2 Peter 3:10 The Big Whoosh

[rwb]

There will be a Day when the Lord sends His fiery wrath and a few years later; a Day of the glorious Return of Jesus to reign for the next thousand years.
THEN the Spiritual Eternity begins, for those whose names are found in the Book of Life.,

Simple, Biblical and logical. It is how the end times will unfold.

This may be what you believe Keraz, but I don't find this belief to align with Biblical truth. Unless you can prove what you allege, your doctrine remains opinion without fact.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What you are noting as progress, is nothing new.
Your scriptural quotes are not news.

Knowing what IS and BELIEVING “without” SEEING the manifestation of Gods works IN a man ARE two different things.

God IS working magnificent and permanent works “WITHIN” men, that IS unseen to the EYES of moral men....(ie. OSAS).....and BTW Falsely argued by some men that Gods “permanent works with-IN a man”, can be reversed, LOST, revoked.

The common mortal knowledge IS, “sons become the father”.
Scriptural knowledge is Jesus was “introduced as the Son”.
Jesus and His Father ARE ONE God.
Jesus “as” the Son, WITH POWER, shall rule His Physical Earthly Kingdom FOR 1,000 years.
Jesus “as” the Father, WITH POWER, shall rule His Whole Heavenly and World Kingdom FOR-EVER.

Please back up your claims with scripture. Just sharing your opinions without backing them up with scripture doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, you believe in partial fulfillment and I don't.

I wouldn't say "partial fulfillment" is the right term because that implies that it only has a partial fulfillment and never has a complete fulfillment. That's not what I believe. I think of it as having an ongoing fulfillment. It started on the day of Pentecost has had an ongoing fulfillment since then. It will be completely fulfilled once the last person to be saved has called on the name of the Lord and is saved.

For you to deny that it even began being fulfilled on that day shows once again that you will deny even the most straightforward scripture if it doesn't agree with your beliefs. Peter said "this is that", not "this is like that". I have never seen anyone blatantly twist scripture worse than you do. I have no respect for you whatsoever because of that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, they don't. RULING is peaceful not violent.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Rev_2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.


RULE

G4165
poimaino
poy-mah'ee-no
From G4166; to tend as a shepherd (or figuratively superviser): - feed (cattle), rule.
Total KJV occurrences: 11

G4165
poimaino
Thayer Definition:
1) to feed, to tend a flock, keep sheep
1a) to rule, govern
1a1) of rulers
1a2) to furnish pasture for food
1a3) to nourish
1a4) to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
1a5) to supply the requisites for the soul’s need
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4166
Citing in TDNT: 6:485, 901

There is nothing violent about poimaino.

There is plenty of violence associated with that word when it's done with a rod of iron. Context doesn't seem to mean anything to you. You seem to completely ignore the context in which it talks about Jesus ruling with a rod of iron in Psalm 2:7-9 and Revelation 19:15-18. Those passages very clearly associate the concept of Him rulling with a rod of iron with Him breaking/destroying His enemies.

 

[Taken]

Please back up your claims with scripture. Just sharing your opinions without backing them up with scripture doesn't mean anything to me.

I share knowledge of what I believe. If something I say is not something You find searching the Scriptures, ask about that specific thing.

Acts 17:
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You will never understand this until you learn what RULE means in the Greek not to mention what a verb tense is.

You need to learn what it means in relation to ruling with a rod of iron. It's not hard. Just read Psalm 2:7-9 and Revelation 19:15-18. I don't see any shepherding being described in those passages. But, do you take that into account? Not at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You need to learn how to look up verb tenses. The smiting is present tense in Rev 19,

What are you talking about? Has that already happened? No. So, it's not the present tense.

but the ruling is future tense

Of course it is. It hasn't happened yet.

meaning the ruling does not happen until after the violence of Rev 19.

That's how you interpret it, but Psalm 2:7-9 and Revelation 19:15-18 associate the ruling with a rod of iron directly with Jesus destroying His enemies.

You make the same exact mistakes Amill makes on this.

Good for him since it isn't a mistake. You are the one who is clearly mistaken. It's as if you completely ignore the context surrounding the ruling with a rod of iron that can be clearly seen in passages like Psalm 2:7-9 and Revelatoin 19:15-18. Those don't paint a picture of Him shepherding people with a rod of iron at all. Instead, they paint a picture of Him destroying His enemies. Which is exactly what other scripture like Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-9 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 indicate that He will do when He returns as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I share knowledge of what I believe. If something I say is not something You find searching the Scriptures, ask about that specific thing.

Acts 17:
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Again, your opinions alone don't cut it. Back them up with scripture if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I wouldn't say "partial fulfillment" is the right term because that implies that it only has a partial fulfillment and never has a complete fulfillment. That's not what I believe. I think of it as having an ongoing fulfillment. It started on the day of Pentecost has had an ongoing fulfillment since then. It will be completely fulfilled once the last person to be saved has called on the name of the Lord and is saved.

For you to deny that it even began being fulfilled on that day shows once again that you will deny even the most straightforward scripture if it doesn't agree with your beliefs. Peter said "this is that", not "this is like that". I have never seen anyone blatantly twist scripture worse than you do. I have no respect for you whatsoever because of that.

Perhaps you don't realize that we all believe our interpretation of a passage is "straightforward."

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Perhaps you don't realize that we all believe our interpretation of a passage is "straightforward."

This is different. Peter said "this is that". As in "this" (what was happening on the day of Pentecost) is "that" (what was prophesied by Joel in Joel 2:28-32). There's no wiggle room there. That's as straightforward as it gets.

You do understand that absolutely no one agrees with you on this, right? So, if you also believe it's straightforward, then why doesn't anyone agree with you? How can it be straightforward with only one person understanding it properly? That's not what i would call straightforward.

 

[Keraz]

This may be what you believe Keraz, but I don't find this belief to align with Biblical truth. Unless you can prove what you allege, your doctrine remains opinion without fact.

The 'fact' of Bible Prophecy, is when it happens. Before the fact, we must use our discernment, our common sense and our faith in God for our future wellbeing.
God has made the understanding of the prophetic Word, difficult. Also He has told us that understanding is hidden from the wise and learned. Matthew 11:25-26
Only right at the end times - Daniel 12:4 & 9, and only a few will know the truths of God's Plans Daniel 12:10b

We can be sure that the 'few' will not be those who promote false theories and fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

You do understand that absolutely no one agrees with you on this, right?

I agree that what Peter said in Acts 2:15-18, was NOT a fulfilment of Joel 2:28-29. It was an isolated instance of God's holy Spirit blessing a specific group. Something that has happened again in the great revivals and to individuals.

Proved by the next verses in both scriptures: Joel 2:30-13 and Acts 2:19-20, which describe dramatic cosmic events, that have NOT happened yet.
You are wrong and your unpleasant way of accusing people is an indictment against you.

 

[Taken]

Again, your opinions alone don't cut it. Back them up with scripture if you want to be taken seriously.

Again, you want an answer to something specific, ask something specific.
Not my job to guess what you want to know.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I wouldn't say "partial fulfillment" is the right term because that implies that it only has a partial fulfillment and never has a complete fulfillment. That's not what I believe. I think of it as having an ongoing fulfillment. It started on the day of Pentecost has had an ongoing fulfillment since then. It will be completely fulfilled once the last person to be saved has called on the name of the Lord and is saved.

For you to deny that it even began being fulfilled on that day shows once again that you will deny even the most straightforward scripture if it doesn't agree with your beliefs. Peter said "this is that", not "this is like that". I have never seen anyone blatantly twist scripture worse than you do. I have no respect for you whatsoever because of that.

I understand the concept of progressive fulfillment. And I admit that your interpretation is one possible interpretation of Acts chapter 2 taken on its own. I maintain, however, that when one goes back to Joel 2, one reads about an instantaneous fulfillment. does not find a prediction of a progressive fulfillment.

Take a look at these three verses together.

Joel 2:27-29

“Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the Lord your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame.
28 “It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
29 “Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.​

Joel is speaking about a particular, specific instance when the Lord will pour out his spirit on all mankind (lit. "all flesh") And in this context, "all flesh" refers to "my people." This takes place during a time when God will prove to the other nations that he is in the midst of Israel. And at that particular time, Israel's shame will end. They will never be put to shame.

This condition of Israel has never been realized. Joel predicts a time when God will pour out his spirit on every son and daughter of Jacob all at once and from that moment forward, they will never be put to shame again.

Now, while it is true that God has poured out his spirit on some of the Hebrews, even from the day of Pentecost, he has never poured out his spirit on "all flesh" during a time when it can be said that Israel will never suffer humiliation and shame ever again. This can never be progressively fulfilled over time because it involves the universal salvation of all citizens of Israel. That has never happened.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is different. Peter said "this is that". As in "this" (what was happening on the day of Pentecost) is "that" (what was prophesied by Joel in Joel 2:28-32). There's no wiggle room there. That's as straightforward as it gets.

You do understand that absolutely no one agrees with you on this, right? So, if you also believe it's straightforward, then why doesn't anyone agree with you? How can it be straightforward with only one person understanding it properly? That's not what i would call straightforward.

Let's be clear about what aspect of Peter's words are "clear-cut" or "straightforward." We both agree that Peter made a direct correlation between Pentecost and Joel. We disagree on the issue of "correlation". What is not clear-cut or straightforward is Peter's intended correlation. Does he mean to make a literal comparison between the two or a descriptive comparison? The phrase "this is that" ambiguous.

Consider the following scenario. A man walks into a bakery and he sees a very large, metal vat, filled with a beige colored substance. He turns to the owner of the bakery and asks, "what is that going to be"? The baker says to him, "this is that" pointing to hundreds of cookies just ready for the oven.

The short story above illustrates a figurative comparison between two things: (1) the batter being mixed, and (2) the next stage of the process, which are cookies. The batter is unrecognizable in it's current form. Who knows what delectable goodie might come from a bowl of batter? But the items on the table are recognizable as cookies. And so "this is that" helps the man understand that the batter in the bowl will turn out to be cookies. The baker isn't saying that the batter and the cookies are literally the same thing. He is saying that the batter will become cookies eventually.

The upshot of what I am saying is this. The phrase "this is that" is ambiguous and relies on the context for meaning. Only when we compare the two things can we know whether it is a literal comparison or a descriptive comparison.

Our understanding of Peter's words depend on our understanding of Joel.

Finally, I would caution against resting on agreement. In my view, if everyone agrees with me I am skeptical whether my interpretation is correct. Why? Because most people land on and stay with their first impression of what a text means. For most people, "straightforward" means "how I first read it."

But Bible study requires more than the normal dose of curiosity and a finely tuned sense of textual dissonance. Most people, when reading the Bible, skip over the passages, sentences or phrases that don't immediately make sense. But those who study the Bible can no longer skip over them. One needs to resolve all phrases and words that don't immediately make sense. Some Bible students, turn to commentaries for resolution, which is okay if that is the best you can do at the moment. But commentators can be wrong also.

 

[rwb]

Let's be clear about what aspect of Peter's words are "clear-cut" or "straightforward." We both agree that Peter made a direct correlation between Pentecost and Joel. We disagree on the issue of "correlation". What is not clear-cut or straightforward is Peter's intended correlation. Does he mean to make a literal comparison between the two or a descriptive comparison? The phrase "this is that" ambiguous.

Consider the following scenario. A man walks into a bakery and he sees a very large, metal vat, filled with a beige colored substance. He turns to the owner of the bakery and asks, "what is that going to be"? The baker says to him, "this is that" pointing to hundreds of cookies just ready for the oven.

The short story above illustrates a figurative comparison between two things: (1) the batter being mixed, and (2) the next stage of the process, which are cookies. The batter is unrecognizable in it's current form. Who knows what delectable goodie might come from a bowl of batter? But the items on the table are recognizable as cookies. And so "this is that" helps the man understand that the batter in the bowl will turn out to be cookies. The baker isn't saying that the batter and the cookies are literally the same thing. He is saying that the batter will become cookies eventually.

The upshot of what I am saying is this. The phrase "this is that" is ambiguous and relies on the context for meaning. Only when we compare the two things can we know whether it is a literal comparison or a descriptive comparison.

Our understanding of Peter's words depend on our understanding of Joel.

Finally, I would caution against resting on agreement. In my view, if everyone agrees with me I am skeptical whether my interpretation is correct. Why? Because most people land on and stay with their first impression of what a text means. For most people, "straightforward" means "how I first read it."

But Bible study requires more than the normal dose of curiosity and a finely tuned sense of textual dissonance. Most people, when reading the Bible, skip over the passages, sentences or phrases that don't immediately make sense. But those who study the Bible can no longer skip over them. One needs to resolve all phrases and words that don't immediately make sense. Some Bible students, turn to commentaries for resolution, which is okay if that is the best you can do at the moment. But commentators can be wrong also.

There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter that Luke records in Acts. It is clear for whoever wants to receive it. Pentecost is the beginning of the Day of the Lord coming with power the prophet Joel writes of. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was undeniable proof the Church Christ had promised to build had come with mighty power from above. The promised Day of the Lord the prophets foretell had finally come. Now all they prophesied concerning Christ would be fulfilled in this Messianic age and would not end until the final Day of the Lord came with great wrath and fire from above after the seventh angel sounds.

1 Corinthians 12:13 (KJV) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

Hi all,
I just finished my latest video, which was inspired by my discussion with folks on the thread concerning Amillennialism. I want to thank all those who stuck with me and helped me understand the topic better.

Here is a link to the video.

Title: The Big Whoosh 2Peter 3:10

Opening line: Today we are going to examine 2 Peter chapter 3. Peter will mention the Day of the Lord and the Second Coming of Christ, but his main point is focused on the believer's standpoint with regard to the total destruction of the heavens and the earth, or what I am calling the “Big Whoosh” based on Peter's remark that the heavens and earth will pass away with a roar.

I hope you enjoy it. Let me know what you think.

@WPM @Spiritual Israelite @Timtofly @Truth7t7 @covenantee @Randy Kluth @jeffweeder @Marty fox @Charlie24 @stunnedbygrace @The Light

Paul and Peter knew they were not living in the last days and that they would become Martyrs, I think they understand they were living in the last age, Adam to Noah, Noah to Jesus and Jesus and his church until Jesus raptures us then returns 7 years later. So, that is no biggy, but the reason I say this is Matt. 24:4-14 yells them when the end comes, later on (verse 6) and only after the Gospel had been preached unto all the nations, thus they knew until China, India and the Scythians (modern day Russia) were evangelized Jesus could not rapture the Church. They even all knew they would be Martyrs.

Now, as per the Day of the Lord we mostly agree, it starts via God's Wrath at the 1260 event, God starts taking back His kingdom on earth from Satan who tricked Adam out of his dominion. So, the Day of the Lord is 3.5 years PLUS his 1000 year reign on earth. This is meant to convey guilt upon Satan, when Satan's 6000 year rule of Murder, Mayhem and Wickedness is Juxtaposed against Christs 1000 year rule of Peace, Joy and Love. This is why Satan is only bound in the pit for 1000 years, he must be judged. Then this Universe is set ablaze where it will burn forever, Satan in the end wins his prize, he and all of his demons and those he deceived will live eternally bound to earth, which is set ablaze. I think this earth is the future hell. W mostly agree on the 1000 year, then the destruction of this current universe.

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is no ambiguity in the words of Peter that Luke records in Acts.

All words have ambiguity.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul and Peter knew they were not living in the last days and that they would become Martyrs, I think they understand they were living in the last age, Adam to Noah, Noah to Jesus and Jesus and his church until Jesus raptures us then returns 7 years later. So, that is no biggy, but the reason I say this is Matt. 24:4-14 yells them when the end comes, later on (verse 6) and only after the Gospel had been preached unto all the nations, thus they knew until China, India and the Scythians (modern day Russia) were evangelized Jesus could not rapture the Church. They even all knew they would be Martyrs.

Now, as per the Day of the Lord we mostly agree, it starts via God's Wrath at the 1260 event, God starts taking back His kingdom on earth from Satan who tricked Adam out of his dominion. So, the Day of the Lord is 3.5 years PLUS his 1000 year reign on earth. This is meant to convey guilt upon Satan, when Satan's 6000 year rule of Murder, Mayhem and Wickedness is Juxtaposed against Christs 1000 year rule of Peace, Joy and Love. This is why Satan is only bound in the pit for 1000 years, he must be judged. Then this Universe is set ablaze where it will burn forever, Satan in the end wins his prize, he and all of his demons and those he deceived will live eternally bound to earth, which is set ablaze. I think this earth is the future hell. W mostly agree on the 1000 year, then the destruction of this current universe.

Hi Ronald,
Thanks for watching the video. And thanks for sharing your thoughts. You are way out ahead of me with regard to your message. I need to study more.

 

[ewq1938]

I think this earth is the future hell.

Then why is the GWTJ and the LOF punishment held away from the Earth?

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Timtofly]

What, you don't agree with my point in post #457?

Please tell me what other way Daniel 2 can be interpreted except that it points to the Stone Jesus returning to Earth at His Second Coming and destroying all earthly kingdoms and eventually establishing His everlasting kingdom, just as the stone strikes the image at its feet and turns the entire thing into powder.

Peter says when Jesus "comes as a thief" the entire planet and the kingdoms therein are going to implode and won't sustain life for 7 more seconds, let alone 7 more years.

Revelation 19:15 KJV says Jesus will come with a "sword" going out of His mouth and 2 Thessalonians 2:8 KJV says Jesus will come and "consume with the Spirit of His mouth" the wicked...and Revelation 19:15 KJV also says He will come and "smite" the nations and rule over them "with a rod of iron" in "fierce wrath", while Psalms 2:8 KJV says the Father is going to finally hand the Earth over to Jesus as His inheritance, after which He will "break them (the nations) with a rod of iron" and shall "dash them to pieces like a potter's vessel".

The harmony of Scripture is absolutely undeniable and easily seen as such by anyone who hasn't been seduced by Jesuit Futurism.

The mountain does not obliterate the world. It removes Adam's dead corruptible flesh from having rule over the earth.

Besides the kingdom is found all over the world. The church has already spread over the whole world. The church is the mountain that fills the earth. Not a kingdom of control. A point where the church is every where and governments are obsolete.

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

A kingdom that stands forever does not sound like the earth exploding and empty.

The last kingdom of the ten toes ended with the Reformation. The church again spread out to all the earth.