Yes, LOL. That could have been "diva Debbie" for short. It read diva D to most of us.
Last edited:
All who are not taken up to meet the Lord in the air when He comes will be left behind and killed.
- Thread starter Spiritual Israelite
- Start date
-
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!
Yes, LOL. That could have been "diva Debbie" for short. It read diva D to most of us.
If everything happens in a twinkling of an eye then how is it the dead in Christ rise first while at that same twinkling of an eye the tares are gathered first?
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Matthew 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
I guess it's equally all noise when any of us insist, including maybe even you, that our arguments have debunked Pretrib, for example. Or that our arguments have debunked that Jesus is not God, pertaining to JWs, as another example. The reason I bring these examples up is because not even you are going to dispute that Pretrib has been debunked, for example, regardless that Pretribbers deny it. By them denying it proves nothing has been debunked then? Of course not. In the same way, Amils denying that that their view has been debunked hardly proves it wasn't.
The reason why some need this in the twinkling of eye to explain everything is in order to explain away everything rather than explaining everything. IOW, it's a cop out to take that approach. No hard work involved whatsoever. Just let this in the twinkling of an eye explain everything. Plus, those using this approach are undeniably taking 1 Corinthians 15:52 out of context since that is only being applied to that event, and not other events as well.
More noise. The JWs share your beliefs and flawed mode of hermeneutics.
You have no discernment whatsoever if you are applying that in that manner.
Why would you be applying what Jesus said about Lot's wife in Luke 17 to that of His 2nd coming in the end of this age to begin with?
Luke 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
Does this sound like this is involving His 2nd coming in the end of this age? That what verse 31 is depicting, is what one will and should be doing when He has returned?
Especially in light of the following in regards to verse 33.
Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
It's called interpreting Scripture with Scripture what I'm doing. I don't know what it's called that you are doing? Maybe eisegesis?
Last edited:
No, you are not. Are you afraid to give you understanding of Luke 17:26-37? Why should I take you seriously when you are not even willing to show how you can reconcile Premil with that passage?
LOL. You say some of the most foolish things I've ever seen in my life. Get serious!
Why are you so afraid to specifically address the original post? You act so confident that Premill is true, but you always back down when your view is challenged. You come on here and make all kinds of claims and then we respond to them and most of the time we just hear crickets in response. Such as what you said about Revelation 11:15-19. I responded to what you said and you don't respond back.
Q. Why must we “remember Lot's wife”? What befell her?
She got caught in the escape out of Sodom because her heart was still there. Despite being fully aware of the impending destruction, Lot's wife’s heart was located in Sodom and towards the awful iniquity; this was despite the fact that she also desired to be with the people of God. Notwithstanding, Genesis 19:26 says of Lot, “his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.”
Her foolish refusal to once-and-for-all turn her back on Sodom caused her to be instantly and completely destroyed. Through her un-preparedness, she was immediately cast into a lost hell – damned and doomed for all eternity – without hope and without Christ.
What Christ is therefore warning in this reading is this: ‘Remember Lot's wife because she was found wanting on the day when God finally poured out His judgment upon the wicked; be warned because His second coming will similarly expose the heart of every hypocrite, although on this occasion it will be for the very final time. Those left behind will face the same punishment as Lot’s wife – total destruction.
When Noah left the world of his day and entered into the ark there were many left lying in beds and grinding at mills to receive the wrath of God and therefore destruction. The same happened in Lot's day. The same will happen at Christ’s Advent in glory.
After Christ described the destruction that accompanies His return, He talks about one being rescued the other being destroyed. Jesus tells us that those left behind will suffer the same total, immediate and awful doom that Noah's world and Sodom suffered in their day (Luke 17). Once the ark door closes that is it. It is too late.
Whatever argument you present is easily dismantled. That is because it is unbiblical.
Did you read the entire original post? The context of what Jesus was talking about related to what he said about the flood and about what happened in Sodom. In those events everyone either survived or was killed and He said "Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.".
How about you tell us how you interpret the passage.
Last edited:
LOL. Don't even talk to us about supporting Scripture with Scripture. You have absolutely nothing to support your opinions of Revelation 20. Nothing, zero, nada! You do not know what biblical corroboration looks like.
Wow, you're actually addressing the original post finally! Was that so painful?
But, wait a minute. This passage has the same context as the passage that comes just before it as evidenced by the fact that He starts out by saying "In that day". In what day? Are you telling me that you don't think that Luke 17:30 is referring to His 2nd coming at the end of this age?
Well, of course it does since that is clearly the context of what He was talking about. You will literally go to any length to deny the truth. You have proven that over and over again.
Yes, because Jesus said so. Good luck trying to prove that the context of Luke 17:31 is not in relation to His second coming at the end of the age!
You do nothing but eisegesis. You haven't exegeted even one verse of the Bible in your entire life.
So, let me get this straight. You think after talking about His second coming in Luke 17:26-30, He then changed the topic to taking up your cross and following Him and was no longer talking about His second coming? In verse 31, He said "In that day...". What day was He talking about?
How about Luke 17:34-37? Do you think those verses are about His second coming?
He hasn't the slightest clue what interpreting scripture with scripture really means. To him, it means any two verses that have similar wording are automatically talking about the same thing. This is how people end up thinking things like that Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's second coming instead of His ascension.
It really is. He just has no idea how weak his arguments are. Look what he did! The context of Luke 17:26-37 is clearly in relation to the second coming of Christ, but he is tying to say otherwise! He knows that if the context is in relation to the second coming, which it so clearly is, that it destroys Premillennialism. He clings so tightly to Premill that it makes him lose all sense of reason.
Some of you can't even grasp context properly at times, thus can't keep things in context. The context of my post had zero to do with whether or not JWs and Premils share some of the same beliefs. My point had to do with having debunked their interpretation that Jesus is not God, as an example, except they deny anyone has even debunked it. Should that mean, since they deny anyone has debunked this, that this proves it hasn't been debunked?
Why did I bring up that example to begin with? Maybe in order to show that just because someone denies something, such as Jesus is not God has been debunked, hardly proves it is true that it hasn't been debunked. Then I'm applying that to Amils in the same way, but for different reasons not having to do with whether or not Jesus is God.
That just because Amils deny Amil has been debunked, hardly proves it is is true that it hasn't been debunked. Because, if Amil's denial of that proves that Amil has not been debunked, it should be equally true that JWs denial of Jesus is not God has been debunked, and that Pretribbers denial that Pretrib has been debunked, also proves neither of these views have been debunked.
I have noticed that some of you are notorious for twisting what I said and meant to mean something I never intended for it to mean. One reason for that is because of your total disregard for context pertaining to what I said and why I said what I said to begin with.
LOL. More noise! No evidence. That is all you have now. How about addressing all the Ops you avoid that expose Premil?
This is where premillennialism online has arrived. It has lost the theological debate. Now it is trying to philosophize.
Plenty to support it except some of you are clueless. That unless something comes right out and says so, such as Matthew 19:28, for example, that this supports a millennium after the 2nd coming, that means Premils have no biblical corroboration for their interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6.
Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
No mention of a thousand years in this passage. That then means Premils can't use this passage to support anything in Revelation 20:4-6, right? What a way to reason things, that unless something comes right out and says so, it can't mean that then, whatever one might be taking it to mean. IOW, Premils are not allowed to deduce anything but Amils are? For example, Revelation 20:4-6. Nowhere in those verses does it say one way or the other where the thousand years reign is taking place.
But even so, Amils insist it is meaning in heaven in a disembodied state, thus they deduce that. But when Premils do the same thing, deduce where the reign is taking place, now all of a sudden one isn't supposed to deduce anything, that unless something comes right out and plainly says so, it can't be true then. Where then in Revelation 20:4-6 does it plainly say that the reigning is taking place in heaven? Nowhere. Therefore, you, just like Premils, have to deduce that based on other Scriptures. Except when Premils do that, it is bad. When Amils do it, it is good.
Says the guy who repeatedly takes scripture out of context.
We know the context of your post, but how can you not know that comparing us to cultists in any sense would be offensive? You couldn't make the point any other way?
We have debunked your arguments thoroughly many times. Just because you don't admit it doesn't mean it's not true. Such as how I debunked the argument you made recently relating to Revelation 11:15-19. I've gotten nothing but silence from you in return.
LOL. How do you define the word "debunked". Here's what the word debunk means...
debunk (verb): expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
You have come nowhere near debunking Amil. That is a delusional claim.
There is overwhelming evidence in scripture proving that Jesus is God, so that's why we can say the denial of that has been debunked. However, there is not overwhelming evidence in scripture against Amill. You are not comparing like things here.
Such as? Give one example.
@Davidpt Do you plan to address what I said here or are you once again going to not address my argument just like you haven't addressed my response to your claim about Revelation 11:15-19?
Similar threads
