All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.

[quietthinker]

All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.​

Revelation 6:15-17
Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Sounds like mass suicide to me. The masses would rather die than countenance The Lamb who they think is wrathful

 

[Scott Downey]

I think it's more like the people who are not for God reap what they Sow ?

One can attack God all you want but such is not going to win out in the end in fact ! It's just so pathetic !

One in Christ Jesus can see that if you work against Christ Jesus that is not good at all in fact. it's dumb and pathetic in fact. such are Fools behind the wheel ? they will crash, because the blind are leading the blind !

I see such in a old mate of mine. he is a abomination to himself and others ! an atheist dingbat fool and now turned around to become a religious fruit loop, that is so full of nothing but BS ! only because he has picked a side to be on ? nothing to do with Christ Jesus at all in fact and has No Grace period ! just a religious rat bag ! the very thing he was against. but is just as Lost as ever ! because he is possessed ! he can not come to Jesus, because he does not believe he has no faith in Jesus at all ! but says I will believe in him when I see him.

I said No ! that is totaly wrong ! People seen Jesus in the flesh 2000 years ago in fact ! but that was totaly of no worth in fact ! who had any regard then ? look at all who had a go at him ! 99% ?

So why would it be any different !

Lost People will run everyone into the ground in fact ! they will bring about the Hellfire themselves on themselves !
When they have served their Satanic workings all will be burnt up ! Nothing left ! then Their is only one way up ?

He will believe in Him when he sees Him. By then it will be too late. Tell the guy everyone will believe in Him when they see Him. And blessed by God are you when you believe and have not seen.

John 20:29
Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”


1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance [b]incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

6 In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been [c]grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,

8 whom having not [d]seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, 9 receiving the end of your faith—the salvation of your souls.

 

[claninja]

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.


Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

According to verse 12 there are only 2 places verse 27 can fit. Either while He is away, or once He has returned. I wonder if the parable ever gives us the answer to that? Of course it does.

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.


No doubt about it, verse 27 is not meaning while He is still away. It is meaning once He has returned. There is no way possible to link verse 27 to 70 AD somehow, the fact Jesus never returned in 70 AD. The only ones that insist He did are full Preterists. Except you are not a full Preterist.


A return is not the same as what happened in 70 AD. That didn't involve the return of anyone. No one returned in order for 70 AD to be fulfilled. No one was rewarded with authority over something in 70 AD. Why do Preterists disregard details that disprove their view? Probably because that way they don't have to admit they are wrong. Details such as, in order to fulfill verse 27 He has to go away first, receive a kingdom for Himself, then return with the kingdom. Details such as, He rewards His faithful servants with authority over things. not while He is still away, but once He has returned. Details that show 70 AD couldn't remotely be in view.

When verse 27 is meaning, 70 AD is already at least 2000 years in the past at that point. We can know that for a fact since verse 12 is not only pertaining to His ascension, it is also pertaining to His return. And here it is almost 2000 years later and He hasn't returned yet. And that verse 27 can't even get fulfilled until He returns first. Shouldn't be hard to connect the dots.

The belief that Luke 19:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not exclusive to full preterism. For example, John Gill, a historic premillennialist, saw this verse fulfilled in the Roman judgment on the Jews. So let’s avoid that strawman argument.

the surrounding context of Luke 19 makes this connection. The parable describes citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and then being slaughtered upon his return. What immediately follows in verses 37–44 is the Pharisees rejecting Jesus’ kingship, and then Jesus explicitly prophesying Jerusalem’s destruction—its enemies encircling it, and its people being slaughtered. Is that just a coincidence?

Your argument seems to ignore this context, not because the text requires it, but because your eschatological framework requires it. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.

So my question is:

Were the citizens who rejected Christ as king slaughtered in 70ad, as Christ prophesied in verses 41–44?

If yes, then:

• Your assumption about what His “return” means is flawed.
• Or, your assumption on the “return” could still be partly valid—but the parable is layered, much like how many interpreters read the Olivet Discourse as combining elements of 70 AD and a future 2nd advent, as if they are part of a single prophetic narrative - drawing a line of distinction where they see fit.

 

[grafted branch]

The belief that Luke 19:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is not exclusive to full preterism.

I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

 

[Davidpt]

I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

I found the following article earlier this morning. It is somewhat lengthy, though. The article makes perfect sense out of the parable. And the way it seems to me, the only position that this parable can possibly fit is Premil. No other position could possibly fit it.

Here are relevant excerpts from that article.
---------------------

The Significance of the Parable

This background fits very well to the message that Jesus wants to state here because the nobleman here clearly represents Jesus himself. We have a story here about a delayed kingship. This nobleman had to go to a distant country in order to be appointed and then come back. That could take about three months, and that's why the servants are given a mina, which is three- or four-months' worth of income; it's about that time that the nobleman would be away. Just as the nobleman went to a distant country, which would be Rome, so the implication here is that Jesus will go to ‘another country’ and then come back again.

Here's a reference to the distinction between the first coming and the second coming. What will actually happen is that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, will ascend to heaven; he'll return to heaven. Luke makes this extremely clear. He teaches very clearly about the ascension in Luke 24 and in Acts 1. ‘He'll go to a distant country’, and then at some future time he'll come back and he'll rule as king, in full authority and power.

This is a very useful image for the reality of the distinction between the first coming of Jesus and the Second Coming. When he comes the second time he comes with full royal authority, just like the nobleman once he'd been made king, he called his servants together, held them to account for what they had done with the gift that he'd given them when he went away because when he went away, he gave ten of his servants a mina, a unit of three- or four-months' worth of wages, and said, ‘invest this and use this wisely on my behalf until I return’. A mina could create a successful business, could be invested in someone else's business, could be invested in land, all sorts of things that could happen with it.
-------------------
Reflections

As we think about the significance of this, let's just make some observations and reflections. It's a very strong theme of Jesus' that there will be a messianic Kingdom and that the disciples will participate in it. This is taught in a number of particular contexts. For example, in Matthew 19: 28, Jesus says,

‘“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne,”’ (that's a reference to the second coming) ‘“you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.”’
Matthew 19:28, NIV

It's a similar verse in Luke 22: 29 - 30, making a similar point.

At the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his throne, you will be given responsibility and authority and honour in that kingdom.

That's what he says to the twelve disciples, which is actually strikingly similar to what's going to happen to the faithful servants here. They're going to be given extensive responsibility in this Kingdom that's going to be launched when the King comes back. The disciples were often thinking about this Kingdom and wondering when he was going to return and when it was going to come into being. They really sincerely believed, for the most part, that it was going to happen immediately, when Jesus came to Jerusalem.

That's why Jesus kept warning them and saying that this was not going to be the case. He's making a similar warning here. He's warning people, ‘the Kingdom of God in full power is not going to appear at once,’ to use the words of verse 11. They thought it was going to appear at once, but no, there's going to be a time gap while Jesus goes to ‘a distant country’. He'll be back.

The Parable of the Ten ‘Minas’

<p>In the light of the Jewish expectations that when Jesus go to Jerusalem, he would bring in the full Kingdom of God, Jesus tells this parable using the political culture of his day to explain the difference between his first and second coming and the responsibility of his followers.</p>

wordonline.org

 

[grafted branch]

I found the following article earlier this morning. It is somewhat lengthy, though. The article makes perfect sense out of the parable. And the way it seems to me, the only position that this parable can possibly fit is Premil. No other position could possibly fit it.

Here are relevant excerpts from that article.
---------------------

The Significance of the Parable

This background fits very well to the message that Jesus wants to state here because the nobleman here clearly represents Jesus himself. We have a story here about a delayed kingship. This nobleman had to go to a distant country in order to be appointed and then come back. That could take about three months, and that's why the servants are given a mina, which is three- or four-months' worth of income; it's about that time that the nobleman would be away. Just as the nobleman went to a distant country, which would be Rome, so the implication here is that Jesus will go to ‘another country’ and then come back again.

Here's a reference to the distinction between the first coming and the second coming. What will actually happen is that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, will ascend to heaven; he'll return to heaven. Luke makes this extremely clear. He teaches very clearly about the ascension in Luke 24 and in Acts 1. ‘He'll go to a distant country’, and then at some future time he'll come back and he'll rule as king, in full authority and power.

This is a very useful image for the reality of the distinction between the first coming of Jesus and the Second Coming. When he comes the second time he comes with full royal authority, just like the nobleman once he'd been made king, he called his servants together, held them to account for what they had done with the gift that he'd given them when he went away because when he went away, he gave ten of his servants a mina, a unit of three- or four-months' worth of wages, and said, ‘invest this and use this wisely on my behalf until I return’. A mina could create a successful business, could be invested in someone else's business, could be invested in land, all sorts of things that could happen with it.
-------------------
Reflections

As we think about the significance of this, let's just make some observations and reflections. It's a very strong theme of Jesus' that there will be a messianic Kingdom and that the disciples will participate in it. This is taught in a number of particular contexts. For example, in Matthew 19: 28, Jesus says,

‘“Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne,”’ (that's a reference to the second coming) ‘“you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel.”’
Matthew 19:28, NIV

It's a similar verse in Luke 22: 29 - 30, making a similar point.

At the renewal of all things when the Son of Man sits on his throne, you will be given responsibility and authority and honour in that kingdom.

That's what he says to the twelve disciples, which is actually strikingly similar to what's going to happen to the faithful servants here. They're going to be given extensive responsibility in this Kingdom that's going to be launched when the King comes back. The disciples were often thinking about this Kingdom and wondering when he was going to return and when it was going to come into being. They really sincerely believed, for the most part, that it was going to happen immediately, when Jesus came to Jerusalem.

That's why Jesus kept warning them and saying that this was not going to be the case. He's making a similar warning here. He's warning people, ‘the Kingdom of God in full power is not going to appear at once,’ to use the words of verse 11. They thought it was going to appear at once, but no, there's going to be a time gap while Jesus goes to ‘a distant country’. He'll be back.

The Parable of the Ten ‘Minas’

<p>In the light of the Jewish expectations that when Jesus go to Jerusalem, he would bring in the full Kingdom of God, Jesus tells this parable using the political culture of his day to explain the difference between his first and second coming and the responsibility of his followers.</p>

wordonline.org

So the servants are the apostles? I think that could fit but in the parable there are only ten servants and at least one of those servants was a wicked servant and had any authority over a city that he might have gotten removed.

The twelve thrones in Matthew 19:28 doesn’t quite seen to fit with the parable of the Minas. How would the wicked servant fit into all this? Would he be Judas?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's right. No mention of any mortals left after Christ returns:

Revelation 19
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
19 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.
20 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 worshiped his image. These both were cast alive [záō] into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
21 And the rest [loipoí] were slain [apokteínō] 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.

apokteínō means to put to death, to kill, to slay, to destroy.

Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they were alive [zao] and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest [loipoí] of the dead lived not again [anazao] until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection of the body [anastasis].
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The resurrection of the just and the unjust

"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.
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.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection [anastasis] of life [zoe]; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection [anastasis] of damnation." (Revelation 20:11-15; John 5:28-29).

This, and a number of other passages leaves a problem for Amils. Because Revelation 20 leaves the rest of the dead who were slain when Christ returned - DEAD FOR A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE THEIR RESURRECTION.​

Not sure how that is a problem for Amils. Can you clarify? You have a unique communication style that I find to be hard to follow. Not blaming you for not being clear or anything. I'm just not able to follow your reasoning. Amils believe that "the rest of the dead" are all of the wicked (unsaved) dead from all time and are contrasted with the righteous dead who have spiritually had part in the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20, Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). So, any dead who are dead for a thousand years or any length of time before their resurrection will be resurrected after the thousand years and Satan's little season are over.

What amazes me about you is that you can see the problem for Premils, but you cannot see the problem for Amils.

Oh well. I don't find your arguments to be convincing. Don't take offense at that. It is what it is.

Nor can you see the problem for Amils regarding what Revelation 20 says about Satan being unable to deceive the nations for a thousand years. Instead you dance around it and change the meaning of other New Testament scriptures by inserting meanings into them that aren't there - just so that you can insert a meaning into Revelation 20:1-6 that isn't there - in futile attempts to "prove" that Revelation 20:1-6 means something it does not mean.

You can make false accusations against Amils all you want, but I'm done with that. It serves no purpose except to insult others. I really want to get away from that. Maybe you don't believe me about that. I can't help that. It's such a waste of time.

Just like Premils do with Luke 17:26-37.

ALL Amils have serious problems with their interpretation about the millennium, and MOST Premils have serious problems with SOME OF their interpretations. And the reason why no one can get to what Revelation 20 is ACTUALLY telling us is because ALMOST ALL THE SAINTS have serious problems with their ideas about who has (eternal) life in Himself - and alone will (always) have (eternal) life in Himself - and therefore who alone possesses His immortality (in Himself), and therefore alone will (always) possess His immortality (in Himself),​

Do you realize how you come across here? You're basically saying that Amills and all other Premils besides you have it wrong and only you have it figured out. There are a number of people on here who think they alone understand the whole truth as if God decided to reveal the truth just to them. That isn't what God does, though.

TheGog-Magog nations at the close of the thousand years are immortals who will believe the same lie and for the same joke that Adam and Eve fell for BEFORE they sinned and died (which the full details of, are veiled in Genesis). Most of the church already does believe the same lie, even now.

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
(Gensis 3:4)​

The resurrection of the body of created human beings and the immortality of created human beings is not ever going to stop the fact that the Creator is able to destroy both soul and body in the second death.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in gehenna." (Matthew 10:28).​

What is the point of the thousand years in your view? Do you think that any of those resurrected immortals who are deceived end up repenting and being saved or do they all end up in the lake of fire?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’ve been following this thread and I agree with how you’re looking at these things, the context of the parable of the Minas isn’t about the reward. What are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities though?

The parable of the minas obviously refers to rewards being given out when the King returns, so why act as if the parable isn't about that at all?

In the parable of the minas there are ten servants, we know the fate of three of them. One gets ten cities, one gets five cities, and the other it isn’t clear but based on the what the other two were given, presumably that servant would’ve received a city if they were faithful and not wicked.

So out of ten servants total, at an absolute minimum of fifteen cities were given out and through reasonable assumption a bare minimum of twenty three cities total for the ten servants. That’s an average minimum of 2.3 cities for every faith servant to have authority over.

No matter how we look at it there are more cities than there are servants so whatever ones eschatological view of when this takes place, it seems there needs to be far more non-servants abiding in the cities that are ruled over than there are servants to rule them. The average size city in the US is somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people.

I’m not sure how that ratio of servant to non-servant could fit with either Premil or Amil placing this at a future coming of Christ. Anyway, what are your thoughts on the servants receiving authority over cities?

It's a parable. Parables are made up stories that reflect things in reality. It's not talking about anyone literally inheriting authority over literal cities.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Importing your presupposed eschatological view onto the parable, while ignoring the surrounding context, is literally the definition of eisegesis.

Wrong. Making sure that I interpret the parable in such a way that lines up with the rest of scripture is exegesis, not eisegesis. You drawing conclusions from the parable while ignoring that rewards are given at the same time as the punishments is eisegesis.

How does that not make me think that?

Because the events of the parable in regards to the citizens rejecting the nobleman as king and their subsequent slaughtered, literally play out in the surrounding context - Pharisees reject Christ as king, Christ subsequently prophesies of Jerusalem’s utter slaughter and destruction (vs 39-44).

Christ doesn’t get rejected as king by the Pharisees and then subsequently prophesy of a final judgement on mankind.

I was talking about them being brought before His throne to be judged, like what is written about in Matthew 25:31-46. When do you believe that Matthew 25:31-46 is fulfilled?

Well there is,

In your mind, but I don't care about that.

but you have seemingly chosen to ignore that due to your current eschatological presupposition.

I am ignoring nothing. You are ignoring that rewards are given out at the same time as the punishments.

Jesus’ parable that includes the citizens rejecting the nobleman kingship then later slaughtered has nothing to do with events literally playing out in the surrounding context - Jesus rejected as king by Pharisees, then Jerusalem’s slaughter and destruction prophesied?

Do you not understand that Jesus had both their near term physical punishment and long term eternal punishment in His mind? He spoke about both in the Olivet Discourse, so why not in Luke 19 as well?

 

[grafted branch]

The parable of the minas obviously refers to rewards being given out when the King returns, so why act as if the parable isn't about that at all?

Well, let’s take a look at that.



In Daniel 7:13-14 the Son of man is given dominion, glory, and a kingdom. It seems pretty straightforward that Christ was given the kingdom just after the cross. In Matthew 28:18 Jesus said all power is given me in heaven and earth. This statement was made prior to His Acts 1:9 ascension. Therefore it follows that the Luke 19:11-27 parable is talking about Christ as the nobleman when He was raised from the dead, received the kingdom, and returned as seen in John 20. In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, in John 20:27 Thomas can touch Jesus; so the ascension, acquiring of the kingdom, and the return had all happened in a short time period.

Back to the parable of the Minas …

Luke 19:13And he called his ten servants,

John 20:24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Obviously Judas was already dead and Mathias was not yet an apostle, making ten servants.



Luke 19:15 then he commanded these servants to be called unto him.

Matthew 28:7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.



Luke 19:17 have thou authority over ten cities.

John 20:21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.



John was given seven cities as seen in Revelation