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

[Spiritual Israelite]

The woman is Israel, the child is Christ the dragon is Satan..
Christ came and died before 12 even.
This is only depicting the war between good and evil. Its not speaking of his birth in Matthew.

In Matthew? Who said anything about Matthew? We're talking about Revelation 11 and 12 here.

Verse 6 tells you its during tribulation.

Are you not even trying to see the point or are you pretending to not see it?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

So, first we see a description of the seventh angel sounding his trumpet and a description of the events that will happen at that point and then after that we see a description of Christ being born and a reference to His ascension. So, what happens first, the sounding of the seventh trumpet or Christ's birth and ascension? You say the book of Revelation is all chronological. If that was the case then that would mean the seventh trumpet sounded before Christ's birth and ascension, which is obviously ludicrous. Do you understand my point now?

 

[St. Joseph]

In Matthew? Who said anything about Matthew? We're talking about Revelation 11 and 12 here.


Are you not even trying to see the point or are you pretending to not see it?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

So, first we see a description of the seventh angel sounding his trumpet and a description of the events that will happen at that point and then after that we see a description of Christ being born and a reference to His ascension. So, what happens first, the sounding of the seventh trumpet or Christ's birth and ascension? You say the book of Revelation is all chronological. If that was the case then that would mean the seventh trumpet sounded before Christ's birth and ascension, which is obviously ludicrous. Do you understand my point now?

I am just pointing out to you that 12 is not speaking of his physical birth. Thats happened. Thats past. 12 is letting us see whats unfolding at the time of tribulation. Out there in the future. The warfare taking place in the tribulation between God and Satan.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I am just pointing out to you that 12 is not speaking of his physical birth.

What?

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

You are trying to tell me that this is not referring to the physical birth of Jesus? Who is the "man child" here if not Jesus?

Are you going to also tell me that this is not referring to His bodily ascension to heaven? If so, what is it talking about when it talks about her child being "caught up unto God, and to his throne"?

Thats happened. Thats past.

So, do you somehow think that John was not allowed to reference anything that happened in the past in the book of Revelation? Did you not read this:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John was told to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at that time and things that would happen after that. And he was not told that he had to write everything in chronological order.

 

[St. Joseph]

What?

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

You are trying to tell me that this is not referring to the physical birth of Jesus? Who is the "man child" here if not Jesus?

Are you going to also tell me that this is not referring to His bodily ascension to heaven? If so, what is it talking about when it talks about her child being "caught up unto God, and to his throne"?


So, do you somehow think that John was not allowed to reference anything that happened in the past in the book of Revelation? Did you not read this:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John was told to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at that time and things that would happen after that. And he was not told that he had to write everything in chronological order.

You'll never understand.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You'll never understand.

I understand that you are completely incapable of backing up your beliefs with scripture and I understand that you are not willing to specifically address the points that others are making and you'd rather just ignore them instead.

 

[St. Joseph]

I understand that you are completely incapable of backing up your beliefs with scripture and I understand that you are not willing to specifically address the points that others are making and you'd rather just ignore them instead.

Show me where Isaiah 14 calls Satan Lucifer.
Specifically

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Show me where Isaiah 14 calls Satan Lucifer.
Specifically

What kind of response is this? Since you are not willing to even attempt to back up your beliefs with scripture, this comes across to me as an admission that you are not able to back up your beliefs with scripture. I think Isaiah 14 may indicate that Satan's name was Lucifer before he sinned against God because it talks about Lucifer falling from heaven and other scripture (2 Cor 11:14) talks about Satan masquerading as an an angel of light (Lucifer means "light bearer"). But, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on that.

So, you better try to come up with something else if you're admitting that you can't back up your view with scripture, but trying to say that I can't, either. When it comes to things I have a firm belief in, I can back them up with scripture. Unlike you.

 

[St. Joseph]

What kind of response is this? Since you are not willing to even attempt to back up your beliefs with scripture, this comes across to me as an admission that you are not able to back up your beliefs with scripture. I think Isaiah 14 may indicate that Satan's name was Lucifer before he sinned against God because it talks about Lucifer falling from heaven and other scripture (2 Cor 11:14) talks about Satan masquerading as an an angel of light (Lucifer means "light bearer"). But, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on that.

So, you better try to come up with something else if you're admitting that you can't back up your view with scripture, but trying to say that I can't, either. When it comes to things I have a firm belief in, I can back them up with scripture. Unlike you.

Thats your opinion and interpretation.
Where does it actually say Lucifer is Satan. You go by your opinion why cant i go by how i believe. I dont believe Satan was Lucifer. You cant change my mind by what you believe. You believe satan was lucifer i dont. I believe in rapture and millennium you dont.
Now what?

 

[Timtofly]

Where is your Scripture? As usual, nowhere. It is all in your own head. You make it up as you go. I gave you hard Scripture and (as usual), you ducked around it. There was a singular day that Jesus said the wicked were destroyed. For you to address the evidence would force you to abandon your beliefs.

You quoted Genesis 6? Which post?

 

[Timtofly]

You do not even see the difference between the tribulation of the devil during the intra-Advent period and the wrath of God at the end that destroys everyone when Jesus appears. You duck around the passages that describe the destruction as "sudden" and the passages that shows that the wicked are destroyed from the very "presence of the Lord." That is because these demolishes your theology.

It will be sudden. I never claimed otherwise. I said it would last longer than half a second.

Why are you avoiding your own point it is over in less than a second?

 

[Timtofly]

In Matthew? Who said anything about Matthew? We're talking about Revelation 11 and 12 here.


Are you not even trying to see the point or are you pretending to not see it?

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. 16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, 17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. 18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

So, first we see a description of the seventh angel sounding his trumpet and a description of the events that will happen at that point and then after that we see a description of Christ being born and a reference to His ascension. So, what happens first, the sounding of the seventh trumpet or Christ's birth and ascension? You say the book of Revelation is all chronological. If that was the case then that would mean the seventh trumpet sounded before Christ's birth and ascension, which is obviously ludicrous. Do you understand my point now?

Which other "vision" in Revelation "starts out" with the birth of Jesus?

The birth of Jesus is the same part of the 7th Trumpet account, not chronologically. But explaining the contrast between Satan and those belonging to Christ. It is an introduction to Satan and what Satan is allowed to do and not do.

It is not an excuse to change everything else about Revelation.

 

[Phoneman777]

The earth will be desolate for the 42 months of the Abomination of desolation. That is why the word desolation is included in the term AoD.

I am not saying the earth is not laid bare, nor made desolate. If all the oxygen is gone, is Christ walking around with a mask and an oxygen tank?

2 Peter 3 is physical with Jesus physically coming to earth, not just burning it all up.

Not sure why Amil agree with your point? They only see the earth desolate for less than a split second, then everything is perfect.

Peter says when Jesus comes as a thief, the elements are going to melt with fervent heat.

The only way to interpret this is that when the Second Coming takes place, the Earth is not going to be able to sustain life for 7 more minutes, let alone 7 more years.

Don't all of us agree that the One Who comes "as a thief in the night" is Jesus? Well, there's no getting around it, then: when He comes as a thief, He's going to rob the Earth of its ability to sustain life.

 

[Timtofly]

What?

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

You are trying to tell me that this is not referring to the physical birth of Jesus? Who is the "man child" here if not Jesus?

Are you going to also tell me that this is not referring to His bodily ascension to heaven? If so, what is it talking about when it talks about her child being "caught up unto God, and to his throne"?


So, do you somehow think that John was not allowed to reference anything that happened in the past in the book of Revelation? Did you not read this:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John was told to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at that time and things that would happen after that. And he was not told that he had to write everything in chronological order.

It was referring to the birth of Jesus. John was not seeing the literal birth of Jesus as going back to the time it happened. It is an historical footnote, not a part of the chronological order of the tribulation.

 

[Timtofly]

Peter says when Jesus comes as a thief, the elements are going to melt with fervent heat.

The only way to interpret this is that when the Second Coming takes place, the Earth is not going to be able to sustain life for 7 more minutes, let alone 7 more years.

Don't all of us agree that the One Who comes "as a thief in the night" is Jesus? Well, there's no getting around it, then: when He comes as a thief, He's going to rob the Earth of its ability to sustain life.

That is not what the chapter states, but feel free to put that spin on it. It says the firmament is dissolved. You cannot exist in the firmament to begin with, even now. Why would you think you could start or stop after the Second Coming? Jesus is not destroying the atmosphere, but the firmament.

Science "thinks" it has entered the firmament. Do you really think that is Scripturally correct?

Have they communicated with the angels in the firmament?

Of course life goes on, on the earth. Jesus sits on a throne in Jerusalem per Matthew 25. Pretty sure he is not wearing a breathing apparatus, unless it was built in heaven.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thats your opinion and interpretation.
Where does it actually say Lucifer is Satan. You go by your opinion why cant i go by how i believe. I dont believe Satan was Lucifer. You cant change my mind by what you believe

I couldn't care less about that since that topic is not very important to me and, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another. Did you miss that I said that? Do you not have a strong opinion on the things we talk about on this forum? If not, why are you here to talk about these things and argue about these things over and over? Is that what someone does when they don't have a strong opinion about something? I wouldn't think so.

. You believe satan was lucifer i dont. I believe in rapture and millennium you dont.
Now what?

Are you not reading what I'm saying? Again, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I think so, but I'm not certain. It's not something I would spend time debating other people about because I don't care enough about it and don't have a strong enough opinion about it like I do the things we normally talk about on this forum.

Do you not have a strong belief in a pre-trib rapture and premillennial return of Christ? If not, then why do you spend so much time debating those topics?

 

[WPM]

I couldn't care less about that since that topic is not very important to me and, as I said, I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another. Did you miss that I said that? Do you not have a strong opinion on the things we talk about on this forum? If not, why are you here to talk about these things and argue about these things over and over? Is that what someone does when they don't have a strong opinion about something? I wouldn't think so.


Are you not reading what I'm saying? Again, I don't have a strong opinion on whether Satan was Lucifer or not. I think so, but I'm not certain. It's not something I would spend time debating other people about because I don't care enough about it and don't have a strong enough opinion about it like I do the things we normally talk about on this forum.

Do you not have a strong belief in a pre-trib rapture and premillennial return of Christ? If not, then why do you spend so much time debating those topics?

I think he is trying to justify the fact that the Pretrib rapture is not in the Bible, and also the thousand years cannot be found outside Revelation 20, by using other irrelevant and unrelated arguments.

 

[Phoneman777]

That is not what the chapter states, but feel free to put that spin on it. It says the firmament is dissolved. You cannot exist in the firmament to begin with, even now. Why would you think you could start or stop after the Second Coming? Jesus is not destroying the atmosphere, but the firmament.

Science "thinks" it has entered the firmament. Do you really think that is Scripturally correct?

Have they communicated with the angels in the firmament?

Of course life goes on, on the earth. Jesus sits on a throne in Jerusalem per Matthew 25. Pretty sure he is not wearing a breathing apparatus, unless it was built in heaven.

If all the elements melt with fervent heat, doesn't that include the elements that make up the atmosphere?

 

[WPM]

If all the elements melt with fervent heat, doesn't that include the elements that make up the atmosphere?

Can I answer that? Yes it does!

 

[Phoneman777]

It was referring to the birth of Jesus. John was not seeing the literal birth of Jesus as going back to the time it happened. It is an historical footnote, not a part of the chronological order of the tribulation.

I agree it refers to His birth, but could also refer to the birth of Christianity, against which the devil came with violence to destroy as soon as Jesus left for heaven.

 

[Timtofly]

If all the elements melt with fervent heat, doesn't that include the elements that make up the atmosphere?

Only if it suits your eschatology.

Amil claim It is all gone, and the NHNE are instantly in place.

You claim no one can live on the earth for 1,000 years.

I am pointing out that the atmosphere is still there, and Jesus is still descending in the sky as promised in Acts 1.

"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 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."

There will still be clouds in the sky when Jesus returns. What is dissolved is the firmament God put in place, called heaven.

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

There was water under the firmament and water above the firmament. How is there water above the firmament in today's topology? How far away is all that water, and why has no one found oceans of water above the firmament like there is under the firmament? So that which held all that water above us will dissolve. Nothing is said about the atmosphere of the earth itself, which is breathable, and not the firmament.

The firmament does not burn up, the works on earth do.


"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

The elements melting with fervent heat is not necessarily the same as wooden logs burning in a pit of fire. Peter said the firmament passes away with a loud bang. John said:

"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together."

So the firmament makes a loud sound and rolls up like a scroll that makes it look like it passed away. Many claim the entire universe burns up. That is not how it is worded. Passing away and being rolled up does not have to involve fire at all.

Does no one pay attention to the details, and only repeat the same "being burned up" point, because they are afraid to change what they were taught?

Melting with a fervent heat can be fire, but it can also be the elements dissolving into nothing which requires a lot of heat. Still all a part of the firmament and not the water below, nor the earth.

And the earth also, also does what? It never states the earth is melted. It never states the earth is burned up. It does not say the earth is dissolved nor rolled away like a scroll. If the earth is still here, and it is, then what happens to the earth? The works thereof are burned up. Now we see the cleansing fire.

Why does every one seem to apply the works being burned up back onto the firmament? Now you place the earth's breathable air back into the firmament itself. Now if you claim the earth is still here, it cannot be both not here and here at the same time.

Peter is either saying the earth and it's works are burned up and no more, or Peter is contrasting the earth and the firmament, where one is gone and the other, just the works are gone.

In the Greek it reads:

"Earth and the works in it not will be found."


It does not even mention fire. Yet all translations, including Young's literal were not even literal word for word translations. It can be assumed that since Peter was contrasting the Flood and water with the Second Coming and fire, that fire is the reason why the works are not found.

The question is still, is the earth even found? Some will say yes, and some will say no, to suit their eschatology. To be far, Peter goes on in verse 12 as a repeat, and does state:

"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?"

This time the earth is left out of the picture. The word fire is in this verse. Yet that still does not mean we can create a whole doctrine around this set of 4 or 5 verses.

The earth will be desolate up until the battle of Armageddon. But the reign of Jesus on earth, starts out at the 6th Seal. After the battle of Armageddon, will be when there is a new heaven and earth per Isaiah 65. Jesus does reign as King in Jerusalem for a thousand years. Jesus reigns while the earth is subdued, and then hands back a perfect creation at the end.