Beasts in Dan 7 are joined together. Perhaps that is why the Beast "once was and now is not," because the Beast is not unified in the time of the Roman Empire and is to become unified again under the Antichrist? After all, the 1st Beast is pictured with the characteristics of a leopard, a bear, and a lion, seemingly the total characteristics of the 4 Beasts of Dan 7.

If so, you may be onto something. The image represents the total of all 4 beasts put together into one, and when given "breath," or restoration, they command the whole world to pay homage to the great pagan empires of the past?

Well, anyway, thanks for sharing. I'm hoping I eventually get it!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If there is any unity to be found in the interpretation of Scripture, it is in NOT departing from the plain sayings of plainly stated passages.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. Do you abide by this principle yourself, though? Let's find out.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 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.

Jesus very plainly stated here that a singular time is coming during which "all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out". So, do you believe that a singular time is coming during which all of the dead will be raised or do you believe multiple times are coming when the dead will be raised?

Let's take a look at another plainly stated passage.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

First of all, Jesus plainly associated the day of His second coming with the passing away of heaven and earth. Do you believe that heaven and earth will pass away when Jesus comes?

Second, Jesus plainly indicated that just as "the flood came and took them all away" in Noah's day, meaning the flood killed all unbelievers, "That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man". So, do you believe that all unbelievers will be killed at the second coming of Christ as Jesus plainly stated would happen?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Exactly, which is many times down by symbolizing something real into something not real.

Please give me an example or two of someone doing this. I don't believe anyone here has done that, so you should back this up with an example or two or else I will just assume that you're making this up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's all I'm talking about. Rampant symbolizing of Scripture, turns the revealed truth of God into just another book of myths and legends of men.

The Bible is not Aesop's Fables.

Do you take the following literally? Please tell me how you interpret this passage:

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All the slain armies at Armageddon are.

There's nothing new here, except that God calls all the fowls of the earth to one scene of battle.

So all the fowls of the earth eat, just not all the people of the earth.

So much for you taking scripture literally.

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

 

[marks]

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 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.

Jesus very plainly stated here that a singular time is coming during which "all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out". So, do you believe that a singular time is coming during which all of the dead will be raised or do you believe multiple times are coming when the dead will be raised?

John 5:28 KJV
28) Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

You've added "singular time". King James has "the hour". These are not equivalent terms.


I think we should first reach agreement on the wording we are talking about.

Not be ye marveling this that is coming hour in which all the ones in the vaults shall be hearing . . .

You are defining an indefinite "hour" as "a singular time". I don't see that supported in the Bible. Have you done a word study on the use of "hour" in the New Testament? I'm curious. I have, and I don't think this is correct.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Let's take a look at another plainly stated passage.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. 36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

First of all, Jesus plainly associated the day of His second coming with the passing away of heaven and earth. Do you believe that heaven and earth will pass away when Jesus comes?

Again, let's look at what Jesus said,

Matthew 24:33-37 KJV
33) So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36) But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but Jesus did not say when that would be. And the Bible actually gives a different timeline for that to happen, at the end of the 1000 years reign following His return in power and glory.

This passage does not contradict that by saying that heaven and earth will pass away when Jesus returns in power and glory. In fact, His prophecy goes on to speak of the judgment that happens when He takes His throne. Joel gives us more information on this particular judgment, identifying it's location as being on the earth, in Israel.

Jesus is affirming the veracity of His words, showing them more durable then heaven and earth itself, while not actually saying that they would pass away when He returns.

Again, we need first reach agreement on what the Bible says.

Much love!