The Church Is The Israel Of God, Children Of The Promised Seed

[ewq1938]

Jesus "Destroys" the wicked with a rod of iron at his return

No, he doesn't. He rules them with the rod and rule means to take care of someone like a shepherd taking care of this sheep.

G4165
ποιμαίνω
poimainō
poy-mah'ee-no
From G4166; to tend as a shepherd (or figuratively superviser): - feed (cattle), rule.
Total KJV occurrences: 11

Are Amills allergic to concordances? They never seem to ever look up the meaning of words or check verb tenses.

 

[Truth7t7]

No, he doesn't. He rules them with the rod and rule means to take care of someone like a shepherd taking care of this sheep.

G4165
ποιμαίνω
poimainō
poy-mah'ee-no
From G4166; to tend as a shepherd (or figuratively superviser): - feed (cattle), rule.
Total KJV occurrences: 11

Are Amills allergic to concordances? They never seem to ever look up the meaning of words or check verb tenses.

Jesus Christ will destroy the wicked at his return, as a potter destroys his vessels with a rod of iron, before your eyes, read it real slow

Jesus Is The Lord

Psalm 2:9KJV
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Revelation 2:27KJV
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 19:15KJV
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus Christ will destroy the wicked at his return, as a potter destroys his vessels with a rod of iron, before your eyes, read it real slow

You are the one ignoring the future verb tense of rule and what the word rule even means. That's a terrible way to approach the scripture.

 

[robert derrick]

Actually, some of the new testament scribes quoted from apocryphal works, but those works themselves are not in the canon. Even the gospels quote at least one prophecy that isn't found in the books of the Old Testament.

True, but once God has something written as Scripture by prophet or apostle, then that is Scripture and true.

Jude's quote of Enoch confirms Enoch prophesied truly. And whether the book of Enoch was written with that prophecy before jude quoted it, is debatable, but once God had Jude write, we all now know it to be Scripture of truth.

The perfect trust I have that all the Bible as I have it is all Scripture of God, written by prophets and apostles, and preserved as such to this day.

I know this, because the Bible I have is perfectly true in every detail, without any contradiction or falsehood of fact.

 

[robert derrick]

Yes and the verb "rule" is written in the future tense meaning the rule over the nations takes place after Armageddon. It's the only verb in that verse that is in the future tense. The rest are present tense.

Good point. I hadn't noticed that.

And so, it is even clearer this cannot be some spiritualized current reign of Christ and His saints on earth.

'Them' must be the remnant of them alive on earth after the resurrection and day of the Lord's warfare at His second coming.

There will be no annihilation of all peoples and tribes at that time.

 

[robert derrick]

Jesus "Destroys" the wicked with a rod of iron at his return, he dosent sit on a throne, in a man made fabricated Millennium on this Earth as suggested

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire (The End)

Revelation 19:15KJV
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

You didn't answer the question of 'them. And so, until you do, I'll count your theory as false.

 

[robert derrick]

Jesus "Destroys" the wicked with a rod of iron at his return,

Scripture says rule over and feed as a shepherd with rod of iron.

Once Scripture is changed to fit a teaching, the teaching is obviously false.

he dosent sit on a throne

Scripture never says He does, but with His glory He only enters the temple and roars out of Zion. He hasn't done that yet. The resurrected Lord of glory doesn't need a throne on earth to sit on in order to rule over it. The only throne Scripture says He sits on is in heaven.

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire.

And this prophecy in Peter is confirmed in Revelation at the end of His reign on earth.

I'm not really sure why certain people don't like the idea of the returned Lord reigning Personally over earth with His glorified saints, but Scripture says He will, and so I have no personal problem with it.

I Agree, Its Millennialism's propaganda, where ethnic Jews will be ruling the earth from Jerusalem in a rebuilt temple, it's 100% "Zionist" deception in propaganda.

I see now. It's a Zionist plot. Right.

And the temple will not be rebuilt, nor will it be with man's hands. The temple of God in Rev 11 is not a building made of wicked and blind hands and then called God's temple by God.

The temple in Ezekiel is measured by a man, built is not built by man on earth. It will probably be the temple that is waiting in heaven even now in Rev 11:9.

God shouldn't have a problem bring His own temple with Him, and Scripture in the OT and NT says He comes in a cloud, with His own temple. He steps on the mount to cleave it in two, with His temple planted right there.

Scripture teaches Jesus Christ returns in the resurrection of all and final judgement (The End) it's that simple

'All' who? It's called the First Resurrection for a reason.

 

[robert derrick]

The possibility I'm referring to concerns this:

Here are the scriptures I referred to that all coincide about Jesus' return:
Matthew 24:29-31
Isaiah 13:9-11
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
1 Corinthians 15:23-26
2 Peter 3:10-11

They do not allow for the possibility that there will be anybody on the physical earth, much less two divisions of Israel.

Then you'll need to answer the same question:

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Until you show 'them' is not the remnant of the earth not slain in the day of the Lord's battle on earth, then you'll need to reconsider your reading of the verses you site.

As another person pointed out, smiting and treading is in present tense at the time, while shall rule is future tense after smiting and treading.

And nowhere does Scripture say this great day is a destruction of all people on earth, unless someone misreads Peter, by not caring for Scripture confirm it at the end of the Lord's reign on earth.

 

[GEN2REV]

Then you'll need to answer the same question:

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Until you show 'them' is not the remnant of the earth not slain in the day of the Lord's battle on earth, then you'll need to reconsider your reading of the verses you site.

As another person pointed out, smiting and treading is in present tense at the time, while shall rule is future tense after smiting and treading.

And nowhere does Scripture say this great day is a destruction of all people on earth, unless someone misreads Peter, by not caring for Scripture confirm it at the end of the Lord's reign on earth.

Robert, ... that verse you cited is Revelation 19:15. You are pulling from the same book that gives the erroneous interpretations of Rev. 20:1-7 that so many have mistaken for a legitimate doctrine of the Millennium.

The entire book contradicts Rev. 20 repeatedly, before and after that chapter, and the very point you are trying to make is contradicted at the end of the chapter that contains the verse you cited.

"And the remnant were slain by the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."
Revelation 19:21

Is ... that the remnant you were referring to? They're pretty dead before chapter 20 even begins if you wish to take Revelation literally and from a linear perspective.

And if they were slain by that individual, that means they were slain by Jesus upon His return; shown here:
Matthew 24:29-31
Isaiah 13:9-11
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

 

[michaelvpardo]

True, but once God has something written as Scripture by prophet or apostle, then that is Scripture and true.

Jude's quote of Enoch confirms Enoch prophesied truly. And whether the book of Enoch was written with that prophecy before jude quoted it, is debatable, but once God had Jude write, we all now know it to be Scripture of truth.

The perfect trust I have that all the Bible as I have it is all Scripture of God, written by prophets and apostles, and preserved as such to this day.

I know this, because the Bible I have is perfectly true in every detail, without any contradiction or falsehood of fact.

The scriptures are the word of God, but the cannon was determined by church council and accepted doctrine. There are two apocryphal works in the Catholic Bibles that were rejected as Canon, but I didn't see anything in them that was actually contrary to sound doctrine, just negative statements about King Solomon. I might have missed something in my reading (which was at least two decades ago), but Solomon had huge issues revealed in the Canon of scripture, indulged in idolatry for the sake of his many wives (which the kings of Israel were not supposed to accumulate), and it isn't at all clear that he ever was restored from his apostasy.

I trust that the revelation of God is complete in the person of His Son, but I'm not so convinced that the cannon is complete because I've never seen the hundreds of writings held by the church and not accepted as scripture. Human consensus has never dictated truth, and it's clear that some church leadership in the past has been self serving and untrustworthy. The only difference between now and as little as a few hundred years ago, is that people who question church doctrine are no longer executed as heretics.

 

[ewq1938]

Good point. I hadn't noticed that.

And so, it is even clearer this cannot be some spiritualized current reign of Christ and His saints on earth.

'Them' must be the remnant of them alive on earth after the resurrection and day of the Lord's warfare at His second coming.

There will be no annihilation of all peoples and tribes at that time.

Correct. The ending of Revelation 2 also has a verb in the future tense, a rule after the second coming.

 

[ewq1938]

"And the remnant were slain by the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."
Revelation 19:21

Is ... that the remnant you were referring to? They're pretty dead before chapter 20 even begins if you wish to take Revelation literally and from a linear perspective.

That's referring to the rest of the army at Armageddon. That's who is slain by Christ. The civilians of the beast's empire are the ones ruled over. You are ignoring the verb rule is in the future tense and what the word rule means.

 

[Truth7t7]

Jesus "Destroys" the wicked with a rod of iron at his return,

Scripture says rule over and feed as a shepherd with rod of iron.

Once Scripture is changed to fit a teaching, the teaching is obviously false.

he dosent sit on a throne

Scripture never says He does, but with His glory He only enters the temple and roars out of Zion. He hasn't done that yet. The resurrected Lord of glory doesn't need a throne on earth to sit on in order to rule over it. The only throne Scripture says He sits on is in heaven.

Jesus returns in fire and final judgement, dissolving this earth by fire.

And this prophecy in Peter is confirmed in Revelation at the end of His reign on earth.

I'm not really sure why certain people don't like the idea of the returned Lord reigning Personally over earth with His glorified saints, but Scripture says He will, and so I have no personal problem with it.

I Agree, Its Millennialism's propaganda, where ethnic Jews will be ruling the earth from Jerusalem in a rebuilt temple, it's 100% "Zionist" deception in propaganda.

I see now. It's a Zionist plot. Right.

And the temple will not be rebuilt, nor will it be with man's hands. The temple of God in Rev 11 is not a building made of wicked and blind hands and then called God's temple by God.

The temple in Ezekiel is measured by a man, built is not built by man on earth. It will probably be the temple that is waiting in heaven even now in Rev 11:9.

God shouldn't have a problem bring His own temple with Him, and Scripture in the OT and NT says He comes in a cloud, with His own temple. He steps on the mount to cleave it in two, with His temple planted right there.

Scripture teaches Jesus Christ returns in the resurrection of all and final judgement (The End) it's that simple

'All' who? It's called the First Resurrection for a reason.

There is one future resurrection of "All" There are (Two) resurrections on this (Last Day) the righteous are blessed to be in the (First Resurrection) to eternal life, on such the (Second Death) resurrection has no power.

1.) (First Resurrection) To Life
2.) (Second Death) Resurrection To Damnation

Revelation 20:6KJV
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The (Last Day) Resurrection Of All Below

John 5:28-29KJV
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 6:39-40KJV
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

1 Corinthians 15:21-24KJV
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
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.

The (Last Day) Judgement

John 12:48KJV
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

[ewq1938]

There is one future resurrection of "All" There are (Two) resurrections on this (Last Day) the righteous are blessed to be in the (First Resurrection) to eternal life, on such the (Second Death) resurrection has no power.

Amills rarely quote Revelation and you also didn't. Revelation 20 is the only book to tell us how much time is between the resurrection of the saved VS. the resurrection of the unsaved. It shows that there is a thousand years inbetween the two mass resurrections.

Rev 20 speaks of two groups of the dead that resurrect/live again.

The first resurrection is the resurrection of this first group of the dead because they resurrect first. The rest have to wait for their resurrection:

"the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5)

This is the last resurrection of those who are dead. One group resurrected and "the rest" or the remaining ones did not resurrect when the others did.

This proves they partake of the second resurrection also known as the last resurrection because no one is still physically dead after they "live again". This proves without a doubt that there are two separate days of resurrections separated by a thousand years.

The first group resurrects before the thousand years begins and the second/last group resurrects after the end of the thousand years.

 

[GEN2REV]

Amills rarely quote Revelation and you also didn't. Revelation 20 is the only book to tell us how much time is between the resurrection of the saved VS. the resurrection of the unsaved. It shows that there is a thousand years inbetween the two mass resurrections.

Rev 20 speaks of two groups of the dead that resurrect/live again.

The first resurrection is the resurrection of this first group of the dead because they resurrect first. The rest have to wait for their resurrection:

"the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" (Rev 20:5)

This is the last resurrection of those who are dead. One group resurrected and "the rest" or the remaining ones did not resurrect when the others did.

This proves they partake of the second resurrection also known as the last resurrection because no one is still physically dead after they "live again". This proves without a doubt that there are two separate days of resurrections separated by a thousand years.

The first group resurrects before the thousand years begins and the second/last group resurrects after the end of the thousand years.

With respect, what you're ignoring though, like all pre-mil advocates, is that this thousand years you speak of is found literally nowhere in the Bible besides 7 consecutive verses in a book that is highly symbolic, made up of visions and signs - which Jesus Himself declares to be such in Rev. 1:1.

You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture. It must be supported elsewhere in the Bible. And not only that, but this concept of the thousand years is proven to be non-literal, and non-linear, by many chapters of the Book of Revelation itself.

So this very popular and trendy claim that you're making, as if scripture makes it absolutely clear, is completely illegitimate as a bona fide Biblical doctrine. Despite its widely-held belief in modern Christendom, it is completely unfounded.

 

[ewq1938]

With respect, what you're ignoring though, like all pre-mil advocates, is that this thousand years you speak of is found literally nowhere in the Bible besides 7 consecutive verses in a book that is highly symbolic, made up of visions and signs - which Jesus Himself declares to be such in Rev. 1:1.

This is not evidence of anything. There is one verse that says He will split the Mt of Olives in two, but that is never repeated anywhere else in the bible. Is that verse not true in your opinion because it appears no where else?

Besides, the Millennium's events are mentioned elsewhere in scripture like in Daniel when some lives are prolonged after the ten horns beast is burned and destroyed. That matches Revelation 19 when the beast is burned and destroyed and the nations lives are prolonged in the thousand years.

You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture.

Yes you can but that doesn't even apply to the Millennium, see above.

It must be supported elsewhere in the Bible. And not only that, but this concept of the thousand years is proven to be non-literal, and non-linear, by many chapters of the Book of Revelation itself.

LOL

You just said, "You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture." and then you repeat your own concept of the thousand years! That's the very definition of hypocrisy!

The thousand years is a literal and exact period of time.

 

[GEN2REV]

This is not evidence of anything. There is one verse that says He will split the Mt of Olives in two, but that is never repeated anywhere else in the bible. Is that verse not true in your opinion because it appears no where else?

Wrong.

It's from Zechariah 14:4 and it is confirmed by Acts 1:11.

Besides, the Millennium's events are mentioned elsewhere in scripture like in Daniel when some lives are prolonged after the ten horns beast is burned and destroyed. That matches Revelation 19 when the beast is burned and destroyed and the nations lives are prolonged in the thousand years.

Wrong.

Daniel doesn't mention the 1,000 years.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to post exact verses to be discussed. You threw out the random verse about the Mt. of Olives and the Daniel reference. That wasn't an accident on your part.

You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture.

Yes you can but that doesn't even apply to the Millennium, see above.

Oh, ok. If you say so then.

It must be supported elsewhere in the Bible. And not only that, but this concept of the thousand years is proven to be non-literal, and non-linear, by many chapters of the Book of Revelation itself.

LOL

You just said, "You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture." and then you repeat your own concept of the thousand years! That's the very definition of hypocrisy!

My own concept? Ok.

The thousand years is a literal and exact period of time.

From a book that is plainly NOT literal and NOT exact.

Ok then.

You're obviously not a serious contender in this debate.

God bless.

 

[ewq1938]

Wrong.

It's from Zechariah 14:4 and it is confirmed by Acts 1:11.Wrong.

Nope, you are the one who is wrong. It says nothing about rising out of middle of the Mt of Olives.

He was not on Mt of Olives when he ascended.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great

Here we see that they went to Bethany and he ascended there, which is a mile from the Mount of Olives and about 2 miles from Jerusalem.

Daniel doesn't mention the 1,000 years.

He mentions something that happens in the thousand years. I was clear about that so this part is irrelevant.

You're obviously not a serious contender in this debate.

God bless.

You are talking about yourself.

 

[GEN2REV]

He was not on Mt of Olives when he ascended,

"... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, ..."
Acts 1:11-12

He (Daniel) mentions something that happens in the thousand years. I was clear about that so this part is irrelevant.

It cannot be irrelevant that Daniel doesn't specifically mention a 1,000 year period of time because it is the entire point of our current debate. That being the 1,000 years of Rev. 20 is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture.

Wrong and wrong.

 

[robert derrick]

Robert, ... that verse you cited is Revelation 19:15. You are pulling from the same book that gives the erroneous interpretations of Rev. 20:1-7 that so many have mistaken for a legitimate doctrine of the Millennium.

The entire book contradicts Rev. 20 repeatedly, before and after that chapter, and the very point you are trying to make is contradicted at the end of the chapter that contains the verse you cited.

"And the remnant were slain by the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."
Revelation 19:21

Is ... that the remnant you were referring to? They're pretty dead before chapter 20 even begins if you wish to take Revelation literally and from a linear perspective.

And if they were slain by that individual, that means they were slain by Jesus upon His return; shown here:
Matthew 24:29-31
Isaiah 13:9-11
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

"And the remnant were slain by the sword of Him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of His mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."
Revelation 19:21

Is ... that the remnant you were referring to?

Now, this is a most excellent attempt to refute and correct with Scripture. I truly do applaud your sincerity toward the truth.

Most people simply bypass any Scriptural challenges to what they like to believe, and never take the time to seriously deal with any correction of any sort.

Well done!

And as the man Shane said: "You had me snortin son."

However, the remnant in 19:21 cannot be the remnant of 19:15.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Clearly, He will rule the remnant of people on earth, as a Shepherd with rod of iron, that are not slain at the battleground of one specific gathering place on earth: Armageddon.

Every eye shall see Him at His coming again, but every eye shall not be put out by Him.

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Clearly, this is the remnant of the army gathered together under all kings of the earth: all nations will have some fighting in that battle to be destroyed by the brightness of His coming.

After the beast and false prophet are defeated, then the remnant gathered together against Him will be slain.

This is not the remnant of all people on earth, but only the remnant of the whole army of earth: even as their remained a remnant of Egyptians on earth, after the whole army and king of Egypt was slain in the sea.

The only Scripture speaking of all inhibitors and people of the earth, is that all will see Him with their eyes, but no Scripture in OT prophecy nor Revelation speaks of all people on earth being slain at one time, without Him reigning over them first.

The only Scripture speaking of all on earth being destroyed at one time, is that of Gog and Magog at the end of His thousand year reign on earth, which is the confirmation of prophecy in Peter, where the earth itself dissolves.

All Scripture in prophecy speaks of His coming with a remnant to save and rule over: at His first coming there is a remnant of all people who believe Him unto salvation, and so it will also be at His coming again a second time.