Babylon

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your opinion means nothing to me, and I'm sure others here feel the same.

And your opinion means less than nothing to me and I'm 100% certain that MANY others here feel the same. You are a laughingstock of the forum.

As I said, for over two hundred years Protestant scholars have interpreted them as prophetic also, with outstanding reasoning that thwarts your small thinking.

That's 200 years of ridiculous nonsense that you have fallen for. Scholars? LOL. You mean idiots who twist scripture beyond recognition.

See how dumb you sound: "They are not separated as if they are all mixed together..."

I can't possibly sound as dumb as you actually are.

According to grammar and the meaning of the word "separated," one has to be joined prior to being separated.

The two groups are joined side by side, but not yet placed on His right and left hand. Is this too hard for your tiny brain to grasp? Apparently so.

Your notions are outrageous, dumb.

Yours are beyond outrageous and dumb. There are no words to describe your notions because no one ever thought anyone could have such notions.

The only sound interpretation is that the sheep represent the nations, as distinct from the bride Jerusalem. After all they, the nations, have a place in the eternal kingdom, distinct from the bride/Jerusalem. Their kings bring their glory to the city,

Revelation 21
23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,

Furthermore, the bride is described as a nation, singular, and not in the plural,

1 Peter 2
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Matthew 21
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Like I said, you like getting a metaphorical theological trouncing, don't you?

LOL. You are trouncing yourself with your ridiculous interpretations that contradict the rest of scripture. The only way to keep your weak doctrine afloat is to invent an imaginary third group in Matthew 25:31-46.

 

[Jerry Huerta]

And your opinion means less than nothing to me and I'm 100% certain that MANY others here feel the same. You are a laughingstock of the forum.


That's 200 years of ridiculous nonsense that you have fallen for. Scholars? LOL. You mean idiots who twist scripture beyond recognition.

First, the futurists interpret the seven churches as prophetic too. So, there are more here that think you opinion isn’t worthy a plug nickel.

What is nonsense is thinking amill predates Premillennialism. As we both witnessed, the extant writing of the ante Nicene authors was Chiliasm. I'm still waiting for you to produce the writing of anyone at that time who wrote about amill. I’m waiting!!!!!!! And since Premillennialists rebuke the notion that the scriptures support such a notion, you have to produce one theologian that wrote about it prior to interference of the Roman beast putting their two cense into it, which you can’t.

I can't possibly sound as dumb as you actually are.


The two groups are joined side by side, but not yet placed on His right and left hand. Is this too hard for your tiny brain to grasp? Apparently so.


Yours are beyond outrageous and dumb. There are no words to describe your notions because no one ever thought anyone could have such notions.



LOL. You are trouncing yourself with your ridiculous interpretations that contradict the rest of scripture. The only way to keep your weak doctrine afloat is to invent an imaginary third group in Matthew 25:31-46.

If they are placed side by side, then one is already on the right and one is already on the left. Their already separated.

See how dumb you sound.

You simply don’t get is because you don’t read properly or grasp the definition, the meanings of words, let alone grammar.

Like I said, you like getting a metaphorical theological trouncing, don't you?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

First, the futurists interpret the seven churches as prophetic too. So, there are more here that think you opinion isn’t worthy a plug nickel.

Is that supposed to mean anything to me? No matter how many people believe something that is false, it's still false.

What is nonsense is thinking amill predates Premillennialism. As we both witnessed, the extant writing of the ante Nicene authors was Chiliasm.

And, if you actually paid any attention to what the earliest Chiliasts (before Victorinus in 270 AD) believed, you would know that their overall view had just as much or more in common with Amill as it did with modern day Premill. Like Amills, they believed that there would be no sin and death after Christ returned. A number of them were skeptical about including the book of Revelation in canon because they believed Jesus would rid the world of sin and death when He returned like Amills do and the idea of Satan's little season following that did not make any sense to them which is why none of them wrote about Satan's little season until Victorinus around 270 AD.

I'm still waiting for you to produce the writing of anyone at that time who wrote about amill. I’m waiting!!!!!!!

LOL!!!! I'm still waiting for you or any other Premil to produce the writing of anyone before 270 AD who believed that sin and death would occur on the earth after Jesus returned. I'm waiting!!!!!!

And since Premillennialists rebuke the notion that the scriptures support such a notion, you have to produce one theologian that wrote about it prior to interference of the Roman beast putting their two cense into it, which you can’t.


If they are placed side by side, then one is already on the right and one is already on the left. Their already separated.

If two groups are standing next to each other right in front of the throne, neither group is at His right hand or left hand yet at that point. It's talking about separating them completely from each other with the sheep being off to one side and the goats to the other.

See how dumb you sound.

Not at all. But, again, I can't possibly sound as dumb as you actually are. It's not possible.

You simply don’t get is because you don’t read properly or grasp the definition, the meanings of words, let alone grammar.

Like I said, you like getting a metaphorical theological trouncing, don't you?

I have metaphorically trounced you six feet under, so you have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

[Jerry Huerta]

Is that supposed to mean anything to me? No matter how many people believe something that is false, it's still false.


And, if you actually paid any attention to what the earliest Chiliasts (before Victorinus in 270 AD) believed, you would know that their overall view had just as much or more in common with Amill as it did with modern day Premill. Like Amills, they believed that there would be no sin and death after Christ returned. A number of them were skeptical about including the book of Revelation in canon because they believed Jesus would rid the world of sin and death when He returned like Amills do and the idea of Satan's little season following that did not make any sense to them which is why none of them wrote about Satan's little season until Victorinus around 270 AD.


LOL!!!! I'm still waiting for you or any other Premil to produce the writing of anyone before 270 AD who believed that sin and death would occur on the earth after Jesus returned. I'm waiting!!!!!!

So why do you think your opinions should matter to me, if mine don’t matter to you. Futurists and Historicists believe all the eschatological views of amills are false. Such arguments are futile, so why bring them up as you do?

Well, there you go. If the Chiliasts had accepted Revelation as cannon, which it certainly is, then sin and death are shown to persist amongst the nations, insomuch the Satan is released to gather a final rebellion in Revelation 20. As Chiliasts, they would have interpreted Revelation 20 as Premillennialists, not amills!

That’s why you had to bring up they were skeptical about including the book as cannon, because Revelation affirms that sin and death persists with the nations when Christ returns according to Revelation 20, as does the persistence of the nations in Matthew 25:32-33. There are also numerous passages in the OT that affirm this also.

The parable in Matthew 25 also affirms the sheep and goats represent the NATIONS, while 1 Peter 2:9 and Matthew 21:43 maintain the bride is a NATION.

And I still don’t see any citation from any amill before the Roman beast takes control of the Church. That’s because Premillennialism predates amill.

Furthermore, you amills have goats in Christ's kingdom, Premillennialism doesn't.

If two groups are standing next to each other right in front of the throne, neither group is at His right hand or left hand yet at that point. It's talking about separating them completely from each other with the sheep being off to one side and the goats to the other.


Not at all. But, again, I can't possibly sound as dumb as you actually are. It's not possible.


I have metaphorically trounced you six feet under, so you have no idea of what you're talking about.

Again, you make dumb comments. If they must be separated completely, as you say, it means they were mixed beforehand.

That’s how grammar and the definitions work. Obviously, you have no command of either.

But the passage destroys your dumb comment,

Matthew 25
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

The passage says the NATIONS, plural, shall be gathered in front of Christ on EARTH and THEN he separates the sheep from the goats, which means they were TOGETHER when gathered before Christ.

Of course, those who grasp grammar and definitions know the sheep can’t represent bride because she was separated prior to the event depicted in Matthew 25 according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

Like I said, you like getting a metaphorical theological trouncing, don't you?