No More Death

[Earburner]

I'm not wrong, nor is Christ. The GT is when the beast and the MOB exist during a 42 month period. Your Preterist beliefs are unscriptural.

Unscriptural? Really??
Is not Jesus within you and I, and all His born again saints, in the past generations of God's Age of Grace?

Let's hear the word's of Christ Himself to Paul, who had been an accomplice** in the persecution and martrydom of Christians:
Acts 9
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
How did Jesus know and therefore accuse Paul of persecuting Christians?
Jesus Himself was within each one, and therefore suffered the act of persecution and martyrdom Himself.

Persecution and martyrdom against Christians, is personally experienced by Christ Himself, and therefore is no small thing to Him, in any generation.
Rev. 7:9-17
[13] And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
[15] Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
[16] They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

**See Acts 26:9-11 of Paul's own confession to king Agrippa.

 

[ewq1938]

Unscriptural? Really??

Yes. All forms of Preterism are false. These belief certain prophecies have been fulfilled when they have not been fulfilled. This would be most of the OD and related portions of Rev.

 

[Earburner]

Yes. All forms of Preterism are false. These belief certain prophecies have been fulfilled when they have not been fulfilled. This would be most of the OD and related portions of Rev.

I know that you and I will not see eye to eye on the following. I am only sharing what I do understand, and where I stand on it upto today.
Rev. 7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
[15] Therefore are they before the throne of God.
I trust that you cannot deny, that since Jesus' death and resurrection, God's saints have been suffering persecution and martyrdom up to this day.

Don't misunderstand what I have been saying. I am not denying the fact of scripture stating and revealing the truth of the Lord's Spirit of interpretation about "great tribulation" against the saints in the "End time church"

In the days of the End Time church, there is coming, and very soon, a global persecution and martyrdom of Christians, BUT, IT'S NOT going to look like anything that popular church-ianity has been fabricating and promoting.
Their understanding is colored by a false and misconstrued understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 about "a missing week" in the "70 weeks prophecy", whereby they take that supposed missing week, and attach it to the era of the End time church, calling it "THE Great Tribulation". Unfortunately, their presentation is draped in "religious garb", having religious overtones about a "singular, one man band, miracle man", that they call "THE Anti Christ", which they also profess as being "The Beast". In all of the KJV, one will not find the words "THE Antichrist", denoting a singular person.
However, we do know of "that spirit of antichrist", of which describes that which is plural, being the wickedness of "lawlessness" within all who remain to be "the natural man", UNRESTRAINED.

Now, if all of what l have just said fits to that description of your understanding, then I urge you to take time and understand that the 10 Horned Beast in Daniel is called the "fourth beast", the last of four kingdoms that shall rule the world. That fourth kingdom began as the Roman Empire, as revealed in Daniel.
Therefore, in Revelation, that fourth beast is now revealed as being the first Beast coming up from the sea (multitudes of people), but now had evolved into a different appearance for our understanding. It appears as a conglomerate beast, having the characteristics of the three beasts (shown as seven heads) that once ruled the world ahead of it, which was Babylon, Medio-Persia, and the Grecian empire of the four kings. Rev. 13:1-10, specifically verses 1-3.

The 10H beast, since it's appearance, being the Roman Empire, has been evolving into many forms and characteristics. It's last and FINAL appearance will be a Global Economic Empire, of which from out of it, will come "the mark of the beast".

Edit: the 10 horns, though shown in the prophecy of Daniel, will not be manifested (appointed by that beast), until just before Jesus returns in all His Immortal Glory. Rev. 17:1-18. See verses 12-14.
By the way, that "woman", that "is fallen", is NOT what all of "church-ianity" guesses it to be. It was revealed to you in my post #670, of which you then joined in.

 

[Timtofly]

You are lacking some scriptural insight:
Mat. 13:34-35
34. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

What is the single truth, that is to be learned in that parable of the Rich man and Lazarus?

Scripture never called the account of Lazarus a parable. The single truth is that it is not a parable.

 

[Timtofly]

Common sense and the limitations of our minds and bodies, informs us that the book of Revelation is a collection of separate visions given to John.
It is apparent that ALL the visions were not given to him in one sitting, nor could he write them all in one sitting, with the limitations of their writing utensils at that time.

Nothing of the chapters in Revelation should be read consecutively or chronologically, according to our "natural mind", by our shallow and limited understanding of "time".
We must approach it, being engaged with "the mind of Christ", who is eternal, and therefore speaks in the past, present, future and eternity, all at the same time.
Our earthly minds simply can't keep up.
They are extremely linear in thinking, and ill equipped for the task.

Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them ["in heavenly places"], and judgment** was given unto them: [** John 3:18]
A. and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded [martyred] for the witness of Jesus [the Early Church age].
B. and [martyred] for the word of God (the Mid- Church age),
C. and [martyred] which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands [the End time Church age];

D. and they lived and reigned with Christ [in their lifetimes] a thousand years [during the Age of God's Grace].

Being beheaded was not even a first century means for the Jews to martyr people. They were stoned to death. The Romans did not martyr people out right. They turned them into slaves or used them for their gladiator games to the death.

Those loosing their heads was a battle tactic, or engagement of war where heads were the trophies of the spoils of war, to show the winner of the weaker enemy. The first century church was not in a physical war with any one. John 18:36

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."


The way John used beheaded was for a single purpose, and not part of the symbolic terms relating to the OT symbolism used throughout the book, nor any first century practices. In modern times beheading is the death penalty associated with certain Muslim groups. They are closer to martyrdom than those mentioned in Revelation 20:4.

This beheading is not even martyrdom. These beheadings were the means of salvation to avoid the mark of the beast, and as a testimony to obedience to God.

It is still future, because John was a witness to the future.

These people were not resurrected spiritually. They had a physical resurrection, because a severed head results in physical death. And this resurrection was after physical death and being judged. The resurrection was the result of the judgment pronounced.

 

[ewq1938]

I know that you and I will not see eye to eye on the following. I am only sharing what I do understand, and where I stand on it upto today.

I enjoy hearing it.

Rev. 7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
[15] Therefore are they before the throne of God.
I trust that you cannot deny, that since Jesus' death and resurrection, God's saints have been suffering persecution and martyrdom up to this day.

Don't misunderstand what I have been saying. I am not denying the fact of scripture stating and revealing the truth of the Lord's Spirit of interpretation about "great tribulation" against the saints in the "End time church"

In the days of the End Time church, there is coming, and very soon, a global persecution and martyrdom of Christians, BUT, IT'S NOT going to look like anything that popular church-ianity has been fabricating and promoting.
Their understanding is colored by a false and misconstrued understanding of Daniel 9:24-27 about "a missing week" in the "70 weeks prophecy", whereby they take that supposed missing week, and attach it to the era of the End time church, calling it "THE Great Tribulation". Unfortunately, their presentation is draped in "religious garb", having religious overtones about a "singular, one man band, miracle man", that they call "THE Anti Christ", which they also profess as being "The Beast". In all of the KJV, one will not find the words "THE Antichrist", denoting a singular person.

The name is unimportant. The part about a miracle man (Paul's man of sin and John's false prophet) is absolutely correct although most add a second man into that which isn't scriptural but that also is unimportant to go further into here.

However, we do know of "that spirit of antichrist", of which describes that which is plural, being the wickedness of "lawlessness" within all who remain to be "the natural man", UNRESTRAINED.

Now, if all of what l have just said fits to that description of your understanding, then I urge you to take time and understand that the 10 Horned Beast in Daniel is called the "fourth beast", the last of four kingdoms that shall rule the world. That fourth kingdom began as the Roman Empire, as revealed in Daniel.

It can't be Rome since Daniels 4th beast is destroyed by a coming of God, and a judgement is held and the saints possess the beasts kingdom and that beast is destroyed by fire as result of the judgment. That sounds a lot like what is found in Rev 19, which is a second coming timeframe and Jesus isn't fighting against Rome there.

 

[Timtofly]

Let's ask this question:
Are the saints who suffered martyrdom during the Early Church age and the Mid-church age LESS WORTHY, than those who suffer martyrdom during the End Time church age?
Your answer please.

Those beheaded are not even part of the church. Your common sense and human understanding is so far removed from Scripture.

The church has never chopped their heads off to avoid the mark of the beast.

Amil conflate Scripture so the truth is more palatable in their view.

 

[Timtofly]

Okay, so why are PreMils following the "concept" of the Jewish religion, which is "of that spirit of antichrist"?

We don't. Revelation was written first. They are the copy cats, not premill.

The spirit of antichrist is to deny the Word of God, not follow human teaching. Seems Amil do both though. To get Amil to fit Scripture it has to be taught. It is not from simple reading comprehension. If one has to change what is clearly written, to get their eschatology to work, that eschatology is wrong.

 

[Earburner]

The name is unimportant. The part about a miracle man (Paul's man of sin and John's false prophet) is absolutely correct although most add a second man into that which isn't scriptural but that also is unimportant to go further into here.

Actually, there really is only one that we know of scripturally. Judas Iscarriot- John 17
[12] While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

According to Jesus, Judas was "the son of perdition". That makes him to be a "man of sin". But, since scripture reveals another (or others) as being "the man of sin", "the son of perdition". As a result, 2 Thes. 2:3 should be read and understood in the plural, as there are many who are "the man of sin".
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

History reveals there are many infamous people, who have come and gone, having no hope. Even now in this life, there are many alive among us, who are now rising up and being openly lewed and "lawless". Some we may know of personally.

Every person who is not born again (being a new creature in Christ), remains to be "the man of sin", aka., "the natural man", "the son of perdition (destruction)".

 

[ewq1938]

Actually, there really is only one that we know of scripturally. Judas Iscarriot- John 17
[12] While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
According to Jesus, Judas was "the son of perdition", that makes him to be a "man of sin".

Being called the son of perdition is not calling him the man of sin.

Every person who is not born again (being a new creature in Christ), remains to be "the man of sin", aka., "the natural man", "the son of perdition (destruction)".

That is not what Paul wrote about when he spoke of the man of sin. He was speaking about a certain person of the future, not sinners in general.

 

[Earburner]

Those beheaded are not even part of the church. Your common sense and human understanding is so far removed from Scripture.

The church has never chopped their heads off to avoid the mark of the beast.

Amil conflate Scripture so the truth is more palatable in their view.

Being called the son of perdition is not calling him the man of sin.

The book of Revelation, being from the mind of God is highly symbolic. To be "beheaded" is to be martyred, killed for one's personal testimony of faith in Christ.

All who do not believe in Jesus are a son of perdition (a recipient of destruction).
2 Thes. 1[9] Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
Rom. 8:1-9
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1. Judas traded/sold Jesus for money.
2. Peter denied knowing of Jesus three times.
Who committed the worse sin?
Ans. Neither.
Both are equal in their lack of faith in Jesus. Not because of their acts against Jesus, but rather ALL ARE SINNERS, each being "that man of sin", "the son of destruction (perdition)".
John 3:18

1. Judas committed suicide, and never sought Jesus' forgiveness. Therefore Judas was not physically available on Pentecost, to receive "the Promise" of God's Holy Spirit.
2. Peter did seek forgiveness, and chose not to commit suicide. As a result he was physically available on the day of Pentecost to receive "God's Promise" of His Holy Spirit.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Judas died in the state of his unconverted being, as "the natural man", "that man of sin", having not the Spirit of Jesus.

Peter however, died in the state of his converted being, as a "born again" "new creature", having the Spirit of Christ.

John 3:18 explains it very simply.

 

[ewq1938]

The book of Revelation, being from the mind of God is highly symbolic. To be "beheaded" is to be martyred, killed for one's personal testimony of faith in Christ.

By one's head being cut off. Rev can be symbolic, and it can be literal. Beheaded is not symbolic for other ways of death.

Both are equal in their lack of faith in Jesus. Not because of their acts against Jesus, but rather ALL ARE SINNERS, each being "that man of sin", "the son of destruction (perdition)".
John 3:18

Neither was the man of sin Paul wrote about.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This particular man will be revealed before Jesus returns.

 

[Earburner]

We don't. Revelation was written first. They are the copy cats, not premill.

The spirit of antichrist is to deny the Word of God, not follow human teaching. Seems Amil do both though. To get Amil to fit Scripture it has to be taught. It is not from simple reading comprehension. If one has to change what is clearly written, to get their eschatology to work, that eschatology is wrong.

The majority in the Church age do not believe or keep the literal Sabbath Day, the seventh day.
So, if God Himself is following the 7 day x 1000 year theory of 1000 years of rest for Christians, as well as for the earth, most professing Christians HAVE BEEN out of sorts with Him, by keeping Sunday holy.
So why are PreMils being hypocritical by not keeping Saturday as the sabbath?

 

[Earburner]

By one's head being cut off. Rev can be symbolic, and it can be literal. Beheaded is not symbolic for other ways of death.






Neither was the man of sin Paul wrote about.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This particular man will be revealed before Jesus returns.

Surely you do know that our bodies were originally created to contain the very Holy Spirit of God, which unfortunately was forfeited in the "Garden".

So then, every person in every generation, since Pentecost, does now have that opportunity, through the shed blood of Christ, to have Jesus as Lord of their life, or not. And if not, they shall continue their mortal life "as gods". John 10
[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

So then, if they do not come to repentance to God, during their lifetime, they quite literally are that man of sin, the son of perdition, who is themselves sitting in the temple of God (their bodies) showing themselves that they are god of their life.
But, they only last until they physically die in their mortal bodies, thus becoming their own graves, intombed within THEIR empty "earthen vessels".

Edit: ewg1938 wrote: "This particular man will be revealed before Jesus returns".

In case you hadn't noticed, there is now beginning "a falling way first" (from faith in Jesus).
The unsaved "natural man", aka, "the son of perdition", who are in the millions, are being revealed NOW and are on the move, through "that spirit of antichrist", clamoring to be heard and ACCEPTED by the world.

 

[Earburner]

Scripture never called the account of Lazarus a parable. The single truth is that it is not a parable.

Who was Jesus talking to?
The Jews.
I already gave you the scripture about it. Either you don't comprehend it or you are in complete denial.
Edit:
Maybe you read through that verse too fast.
Mat. 13:34-35
34. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

In that parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, you have not yet provided an answer, as to what the singular truth is, that Jesus pointed to.

 

[ewq1938]

So then, if they do not come to repentance to God, during their lifetime, they quite literally are that man of sin, the son of perdition, who is themselves sitting in the temple of God (their bodies) showing themselves that they are god of their life.

And scripture does not say that. You have added to and removed from the scripture to create something of your own making.

 

[Earburner]

And scripture does not say that. You have added to and removed from the scripture to create something of your own making.

Earburner said:
So then, if they do not come to repentance to God, during their lifetime, they quite literally are that man of sin, the son of perdition, who is themselves sitting in the temple of God (their bodies) showing themselves that they are god of their life

Earburner's reply:
Interpreting the scriptures is not the adding to or taking away of those words that are written. We, who are Born again, have the the mind of Christ, and by His authority within us, He interprets those words to us.
Paul said:
1 Cor. 2
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;  COMPARING spiritual things with spiritual.
[14] But the natural man [human mind] receiveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we HAVE the mind of Christ.

 

[ewq1938]

Interpreting the scriptures is not the adding to or taking away of those words that are written.

You changed Paul's writing about the man of sin from singular to plural and inserted sinners in place of the singular man of sin. You changed other parts like "shewing himself that he is God." to "showing themselves that they are god of their life"

You are adding to and taking away from scripture. You literally have re-written scripture into your own new and false creation.

 

[Timtofly]

The book of Revelation, being from the mind of God is highly symbolic. To be "beheaded" is to be martyred, killed for one's personal testimony of faith in Christ.

No it is not.

Either one is beheaded or receives the mark.

Now you can view this as no one dying or both symbolically means physical and spiritual death, until a resurrection.

Should Christians martyr those with the mark in this "highly symbolic" landscape of yours?

"And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed."

Is that not the job description of the 2 witnesses: to kill all those with the mark?

Sounds more like a war scenario, than both sides martyring the other side.

Except the problem is that the two witnesses are more than likely doing both; killing those with the mark and beheading those who want to avoid the mark. Only those beheaded for the Word of God will be resurrected. Revelation 20:4.

 

[Earburner]

You changed Paul's writing about the man of sin from singular to plural and inserted sinners in place of the singular man of sin. You changed other parts like "shewing himself that he is God." to "showing themselves that they are god of their life"

You are adding to and taking away from scripture. You literally have re-written scripture into your own new and false creation.

I read and study only the KJV, however there is a problem.

So that you may see an error in translation, let's look at 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Textus Receptus Greek (TRG) for it's meaning, and compare the meaning found in the translation of the KJV.
Note: the words [of many]* is my insertion, implying that "apostasy" (TRG) and/or "falling away" (KJV) is plural, and cannot be singular.

TRG text:
2:3 do not deceive you in any way, for unless the apostasy *[of many] comes first and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition...
The word "the" allows it to be read and understood in both plural and singular.

KJV- 2 Thes. 2:3
[3] Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away *[of many] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.....
The word "that" restricts it to be read and understood in the singular only.

Therefore, since the context of the KJV 2 Thes. Ch. 2 is in the plural, verse 3 is to follow suit, and should be read and understood in the plural also.

Knowing that the KJV was translated/printed right in the middle of the Reformation period, whereby many were calling the Pope to be "antichrist", I can't help but think that the translators might have been a little too heavy handed with the word "that", thus making it to be singular as being the Pope or the position itself which was "that Wicked". The same applies in KJV 2 Thes. 2:8, for "that" Wicked". The Greek word "the" ("O") is used in the TRG

TEXTUS RECEPTUS of the NEW TESTAMENT 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2

This online bible shows the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament 2 Thessalonians Chapter 1

www.logosapostolic.org