Rocky,
Why would there be a doubt in my mind? That is one of the points I make in my post. Glad we are in agreement on this.
Why would there be a doubt in my mind? That is one of the points I make in my post. Glad we are in agreement on this.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
By who???Well, by golly...
As I thave shown you, this is merely one tactic used by the enemy to introduce his generic equivalent, his copyrighted New Age “bibles.” That you “don’t see any harm in it” does not neutralize that reality, but merely indicates that you were ignorant in that area. I suggest you do not choose to remain ignorant in your "personal affectations."Well, by golly, you are right and I was wrong. I couldn't find any capitalized personal pronouns in either the KJV or the NIV. It must be a personal affectation on my part, but as I don't see any harm in it, I'll probably continue, sorry if that bothers you.
Again, you’ve been presented with the truth and you’re choosing to refuse to act on that truth. Obviously, you're not interested in performing due diligence.Apparently every text is wrong except you... Everything bible related seems to be a vast conspiracy for you... it's just a personal preference for you
Dead wrong....the Lord knows my heart is in the right place and He won't hold it against me...
Yet, you have been proven “wrong” while I have not been. Thus, you are now the blasphemer.But, if you are wrong than you are calling some of God's word "from the Devil and/or Satan" and that's akin to blasphemy.
Of course, yet there is only one truth, and everything else is a lie.There is definitely more than one way to look at this time.
God commands us to execute righteous judgment. I suggest you obey him. It's time to cease partaing of the ongoing conspiracy.Personally, I wouldn't be so judgmental.
Trekson,Trekson said:Hi Wormwood and Rocky, Regarding your Matt. 13 ref. Your words:"How can anyone teach something completely different from what Jesus said and expect people to believe it? Most do though."
As I explained to Wormwood, I believe this is talking of the time "at the end of the world" which would be when Satan is loosed at the end of the millennium. What else might the bible have to say on this topic?
Trekson,Trekson said:Hi Wormwood and Rocky, Regarding your Matt. 13 ref. Your words:"How can anyone teach something completely different from what Jesus said and expect people to believe it? Most do though."
As I explained to Wormwood, I believe this is talking of the time "at the end of the world" which would be when Satan is loosed at the end of the millennium. What else might the bible have to say on this topic?
Indeed. This is shades of a new/old heresy known as preterism. This doctrinal system of prophetic interpretation is not to be confused with pretribulationism (the rapture cult).There is not end of the world as you have been thinking. It is just another way the False Prophecy teachers have been teaching another falsehood.
Can you expound on what you mean here? It seems this can be taken a few different ways and want to be sure I understand your point before responding.Amillennialism (non-millennial thought) and post-millennialism both believe that God rules spiritually through the church without the prerequisite physical second coming of Christ. This is the system of Antichrist at its very core.
Although preterists (those that teach the tribulation happened in 70 AD) chafe at the idea of any relationship between their doctrine and the rapturists (and vice versa), the two doctrines are actually closely related. They both agree that the church misses the tribulation, they both characterize the final empire as the Roman (the original and the so-called "revived" Roman empire respectively) and they are both inextricably committed to a union with the state through licensing and a politically expedient symbiotic relationship with the beast government.Can you expound on what you mean here? It seems this can be taken a few different ways and want to be sure I understand your point before responding.
And that poster is correct.There is not end of the world as you have been thinking...
Trekson,Trekson said:Hi Rocky, I see your point but you leave me with two questions. In Matt. 13:40, is the end of the world the end of the age of law or grace. Secondly, when do you see the age of grace ending? Imo, it could end after the millennium. It doesn't make sense to me that Christ would revert back to the law during the millennium especially when you consider vss. like this one Heb. 8:13 - "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
sojourner4Christ said:Although preterists (those that teach the tribulation happened in 70 AD) chafe at the idea of any relationship between their doctrine and the rapturists (and vice versa), the two doctrines are actually closely related. They both agree that the church misses the tribulation, they both characterize the final empire as the Roman (the original and the so-called "revived" Roman empire respectively) and they are both inextricably committed to a union with the state through licensing and a politically expedient symbiotic relationship with the beast government.
The previous post of mine was specifically in response to the following:
And that poster is correct.
For example, as with the well-known phrase "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (ala Mat. 24:34), genea can mean generation or age -- it all depends on the context.
Not sure I agree with you here Rocky. Yes, Jesus is speaking to Jews, but Matthew is writing the Gospel post-resurrection. Matthew is trying to help his Jewish readers understand the Kingdom of God as it relates to the resurrected Jesus. The entire Gospel gives definition to what the Kingdom really is in contrast to the physical kingdom the Jews were expecting. Jews did not want to accept Jesus as Messiah because they expected the Messiah to overthrow Rome. Matthews Gospel is reorienting them to a different vision of what the Kingdom of God is. I don't think Matthew 13:40 has anything to do with the age of the law vs the age of grace.Trekson,
Everything is based of hermenutics, so when Jesus is speaking to the Jews, he is speaking about the age they were living in, law.
When the apostles wrote the esiptles they were writing to the early Christian/Church, or those living under grace.
This statement makes no sense to me. How does "plural of uncertain affinity; thousand" = unknown number = only until the resurrection? You are making some major leaps here. The definition of millennium in the Greek has no connection to the resurrection. The Greek word simply means a thousand. It can be understood symbolically as an unspecified period of time. If you think the millennium ended at the resurrection, then you need to show that contextually. Defining the word doesn't, in any way, prove your assertion.The phrase essentially means:
"The kinship of this word to other words is unknown." In other words it is an unknown number of years. In reality it was only until the resurrection, which happened in 70 AD.
You really have a hard time changing your opinion when you've been proven wrong, don't you.
There is no such thing as rapture cultists, that's just a bigoted, slanderous statement hiding behind a false religious superiority complex that you and most KJVO share. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I'll repeat myself one more time....
Wormwood,Wormwood said:Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure what you meant by "This."
Not sure I agree with you here Rocky. Yes, Jesus is speaking to Jews, but Matthew is writing the Gospel post-resurrection. Matthew is trying to help his Jewish readers understand the Kingdom of God as it relates to the resurrected Jesus. The entire Gospel gives definition to what the Kingdom really is in contrast to the physical kingdom the Jews were expecting. Jews did not want to accept Jesus as Messiah because they expected the Messiah to overthrow Rome. Matthews Gospel is reorienting them to a different vision of what the Kingdom of God is. I don't think Matthew 13:40 has anything to do with the age of the law vs the age of grace.
This statement makes no sense to me. How does "plural of uncertain affinity; thousand" = unknown number = only until the resurrection? You are making some major leaps here. The definition of millennium in the Greek has no connection to the resurrection. The Greek word simply means a thousand. It can be understood symbolically as an unspecified period of time. If you think the millennium ended at the resurrection, then you need to show that contextually. Defining the word doesn't, in any way, prove your assertion.
Hi Rockey Wiley..Rocky Wiley said:We shouldn't tell others that we know more than what the scripture says, and in this case the Greek word is not 1000 years. just an unknown amount. We know how long it was because Jesus told his disciples that the destruction of the temple would be the sign that the end of the age had come. That happened in 70 AD.
Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Again, this is making no sense. The definition you are giving is "plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand." Thus, depending on the context it can mean either. However, the base meaning of the word is, "one thousand."Rocky Wiley said:Wormwood,
I am not a Greek scholar, it their interpretation, not mine.
Greek word for thousand
G5507
÷é́ëéïé
chilioi
khil'-ee-oy
Plural of uncertain affinity; a thousand: - thousand.
The phrase essentially means:
"The kinship of this word to other words is unknown." In other words it is an unknown number of years. In reality it was only until the resurrection, which happened in 70 AD.
Since it is an unknown at that time is probably because Jesus had told his disciples that they would not know the day or the hour of his coming. That just continued on when Jesus gave John the revelation.
We shouldn't tell others that we know more than what the scripture says, and in this case the Greek word is not 1000 years. just an unknown amount. We know how long it was because Jesus told his disciples that the destruction of the temple would be the sign that the end of the age had come. That happened in 70 AD.
Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
[SIZE=medium]5507. χίλιοι chílioi; fem. chíliai, neut. chília, cardinal number. A thousand (2 Pet. 3:8; Rev. 11:3; 12:6; 14:20; 20:2–7; Sept.: Gen. 20:16)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]chiliás [a thousand], chílioi [a thousand][/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1317.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] χίλιοι, αι, α as a cardinal number one thousand[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 408.[/SIZE]
The word means, one thousand. It can be taken symbolically..but the meaning is 1,000. Either way, the definition of the word does not point to the resurrection as the fulfillment of the millennium. You have to show how the context would lead you to believe this is the fulfillment of the millennium. Defining a word does not help us to understand why you think the millennium was completed at the resurrection. Does this make sense?[SIZE=medium]χίλιοι,-αι,-α [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] Gn 20,14.16; Ex 39,2.5.6 (38,25.28.29)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] a thousand, one thousand[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003).[/SIZE]
Is “harpazo” in your bible? Of course not. Is “rapture” in your bible? Of course not.Hi Tex, Your words: "Rapture theory is not compatible with an educated understanding of scripture."
I certainly disagree. If at any time you believe a living christian's feet will lift off the ground to meet the Lord in the air whether the duration is five seconds or five years, that is the one and only thing the word 'rapture" means. It is equal to the word "harpazo", nothing more, nothing less!
How incredibly disnonest! You have added your spin, your words, to the words of these men in order to promote your agenda.I thought it would be interesting to share some quotes from the early church fathers to show what their thoughts of the end times were....
[SIZE=12pt]Tertullian - [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Now the privilege of this favor (to be raptured)...[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]deserve by an instantaneous death (Tertullian's way of describing the rapture), which is...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Commodianus and Victorinus both placed the rapture of the church after...[/SIZE]
...just more labels, more "categories," being pushed not to unify, but to divide. Rather, stick to your Bible -- the real one.I believe, because the various "trib" (pre, mid, post, prewrath) beliefs were not yet formed they could be put in a category called, "post-persecution".
“[T]he idea of being “caught up”” is scriptural. Please stop conflating it with non-scriptural “rapture” drivel.This shows the idea of being "caught up" and/or "raptured" isn't new.