THAT DAY AND HOUR NO ONE KNOWS.

[ScottA]

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36​

Let's break it down: The setting is Matthew 24:3 where Jesus' disciples ask Him about the timing, "saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Of which Jesus gives many defining points--and therein lies the problem of understanding what is actually true--because with each defining point translations vary and can easily cause one to get off track.

But sticking with the basic point, "that day and hour"--for example--is singular, thus leading some to believe it is just one day and one hour. So far so good--or is it? You see, "that day and hour" is stated within the context of "no one knows"--"no one." Is Jesus being vague...is that how the Word of God is? Hardy! What context then ever qualifies to be described as "no one", in other words, as "no, not one", or conversely "everyone?"--The context is "everyone"--everyone "knows not" "that day and hour." You mean like, everyone from Adam to whomever is last? Yes--everyone. Meaning, it's even personal, leaving "no one" out. Otherwise, you have broken context--context Jesus stated right there in the passage...and yet was not taken to heart.

So...what day qualifies to be defined by everyone as "of that day and hour no one knows?" Does everyone know when they were born, married, etc.? Most do. But what day does no one among everyone, not know?

What is your answer (without breaking context)?​

But there is also a part two:

The disciples coupled that day and hour with "the end of the age"--the disciples did that. Meaning, they too possibly assumed they were connected as being equally unknown. Perhaps they didn't assume, but were just asking about both. But again, should anyone assume the context of the great questions of life and of God? Is that the child-like approach that we are to come as? Not if we actually want to know the mysteries of God it's not! On the contrary, we should assume nothing. But if the context is everyone, or conversely, when "no one" is excluded--Jesus did answer both issues as being on the same "day and hour."

Thus, if you chose correctly--in the correct context--you have the answer to both.

 

[TitusTwoWife]

Are you saying that childlike faith requires that we accept the unknown when it comes to when the end times are? I would say so.

 

[Jay Ross]

People usually reply with the verse quoted, and yes, we will not know the hour or day that Christ will return to judge the peoples of the earth, however, just from the Old Testament it is possible to determine the year in which the final judgement will occur with reasonable accuracy of one or two years because of the accuracy of time within the story telling narrative.

Chronologists have the years that the patriarchs, up to the birth of Noah, were born, but the years of the patriarch born from Shem up to Jacob has a 1 year error because the chronologist forgot to take into account the year of the Flood's duration where Noah and his family spent a year in the arc before they came out of the arc. This means that Isaac was born from the Year of Adam's creation, in the year 2,049 After Adam's creation. and that Esau and Jacob were born in the year 2,109 AA. After this time no chronology is given in the scriptures as to when Jacob's twelve sons were born. All that we are told is that Jacob was 130 years old when He journeyed down to Egypt because of the invitation given by the Pharoah.

After this point in the story of the bible, we are given time spans between when certain event took place, i.e. The Nation of Israel lived in the land of Egypt for 430 years. From the time that Israel left Egypt until the time that the foundation stone for the temple was laid, a further 480 years past. Solomon entered into a 20-year contract with King Hiram for the supply of materials etc and within this 20-year period the foundation stone was laid and then 18 years later, from my understanding of the Scriptures, the Temple was dedicated and God's presence filled the temple.

From that time, Ezekiel described the stream of life, beginning as a small stream flowing out from under the altar to God and at four stations along this stream/river, 1,000 cubits apart, Ezekiel described its width/depth until the river of life came to the lasts station when the river of life tumbled over the edge of the escarpment into the swamp/marshy grounds below and brough healing to the land. The 4,000 cubits can be considered to represent 4,000 years in time around the year 7,169 solar years from the creation of Adam.

This was the end of Ezekiel's prophecy in Ez 47:1-12. It is my belief that when the river of life entered the land below the escarpment that this is the time of the final judgement.

Knowing that the final judgement will occur 7,169 years after the creation of Adam, is all well and good, however the connectivity between God's timeline for mankind and our calendars today means that there is some uncertainty and if we assume that Adam was created some 4,100 solar years before the birth of Christ, then there is some degree of "uncertainty" in being able to establish when the final judgement will occur, within an approximate certainty of plus or minus of up to five years. However, as we begin to approach the time of the final judgement, the unfolding events at that time will bring better clarity as to when Jesus will return to judge the peoples of the earth.

Nowhere in the above post have I tried to refine my conclusion as to when Jesus will return to the actual day or hour.

Many people have tried to establish the day and the hour from their understanding of the Jewish festivals however, it is my view that if we know the approximate year in which Christ may return, if we have not repented of our turning away from God before that year then knowing the day or the hour will not help us at all if we remain stubborn in our respective hearts and not turn back to God.

We do not even know with any certainty the day or the hour when we will die and that will happen much sooner than when Christ will return, so it is advisable to renew our minds and to put on the refreshed personhood that God intended all of mankind to embrace. In all probability, I will not even see the end of this present age.

Shalom
​

 

[MatthewG]

Well thats what I think of it now, @ScottA.

I believe they knew when the end would come concerning the Age.

Today you could use that as a text as one to be seen concerning our death. (Not knowing the day or hour.) I use it like such today cause we are not part of that group that would experience that end of the age. It's very different for us, as it was different for them in what they experienced compared to us.

I would agree cause we all do not know that day or that hour when we do die.

I had to use Ai to breakdown a bit more of what you were trying to say. Sometimes I have trouble putting together what people are trying to say exactly and pasting it in co-pilot asking: what is this person trying to say exactly; and post the quote it brings up in more broke down form.

I have lot of trouble reading or intercepting what is being said sometimes.

It’s not modern or traditional what you speak on but I would agree with the sentiment of it being our death in these modern times.

 

[markalan]

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36​

Let's break it down: The setting is Matthew 24:3 where Jesus' disciples ask Him about the timing, "saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Of which Jesus gives many defining points--and therein lies the problem of understanding what is actually true--because with each defining point translations vary and can easily cause one to get off track.

But sticking with the basic point, "that day and hour"--for example--is singular, thus leading some to believe it is just one day and one hour. So far so good--or is it? You see, "that day and hour" is stated within the context of "no one knows"--"no one." Is Jesus being vague...is that how the Word of God is? Hardy! What context then ever qualifies to be described as "no one", in other words, as "no, not one", or conversely "everyone?"--The context is "everyone"--everyone "knows not" "that day and hour." You mean like, everyone from Adam to whomever is last? Yes--everyone. Meaning, it's even personal, leaving "no one" out. Otherwise, you have broken context--context Jesus stated right there in the passage...and yet was not taken to heart.

So...what day qualifies to be defined by everyone as "of that day and hour no one knows?" Does everyone know when they were born, married, etc.? Most do. But what day does no one among everyone, not know?

What is your answer (without breaking context)?​

But there is also a part two:

The disciples coupled that day and hour with "the end of the age"--the disciples did that. Meaning, they too possibly assumed they were connected as being equally unknown. Perhaps they didn't assume, but were just asking about both. But again, should anyone assume the context of the great questions of life and of God? Is that the child-like approach that we are to come as? Not if we actually want to know the mysteries of God it's not! On the contrary, we should assume nothing. But if the context is everyone, or conversely, when "no one" is excluded--Jesus did answer both issues as being on the same "day and hour."

Thus, if you chose correctly--in the correct context--you have the answer to both.

Mark 13 connects "that day and that hour" to the parable of the man taking a far journey:

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

 

[ScottA]

Are you saying that childlike faith requires that we accept the unknown when it comes to when the end times are? I would say so.

No, not exactly. I was framing the idea that it is not good for us to assume that the day and hour of the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the age happen at the same time. Such an assumption would not be child-like faith.

The point being, both are unknown, but both do not necessarily occur at the same time.

 

[ScottA]

Mark 13 connects "that day and that hour" to the parable of the man taking a far journey:

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

The point is Jesus said no one would know when both issues (His return and the end of the age) would come, but He did not say they would happen at the same time.

 

[markalan]

The point is Jesus said no one would know when both issues (His return and the end of the age) would come, but He did not say they would happen at the same time.

I agree with the understanding that Jesus was answerung 3 different questions in Matthew 24.
What do you understand the "end of the age" to be?

 

[ScottA]

I agree with the understanding that Jesus was answerung 3 different questions in Matthew 24.
What do you understand the "end of the age" to be?

The end of the times of the gentiles (the Church).

What 3rd issue are you referring to?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36​

Let's break it down: The setting is Matthew 24:3 where Jesus' disciples ask Him about the timing, "saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” Of which Jesus gives many defining points--and therein lies the problem of understanding what is actually true--because with each defining point translations vary and can easily cause one to get off track.

But sticking with the basic point, "that day and hour"--for example--is singular, thus leading some to believe it is just one day and one hour. So far so good--or is it? You see, "that day and hour" is stated within the context of "no one knows"--"no one." Is Jesus being vague...is that how the Word of God is? Hardy! What context then ever qualifies to be described as "no one", in other words, as "no, not one", or conversely "everyone?"--The context is "everyone"--everyone "knows not" "that day and hour." You mean like, everyone from Adam to whomever is last? Yes--everyone. Meaning, it's even personal, leaving "no one" out. Otherwise, you have broken context--context Jesus stated right there in the passage...and yet was not taken to heart.

So...what day qualifies to be defined by everyone as "of that day and hour no one knows?" Does everyone know when they were born, married, etc.? Most do. But what day does no one among everyone, not know?

What is your answer (without breaking context)?​

But there is also a part two:

The disciples coupled that day and hour with "the end of the age"--the disciples did that. Meaning, they too possibly assumed they were connected as being equally unknown. Perhaps they didn't assume, but were just asking about both. But again, should anyone assume the context of the great questions of life and of God? Is that the child-like approach that we are to come as? Not if we actually want to know the mysteries of God it's not! On the contrary, we should assume nothing. But if the context is everyone, or conversely, when "no one" is excluded--Jesus did answer both issues as being on the same "day and hour."

Thus, if you chose correctly--in the correct context--you have the answer to both.

Actually, the disciples asked three separate questions.

1. when will the temple be destroyed
2. what is the sign of your coming
3. When is the end of the age.

Jesus answered all three . One in Luke and two in the Matthew portion of the Olivet discourse. And keeping it in context with the passage and the other passages surrounding Jesus return we know this factually.

1. The church is espoused to jesus.
2. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for the church.
3. The church is making it self ready to be wed.
4. Just as the groom came to get his bride unannounced, so will Jesu gather His bride to HImself unannounced at the rapture.
5. This will happen when the Father tells Jesus to go fetch His bride.

This is the exact pattern that nearly all Jewish weddings did in Jesus' day. Hence the parable of the bridesmaids and lamps.

Husbands to be after teh betrothal would go back to His fathers and build a place abutting the family home for him and his future bride. The bride would prepare herself to be a proer bride. When teh Father of the groom was pelased with what the son built, he would tell him to fetch his bride. The groom would come unnanounced.

The wedding itself was a very small affair. mostly just the families and groomsmen and bridesmaids. After the marriage, the wedding feast was a very public and open affair attended by many.

When one studies the jewish wedding system and the church's relation to jesus, we see exact parallels in how the church is preparing to meet and wed her Groom.

 

[ScottA]

Actually, the disciples asked three separate questions.

1. when will the temple be destroyed
2. what is the sign of your coming
3. When is the end of the age.

Jesus answered all three . One in Luke and two in the Matthew portion of the Olivet discourse. And keeping it in context with the passage and the other passages surrounding Jesus return we know this factually.

1. The church is espoused to jesus.
2. Jesus has gone to prepare a place for the church.
3. The church is making it self ready to be wed.
4. Just as the groom came to get his bride unannounced, so will Jesu gather His bride to HImself unannounced at the rapture.
5. This will happen when the Father tells Jesus to go fetch His bride.

This is the exact pattern that nearly all Jewish weddings did in Jesus' day. Hence the parable of the bridesmaids and lamps.

Husbands to be after teh betrothal would go back to His fathers and build a place abutting the family home for him and his future bride. The bride would prepare herself to be a proer bride. When teh Father of the groom was pelased with what the son built, he would tell him to fetch his bride. The groom would come unnanounced.

The wedding itself was a very small affair. mostly just the families and groomsmen and bridesmaids. After the marriage, the wedding feast was a very public and open affair attended by many.

When one studies the jewish wedding system and the church's relation to jesus, we see exact parallels in how the church is preparing to meet and wed her Groom.

That's good...I mean, the connection to the wedding and the Church as the Bride of Christs is great!

That means you have in effect corrected me regarding my statement in post #6, saying, "The point being, both are unknown, but both do not necessarily occur at the same time." I had already said they were at the same time...but did not want to assume. But you have confirmed my first statement (in post #1).

But still, it would appear that you are assuming. Perhaps not. You tell me. But it appears that you are assuming the wedding to be a mass, future event. Assuming (see how easily we assume) that is indeed what you meant...in that case, do you not see Christ coming into a person being born again of the spirit of God, and the two becoming One...as a wedding, even as defined in the pattern of "nearly all of Jewish weddings" of Jesus' day?

If Christ coming into a person and the two becoming One is indeed a wedding--it comes then as Paul said, "but, each one in his own order."

@Jay Ross

 

[Jay Ross]

That's good...I mean, the connection to the wedding and the Church as the Bride of Christs is great!

That means you have in effect corrected me regarding my statement in post #6, saying, "The point being, both are unknown, but both do not necessarily occur at the same time." I had already said they were at the same time...but did not want to assume. But you have confirmed my first statement (in post #1).

But still, it would appear that you are assuming. Perhaps not. You tell me. But it appears that you are assuming the wedding to be a mass, future event. Assuming (see how easily we assume) that is indeed what you meant...in that case, do you not see Christ coming into a person being born again of the spirit of God, and the two becoming One...as a wedding, even as defined in the pattern of "nearly all of Jewish weddings" of Jesus' day?

If Christ coming into a person and the two becoming One is indeed a wedding--it comes then as Paul said, "but, each one in his own order."

@Jay Ross

I learnt many years ago, i.e. over 20 years ago, that it was often pointless to have a conversation with you on a Christian Forum because of your defending of your "beliefs," when using your "Scot A" handle back then. At that time, I had a different handle.

 

[ScottA]

I learnt many years ago, i.e. over 20 years ago, that it was often pointless to have a conversation with you on a Christian Forum because of your defending of your "beliefs," when using your "Scot A" handle back then. At that time, I had a different handle.

Then it is worse for you, for you should know better than to think that I am speaking my "beliefs." What is actually true...is that you have never liked hearing that you yourself could be wrong. So typical. But you notice that I again included you just in case.

 

[Jay Ross]

Then it is worse for you, for you should know better than to think that I am speaking my "beliefs." What is actually true...is that you have never liked hearing that you yourself could be wrong. So typical. But you notice that I again included you just in case.

And you have not seen or heard what it was that I was saying believing that only you were right during the conversation.

 

[ScottA]

And you have not seen or heard what it was that I was saying believing that only you were right during the conversation.

This has not been conversation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's good...I mean, the connection to the wedding and the Church as the Bride of Christs is great!

That means you have in effect corrected me regarding my statement in post #6, saying, "The point being, both are unknown, but both do not necessarily occur at the same time." I had already said they were at the same time...but did not want to assume. But you have confirmed my first statement (in post #1).

But still, it would appear that you are assuming. Perhaps not. You tell me. But it appears that you are assuming the wedding to be a mass, future event. Assuming (see how easily we assume) that is indeed what you meant...in that case, do you not see Christ coming into a person being born again of the spirit of God, and the two becoming One...as a wedding, even as defined in the pattern of "nearly all of Jewish weddings" of Jesus' day?

If Christ coming into a person and the two becoming One is indeed a wedding--it comes then as Paul said, "but, each one in his own order."

@Jay Ross

Well the wedding will be a mass event between Jesus and the church. That is declared in Gods Word!

Revelation 19:7-8

King James Version

​

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Jesus had no need to be born again! He was and still is God in human flesh!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That means you have in effect corrected me regarding my statement in post #6, saying, "The point being, both are unknown, but both do not necessarily occur at the same time." I had already said they were at the same time...but did not want to assume. But you have confirmed my first statement (in post #1)

https://cloud.arielcontent.org/free/mbs113m.pdf

 

[ScottA]

Well the wedding will be a mass event between Jesus and the church. That is declared in Gods Word!

Revelation 19:7-8​

​

King James Version​

​

​

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Jesus had no need to be born again! He was and still is God in human flesh!

It seems you have missed my point.

I was not referring to Jesus being born again, but to those of the Church who are joined to Him and become One in the born again process of the person, "but, each one in his own order"--which began at Pentecost. The two becoming One constitutes marriage, biblically.

 

[ScottA]

https://cloud.arielcontent.org/free/mbs113m.pdf

He made some errors:

1. The "Church" as most define the Church as not being Israel, but only Christians following Christ after His first advent, is incorrect. For He "has made both one" (Ephesians 2:14). Meaning that the Bride of Christ is the chosen of Israel, and also the Church, even beginning with some who were Jews, namely beginning with Peter, that first spiritual stone following Christ the firstfruits.
2. He states that the Church "is now in the period of preparation", which is true for now, but was also true and has been true beginning at Pentecost, as this is the joining act of the Holy Spirit. In other words, one may call the act of the Holy Spirit coming upon and into a person, a "seal" as if it is merely a promise or pledge--but that would mean He or Christ has not entered into the person at all as yet...making the prophecy of Joel and confirmed by Peter, a lie. Only one version of that is true, the first, meaning the "seal" is in fact a certificate of marriage. The promise then is rather a matter of "many are called, but are few chosen" (Matthew 22:14). Much more could be said..."one will be taken and the other left", etc., but I will stop there for now.
3. Likewise he stated that "the Church is now undergoing a process of sanctification", which again is a put-off to a future fulfillment, as if one filled with the Holy Spirit and born anew of the spirit of God is still not pure. Which is one of the great mistakes and misunderstandings among Christians, especially the learned of the teachings of men. Which suggests that there are not two different bodies, one natural and the other spiritual, and therefore the flesh body needs to go through "a process" of cleansing so that the body that dies will be the body that shall be--which is not at all what is written. Which he then doubles down on, saying that the Church "is being cleansed" in present tense, when it was stated 2,000 years ago by Paul in past tense. Then he triples down quoting Ephesians 5:29, speaking of the Church as it were a worldly structure being built.
4. Regarding the so-called rapture, he left out the "but"--"but, each one in his own order." "One" in the original language is defined, as one "individual"--thus meaning "but, each individual in his own order." What "order" "individually" is there if the rapture is a one-time mass event only in the future? None--and therefore, that understanding is completely flawed. Paul said it correctly--and it is written perfectly.
5. Then after building his own flawed, one flesh body doctrine, he quotes I Corinthians 15:50-5, as if the flesh body is glorified. But it's not, that is not biblical. The flesh returns to dust, and is dissolved with all the elements of this entire universe.
6. His interpretation then of the wedding is completely askew because he has built it on the error of his many flawed former points above. But I will say this: He refers to the marriage of the Lamb (is come), but apparently doesn't know why it says "Lamb"--instead of "Lion." It is because it is not referring to the marriage being "in heaven" as he assumes "heaven" to be--but occurs "within you"--in the form that the "Lamb" also first came in--which is, in the flesh, in this world. Wherein these lambs join with Him who has come in the glory of the Father, a Lion, the fulfilling of "on earth as it is in heaven"--"but each one in his own order" throughout the Church age.
7. Finally in the Wedding Feast he almost has it correct--except for stating Israel as separate from the Church, rather than "the two made one" as it is written. But it is here on earth--for seven days--those seven days first revealed and foreshadowed and foretold in the seven days of creation. It is only the seventh day that is in heaven (as most define heaven as not within, but only above), which then does indeed continue even forevermore.
8. As for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, this speaks--not of the future--but of those sent, some prophets, some apostles, some teachers--the same seven days, those days foretold from the beginning to the end.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It seems you have missed my point.

I was not referring to Jesus being born again, but to those of the Church who are joined to Him and become One in the born again process of the person, "but, each one in his own order"--which began at Pentecost. The two becoming One constitutes marriage, biblically.

No. Two becoming one flesh constitutes marriage. It is the act of intercourse that marries acouple. The church is espoused to Jesus as of now. OUr marriage to him as the church takes place in heaven.

He made some errors:

1. The "Church" as most define the Church as not being Israel, but only Christians following Christ after His first advent, is incorrect. For He "has made both one" (Ephesians 2:14). Meaning that the Bride of Christ is the chosen of Israel, and also the Church, even beginning with some who were Jews, namely beginning with Peter, that first spiritual stone following Christ the firstfruits.
2. He states that the Church "is now in the period of preparation", which is true for now, but was also true and has been true beginning at Pentecost, as this is the joining act of the Holy Spirit. In other words, one may call the act of the Holy Spirit coming upon and into a person, a "seal" as if it is merely a promise or pledge--but that would mean He or Christ has not entered into the person at all as yet...making the prophecy of Joel and confirmed by Peter, a lie. Only one version of that is true, the first, meaning the "seal" is in fact a certificate of marriage. The promise then is rather a matter of "many are called, but are few chosen" (Matthew 22:14). Much more could be said..."one will be taken and the other left", etc., but I will stop there for now.
3. Likewise he stated that "the Church is now undergoing a process of sanctification", which again is a put-off to a future fulfillment, as if one filled with the Holy Spirit and born anew of the spirit of God is still not pure. Which is one of the great mistakes and misunderstandings among Christians, especially the learned of the teachings of men. Which suggests that there are not two different bodies, one natural and the other spiritual, and therefore the flesh body needs to go through "a process" of cleansing so that the body that dies will be the body that shall be--which is not at all what is written. Which he then doubles down on, saying that the Church "is being cleansed" in present tense, when it was stated 2,000 years ago by Paul in past tense. Then he triples down quoting Ephesians 5:29, speaking of the Church as it were a worldly structure being built.
4. Regarding the so-called rapture, he left out the "but"--"but, each one in his own order." "One" in the original language is defined, as one "individual"--thus meaning "but, each individual in his own order." What "order" "individually" is there if the rapture is a one-time mass event only in the future? None--and therefore, that understanding is completely flawed. Paul said it correctly--and it is written perfectly.
5. Then after building his own flawed, one flesh body doctrine, he quotes I Corinthians 15:50-5, as if the flesh body is glorified. But it's not, that is not biblical. The flesh returns to dust, and is dissolved with all the elements of this entire universe.
6. His interpretation then of the wedding is completely askew because he has built it on the error of his many flawed former points above. But I will say this: He refers to the marriage of the Lamb (is come), but apparently doesn't know why it says "Lamb"--instead of "Lion." It is because it is not referring to the marriage being "in heaven" as he assumes "heaven" to be--but occurs "within you"--in the form that the "Lamb" also first came in--which is, in the flesh, in this world. Wherein these lambs join with Him who has come in the glory of the Father, a Lion, the fulfilling of "on earth as it is in heaven"--"but each one in his own order" throughout the Church age.
7. Finally in the Wedding Feast he almost has it correct--except for stating Israel as separate from the Church, rather than "the two made one" as it is written. But it is here on earth--for seven days--those seven days first revealed and foreshadowed and foretold in the seven days of creation. It is only the seventh day that is in heaven (as most define heaven as not within, but only above), which then does indeed continue even forevermore.
8. As for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, this speaks--not of the future--but of those sent, some prophets, some apostles, some teachers--the same seven days, those days foretold from the beginning to the end.

Well I will le t you take that p with him.

But as to your errors:

1. You , I and HIm agree on this, so I don't know what you are saying is wrong.

2. You misunderstand the Scriptures of Paul. For the Holy Spirit is both an arrobahn, seal and inhabitor of believers as I and He believes. Just because a work is sealing does not mean He does not inhabit. That is just wrong thinking. You do not know what the word seal means here. It is not an act or certificate of marriage the church is still espoused bt not married to Jesus ye. The church is still being filled.

3. Here I can only say that you do not know the difference between positional truth and experiential truth. Positionally we are perfect, experientially we are still being renewed. The writers of Hebrews made this plain-" He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

4. Your biblical cite has nothing to do with the rapture, but with the physical resurrection to glorified bodies. the rapute is not even discussed here.
5. You need to read your bible more. Rev. 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 lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

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.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

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.

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.

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.

All physical bodies will be raised, reconsituted immortalized and sent to heaven or the lake of fire

6. He doesn't assume it is in heaven, He merely reiterated gods Written word.

Revelation 19

King James Version

​

19 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
3 And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.
5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

This is in heaven before He physically returns to earth! As fo your lamb rebut, several times in the book of REvelation Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of god, so yours is a private interpretation unsupported by Scripture.

7. Wrong again, OT Israel is separatew from teh church and the millennial kingdom is the fulfil,ment of numerous promised made by god to give Israel a kingdom.

8. Oncer again private interprettion unsupported by the bible as written.