This world and the wicked are going up in a puff of smoke when Jesus come - thus negating Premil

[quietthinker]

The only sensible and safe way to navigate through the book of Revelation is by using other clear Scripture to assist us dissect it. Without this we could easily get entangled in all the symbolism and make Revelation say whatever we want it to say.

The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture. They used this to dismantle Roman Catholic heresy. They required corroborative evidence to support their opinion of any given text. This was to prevent error and to aid our understanding of truth.

Corroboration is said to be “evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.”

Yes, I'd agree with that.
Revelation is indecipherable unless one has a reasonable grasp on the OT because most of the symbolism is gleaned from it. It is also necessary to understand the way Hebrews used numbers.

Here are some examples..... seven is the number of completeness; there are seven days in the Creation week, seven golden candle sticks, seven churches, seven angels, seven stars etc etc.
Four is the number of Universality, ie, four corners of the earth but the earth doesn't have corners, it is a globe yet it has north, south, east and west.....so when it speaks of four corners it is saying everywhere, the whole planet; when it speaks of four angels holding back the four winds of strife it is saying, all the angels holding back the trouble everywhere ...and so on

Numbers in the Hebrew thought process are representative. Here's another one to chew on, 40 days of rain, 40 days in the wilderness for Jesus, 40 years wandering in the desert for the Hebrews. There is lots of use of this number.
There is 12 and 12x12

Enough! there is plenty to reflect on

 

[WPM]

Rev 20 says the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That Chapter describes the beginning and the ending of the thousand year period, from when Jesus returns, to when He hands the Kingdom back to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24
None of it is 'symbolic'.

AMill believers are the ones who say it doesn't mean what it says. To their discredit.

It is your location of Rev 20 that is wrong. From that, you twist every Scripture to fit your faulty narrative. 1There is no 1000 years mentioned or suggested in Corinthians 15:24. You add it unto Scripture, there and everywhere else.

 

[Truth7t7]

Rev 20 says the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That Chapter describes the beginning and the ending of the thousand year period, from when Jesus returns, to when He hands the Kingdom back to the Father. 1 Corinthians 15:24
None of it is 'symbolic'.

AMill believers are the ones who say it doesn't mean what it says. To their discredit.

When Jesus returns, (Then Cometh The End) there isn't a 1,000 year Millennium seen between verses 23-24 below as you falsely claim

1 Corinthians 15:23-24KJV
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

(No 1,000 Year Kingdom Is Seen Here)

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

 

[Timtofly]

How about actually addressing the biblical evidence.

Probably should remove the word puff from the thread title, and address the Biblical evidence, no?

 

[WPM]

Probably should remove the word puff from the thread title, and address the Biblical evidence, no?

No! Address the Op and we can maybe go places.

 

[Timtofly]

You realize prophecy is conditional...which we learned from Jonah. God could not fulfill the prophecies of Zechariah toward Israel because THEY KILLED THE MESSIAH AND TO THIS DAY HAVE NOT REPENTED.

All are a misapplication or violation of the chiasms.

So what promise did "Israel mess up" in this verse?

"Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

And which verse claims Israel has to repent first, before the fulness of the Gentiles is over?

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;"

So if Israel had obeyed, and not crucified Jesus, God would reward them with this promise?

 

[Timtofly]

John wrote what he saw in a vision of the future, but the events hadn't happened yet. Just like the innumerable people standing on a sea of glass which hadn't happened yet.

John was writing at the same time he was seeing.

"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,"

John was still seeing the same angel after writing down what he was seeing.

Of course they have not happened as of today. They happened when John was writing stuff down. Some of what John was a witness to is even written in past tense. He had already experienced them. He was not prophesying. He was writing during and after each event.

 

[Timtofly]

The Reformers introduced a very solid interpretative system that was based on the crucial principle of supporting Scripture with Scripture.

I think that was already a solid interpretative system set up by Paul in his letters to the redeemed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I wouldn't say Revelation 20 is a boring mantra at all. I would say however it is misappropriated and conflated with other texts inappropriately.....ultimately resulting in out of context conclusions.

He was not saying Revelation 20 itself is a boring mantra, he was saying that it was boring for someone to draw all their conclusions from Revelation 20 alone without taking other scripture into account. That person has no concern that his interpretation of Revelation 20 contradicts many other scripture passages. Which is just unbelievable to me. People twist the rest of scripture in light of Revelation 20 instead of interpreting Revelation 20 in light of other scripture.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I think that was already a solid interpretative system set up by Paul in his letters to the redeemed.

Why don't you use that interpretative system then? You have many contradictions in your interpretations of scripture which shows that you do not use this wise interpretative system at all.

 

[Timtofly]

It is your location of Rev 20 that is wrong. From that, you twist every Scripture to fit your faulty narrative. 1There is no 1000 years mentioned or suggested in Corinthians 15:24. You add it unto Scripture, there and everywhere else.

There is no 2,000 years mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 either, yet here we are in 2023.

People would have laughed at those in the first century saying the Second Coming would happen in 2,000 years just like you laugh at those claiming a 1,000 year reign of Christ. They would have said, what intra advent period? That is the time between Jesus' baptism and the Cross, not the future.

Now Revelation 20 is in the wrong location between 19 and 21?

 

[WPM]

There is no 2,000 years mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 either, yet here we are in 2023.

People would have laughed at those in the first century saying the Second Coming would happen in 2,000 years just like you laugh at those claiming a 1,000 year reign of Christ. They would have said, what intra advent period? That is the time between Jesus' baptism and the Cross, not the future.

Now Revelation 20 is in the wrong location between 19 and 21?

First and importantly: as you well know: there is no 1,000 years mentioned (or recognized) in this passage. You have to force it into the sacred text. The reality is: this passage forbids it. The end is indeed the end! This proves that the coming of Christ is climactic and final.

Second, there is no time lapse or gap here. Your theology seems to demand that.

Third, when it says "as in Adam all die" it is talking about a current ongoing process of death that came upon all men as a consequence of sin. When it states "Christ the firstfruits" it is talking about who Christ is now. He will never be divested of this honour. These are current standings it is describing. Whilst these are fruit of past events, they are actually referring to the fruit instead of an historic event. So your insertions are unnecessary and wrong. Let the text speak for itself! Whatever way you alter the text there still isn't (and never will be) a sin-cursed semi-cursed/semi-glorious millennium in the text.

So where is any mention of or allusion to a millennium in this? It is not there! The coming of Christ is shown to be the end. That is if you take a literal reading of it.

What this is saying is that Christ has become the firstfruits. This is an ongoing condition not only a historic event. So, there is no 2,000 yrs parenthesis in the read, neither is there a future millennium. Some can try and force it into the reading, but they argue only from silence.

Some attempt to restrict the phrase “the firstfruits” (mentioned a couple of times in 1 Corinthians 15) to the actual event of the Lord’s resurrection rather than to the eternal reality of who and what He is. They argue such in order to support your belief that “the end” doesn’t really mean “the end” and thus justify their insertion of a thousand-year millennial period after the end.

Whilst no sensible theologian would deny that Christ was the firstfruits from the grave at His resurrection and that it was through this act that He secured this title, this didn’t mean that it was a description that would terminate or would be restricted to an historic event. No, Christ is still the firstfruits reigning from heaven today, just like He will be the firstfruits at His glorious Second Advent. In short, Christ is the eternal firstfruits, a position that is ongoing and unending. The same applies to His position as Saviour, whilst this title relates primarily to the cross it also describes who Christ is. It is an ongoing active title that describes Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Now Revelation 20 is in the wrong location between 19 and 21?

LOL. Such a ridiculous question. That's like asking if Revelation 12 is in the wrong location between Revelation 11 and 13 since what is described there does not chronologically follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11.

 

[Timtofly]

Why don't you use that interpretative system then? You have many contradictions in your interpretations of scripture which shows that you do not use this wise interpretative system at all.

Do you have eschatology bias? Pretty sure the blindness of concentrated single vision interpretation is on the part of Amil, who interpret all Scripture in that single minded view. You have yet to prove John placed the 1,000 year reign in the wrong location, or that I interpret all Scripture because of some words found in Revelation 20. You even have to invent, or someone else did, a theory called recapitulation to get your view to work. How is adding thoughts to Scripture using Scripture to interpret Scripture?

 

[MatthewG]

According to scripture, why would God destroy a world that is said to last forever?


Ill tell you for a fact, he did destroy the known heaven and earth of the nation of Israel in 70, when the wrath of God fell out on top of them, along with plagues beforehand then rained fire.

 

[Timtofly]

First and importantly: as you well know: there is no 1,000 years mentioned (or recognized) in this passage. You have to force it into the sacred text. The reality is: this passage forbids it. The end is indeed the end! This proves that the coming of Christ is climactic and final.

Second, there is no time lapse or gap here. Your theology seems to demand that.

Third, when it says "as in Adam all die" it is talking about a current ongoing process of death that came upon all men as a consequence of sin. When it states "Christ the firstfruits" it is talking about who Christ is now. He will never be divested of this honour. These are current standings it is describing. Whilst these are fruit of past events, they are actually referring to the fruit instead of an historic event. So your insertions are unnecessary and wrong. Let the text speak for itself! Whatever way you alter the text there still isn't (and never will be) a sin-cursed semi-cursed/semi-glorious millennium in the text.

So where is any mention of or allusion to a millennium in this? It is not there! The coming of Christ is shown to be the end. That is if you take a literal reading of it.

What this is saying is that Christ has become the firstfruits. This is an ongoing condition not only a historic event. So, there is no 2,000 yrs parenthesis in the read, neither is there a future millennium. Some can try and force it into the reading, but they argue only from silence.

Some attempt to restrict the phrase “the firstfruits” (mentioned a couple of times in 1 Corinthians 15) to the actual event of the Lord’s resurrection rather than to the eternal reality of who and what He is. They argue such in order to support your belief that “the end” doesn’t really mean “the end” and thus justify their insertion of a thousand-year millennial period after the end.

Whilst no sensible theologian would deny that Christ was the firstfruits from the grave at His resurrection and that it was through this act that He secured this title, this didn’t mean that it was a description that would terminate or would be restricted to an historic event. No, Christ is still the firstfruits reigning from heaven today, just like He will be the firstfruits at His glorious Second Advent. In short, Christ is the eternal firstfruits, a position that is ongoing and unending. The same applies to His position as Saviour, whilst this title relates primarily to the cross it also describes who Christ is. It is an ongoing active title that describes Christ.

I never claimed this argument you present. Paul said all were made alive in their order:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order:"

Jesus was not a sinner, so never needed to be "made alive". You are not even acknowledging what Paul said, but change the subject to "prove" your Amil bias.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Do you have eschatology bias?

No.

Pretty sure the blindness of concentrated single vision interpretation is on the part of Amil, who interpret all Scripture in that single minded view.

LOL. You just say things without giving it any thought.

You have yet to prove John placed the 1,000 year reign in the wrong location,

I never said he placed the 1,000 year reign in the wrong location. YOU are misinterpreting what he wrote. That is the problem. And, you are not recognizing that he did not write everything in chronological order. Even you can see that what is described in Revelation 12 does not follow what is described at the end of Revelation 11 chronologically. You have decided, because of doctrinal bias, that this is the only time when things are not in chronological order in the book.

or that I interpret all Scripture because of some words found in Revelation 20.

You interpret other scripture based on your interpretation of Revelation 20. That is a fact. You don't interpret Revelation 20 in light of other scripture, you interpret other scripture in light of your interpretation of Revelation 20. Just like all Premils do.

You even have to invent, or someone else did, a theory called recapitulation to get your view to work. How is adding thoughts to Scripture using Scripture to interpret Scripture?

Scripture repeatedly teaches that Christ will come once from heaven in the future and that He will destroy all of His enemies at that time. So, you can't make sense of the book of Revelation without recapitulation. His wrath is already at hand as of the sixth seal (Rev 6:12-17). How can a bunch of other things occur after that for several years when we know that scripture says His wrath will come down at His one and only future coming?

 

[Timtofly]

No! Address the Op and we can maybe go places.

Are you admitting your title was a deception to get people to read your OP?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

According to scripture, why would God destroy a world that is said to last forever?

He's not going to annihilate the world, as some believe, He's going to regenerate it.

Ill tell you for a fact, he did destroy the known heaven and earth of the nation of Israel in 70, when the wrath of God fell out on top of them, along with plagues beforehand then rained fire.

It's not a fact that the heaven and earth Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13 has anything to do with the nation of Israel. Peter was very clearly talking about the literal heaven and earth because he compared what will happen in the future to the earth with what happened to the earth long ago when it was flooded. To take him to be talking about Israel there is a case of taking what he said completely out of context.

 

[WPM]

According to scripture, why would God destroy a world that is said to last forever?


Ill tell you for a fact, he did destroy the known heaven and earth of the nation of Israel in 70, when the wrath of God fell out on top of them, along with plagues beforehand then rained fire.

More error from a heretic who denies the literal physical future coming of Christ.