John Darby

[Naomi25]

The Kingdom of Heaven has always existed and Jesus is Prince of that kingdom.

Wait, didn't you just call Jesus King of King and Lord of Lords? Now he's only a Prince? How did that happen? It certainly didn't happen biblically. There is only one place, that I'm aware of, in scripture, that calls Jesus 'Prince':

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. -Isaiah 9:6

However, you will notice that it also calls him "mighty God" AND "Everlasting Father". A timely reminder that he and the Father are, essentially, one. Saying that the Father is the 'proper' King, and Jesus is only a princeling, is just incorrect theology. It is by Christ's very work on the cross and obedience TO the Father in the relationship of the Trinity, that he is able to claim the title "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". To take that away from him is heresy.
Also, just fyi: the only other references to 'Prince' in the NT, you might be interested to know, are to the 'prince of demons' and the 'prince of the power of the air'....Satan...both of whom I'm assuming you DON'T want to associate our risen Lord with?
And also, suddenly this Kingdom has "always existed"? Except for now, right? When its been withdrawn 'cause the Jews didn't deserve it. Too bad Paul went to all that effort teaching us Gentiles about it!

The Father is king of heaven. Jesus sits at the throne at the Fathers right hand. In those days that made HIm the highest favored and heir. After the millenial kingdom ends, Jesus turns it over to teh Father and submits to teh Father once again! This is the Millenial Kingdom Jesus reigns over as Lord of all! There are different kingdomes spoken of in the NT and we need to be careful to know the differences.

"In those days that made him the highest favored and heir."
What. Are. You. Talking. About?
Jesus was not 'highest favoured and heir' because he sat at God's right hand. He sat at God's right hand and was those things because he WAS God. Remember how "he and the Father are one"? Ei...
I think you have bigger problems than the Millennium and Rapture.

Right now we live in the mystery form of the kngdom as spoken of in the parables!

How can we live in a Kingdom you have declared was withdrawn because the Jews rejected it? You're claims don't make sense and logically can't add up.
It's simple: no matter the "format" IF we have the presence of a kingdom NOW, which the NT is absolutely clear we do, and IF Christ triumphed on the cross and was placed above all powers and authorities when he sat down at the right hand of his Father, which the bible makes abundantly clear he did, THEN HE IS OUR KING. You cannot do away with that kingdom or place another over him supreme.

There is one!

So, let me get this straight, your "1" verse that can prove a future restoration of a physical land for Israel is one that doesn't promise it?

So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” -Acts 1:6–8

Jesus gently tells his Disciples that it's simply not for them to know. And do you know why? For them, its to take the message of the Kingdom to Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth. That would be Gentiles, in case you were wondering. Not Jews generations later.
Yes, we see that there is "times fixed by the Fathers authority", and it COULD mean what you hope it does. But here's the rub...Jesus leaves it purposely vague. Probably because the Jewish nation had spent hundreds of years mistaking the nature of what Jesus would come to do. They, even here, were under the mistaken impression that he was going to, even 'at this time' defeat their physical and political enemies and establish this earthly kingdom they had all believed he was bringing. But he had told them repeatedly that he was NOT bringing a kingdom that could be seen or perceived. He was there to deal with sin not Rome. And his Disciples needed to be like minded...sin was the main problem, not getting their earthly kingdom.
However, IF we say that Christ IS directly referring to that, I still say that we look to scripture for our answer, not speculation (which is what you are still doing).

These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. -Hebrews 11:13–16

Now despite what many would say- Jesus is not even hinting that the kingdom for Israel is done. He says it is in His Fathers power! Not HIs. We must remember tthat the New Testament is:
1. Gospels-Acts the transition from Israel to the church
2. Romans-Jude the instructions of rthe church
3. REv. 4-end The events of teh end of the world.

We are living in teh the time of the gentiles where Jesus is calling out a people for HImself. Israel today in getting saved become the betrothed to Jesus. but in the OT Israel was the wife of Jehovah and the Jews who get saved in the trib period will be th ewife agaian ! (god has promised to rewed Israel)

So the old wife can become the betrothed and the old wife can start gathering the new wife, except for those of her who becomes the betrothed. And too bad for those who aren't members of the old/new wife and missed out on the sucking away of the betrothed because the wedding's already taken place and they have no spousal affiliation! Does that make them the harem?
Right! Got it...makes perfect sense!

So we should not expect to see anything after the first five books on te kngdom for Israel. It was all spelled out in teh OT and were onfinrmed by the Father with teh words "and it shall come to pass" an others like "the word of the Lord has declared it".

So...the 25 references to the Kingdom in the epistles and Revelation are just an anomaly then? Or are they just the kingdom for us betrothed types? The kingdom for the wife types is a different one....and suddenly we're talking of so many different kingdoms no wonder you're confused.

If you request I can give you a lengthy list of th epromises ofthe kngdom to Israel in teh old and are not revoked at all!

or better yet I would encourage you to invest in two books:

"Footsteps of the Messiah" and "Israelology, the Missing Link in Systematic Theology." both by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum. They are very lengthy and kind of pricey, but well worth it in my opinion. They go into the depth a site like this does not give the privilege to.

Sir....I would just appreciate it if you dealt with the verses I give and give me some verses back. Please don't just give me your opinion, give me each opinion supported by scripture. I don't really care what Mr Fruchtenbaum (although I love his name!) says...I want to know how YOU believe the bible supports your ideas. Too often you are just giving me your ideas.

 

[Naomi25]

Yet the first part of the Revelation 19 chapter seals what timing that marriage is with this...

Rev 19:1-9
19:1 And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, "Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:
2 For true and righteous are His judgments: for He hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand.
3 And again they said, "Alleluia." And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.
4 And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, "Amen; Alleluia."
5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, "Praise our God, all ye His servants, and ye that fear Him, both small and great."
6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, "Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, "These are the true sayings of God."
KJV

I don't see how anyone can miss that those parts, "for He hath judged the great whore" and "hath avenged the blood of His servants at her hand", and "her smoke rose up for ever and ever", which are events for after the tribulation, thus making the "marriage of the Lamb" after the tribulation also.

Well, as an Amillennialist, I would agree. The passage suggests, I think, that it occurs either in heaven immediately before Christ's return, or on earth immediately after it. Or perhaps, on the new earth immediately after it. I struggle with the "in heaven immediately before it" simply because all the 'bride' won't be there. As long as there will be Christians alive on earth, part of the bride will not be in heaven. I don't think it should be argued that Christ would leave some of his bride out of this event, do you?

 

[farouk]

Well, as an Amillennialist, I would agree. The passage suggests, I think, that it occurs either in heaven immediately before Christ's return, or on earth immediately after it. Or perhaps, on the new earth immediately after it. I struggle with the "in heaven immediately before it" simply because all the 'bride' won't be there. As long as there will be Christians alive on earth, part of the bride will not be in heaven. I don't think it should be argued that Christ would leave some of his bride out of this event, do you?

@Naomi25 Perhaps therein lies the distinction of the terms 'bride of Christ' and 'wife of Jehovah'?

 

[Naomi25]

I very much like your good posts, Naomi.
But in this paragraph, you seem quite confused. You omit to specify the verses that apply to what you are saying

Revelation 20:1-10 is plainly describing events after Jesus Returns and up until the end of the Millennium. Then the GWT Judgments take place and Eternity commences.
1 Corinthians 15:50-56 is a prophecy about the GWT and Eternity, not the Return of Jesus, and is definitely not a 'rapture to heaven'.
Proved by how only then, is Death no more. Revelation 21:4
Also proved by 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, that sets the final scene; AFTER the Millennium.

Okay, let me try and lay it out for you...I do like to try and keep it all clearly shown next to scripture, so thanks for pointing that out.

1 Corinthians 15:20–26
[20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. We start with Paul telling us what can be expected for our 'resurrection'; Christ HAS been raised, he was the 'firstfruits'.

[21] For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. Fairly self explanitory.

[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Again, we are to expect our resurrection to come from Christ...but when?

[23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. This is the order: Christ was first, then AT his coming those of us who belong to him. So, AT his coming, we are resurrected, given our 'firstfruit bodies', just as Christ got.

[24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. AFTER this, our recieving of our new bodies, THEN comes THE END, when Christ delivers the 'kingdom' to the Father, after destroying everything under him. It may sound a little like this is 'work to be done', however, when we look at other passages, Eph 1:20, for example, we see that Christ already has ALL these powers and authorities under his feet. All they are waiting for is his 'word' (slay them with the breath of his mouth) when he returns. In fact, there is only one 'real' enemy that needs to be 'dealt' with.

[25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Again, Eph 1:20, among other verses tell us that he is, indeed, reigning now. So, when he puts this 'last enemy' under his feet, his reign over this kingdom will be complete. Not 'finished', but done in a way that he can then hand it over to the Father as a complete work. What is the last enemy?

[26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death. Death is the last enemy. When and how is it defeated?

1 Corinthians 15:49
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. We shall truly have a physical, resurrection body like Christ...Paul spends some time detailing it. He is clearly speaking about this event in the same passage as the defeat of death and Christ's return.

1 Corinthians 15:52–54
[52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. Undoubtedly this IS the Rapture. Not to heaven, just to where Christ receives us and gives us our new, 'heavenly' bodies. Thus, we shall be ever with him.

[53] For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. And in that moment, our old bodies will be gone, we shall say goodbye to sin, sickness, aging and death.

[54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” And in THIS moment, death IS DEFEATED FOREVER. It is pretty cool. But beyond that, its clear that this passage puts the Rapture, the resurrection (as other passages tell us that that event happens with the Rapture as well (the dead shall rise first), Christ's return at THE END and the final defeat of death are all one, single event. In Paul's mind, anyway.

Here's how I see it linking with Revelation. In Rev 19:20 the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire. In Rev 20:10 Satan is thrown into the lake of fire. It is only AFTER these two events that we see this:

Revelation 20:13–15
[13] And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. As death convulses in its own throws, it gives back those it has taken, and Christ separates them, according to the books. It's perhaps a slower 'look' at what we know will happen; Christ's return will violently snatch believing dead up to be granted new bodies before we ourselves are given them, the final blow to death.

[14] Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. There can be little doubt that this, the lake of fire, is the final defeat of death. The 'second death'? Death is thrown into the 'second death'? And it happens AFTER Satan himself is thrown there?

[15] And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Fascinatingly, we now see a last reference to people finding their fate apart from Christ. IF they have survived to stand before the throne of judgement. This totally makes sense when we look at the gospels and epistles, as they consistently show Christ returning, resurrecting his own and then judgement taking place. Boom, boom, boom.

I don't expect everyone to agree with how I read this, but this is how I see it, and I see it pretty clearly. I hope I've done a decent job explaining it for you.

 

[Trekson]

My facts are straight, right out of God's written Word, and according to historical Pre-tribulationalism. It's some like you on that theory that keep trying to modify your doctrines. Pre-tribulationalists used to heavily preach about Jesus coming "as a thief in the night" to mean He will remove us 'at any moment', because we are not appointed to 'wrath' (their meaning the tribulation of course). Well what timing was Apostle Paul speaking of in 1 Thess.5 about the "sudden destruction" upon the wicked? The "day of the Lord" which he said will come "as a thief in the night"! Thus Pre-tribulationalism has by mistake traditionally taught we fly away when Jesus comes "as a thief in the night", when that time per God's Word actually means the FINAL DAY of this present world!

That's why I also tend to laugh when I hear brothers try to teach that the "day of the Lord" is about the "great tribulation", when it's not according to God's Word. That 'day' is the LAST DAY of this world, when God's consuming fire will burn man's works off this earth, just as Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10. Can't be no tribulation going on when that happens.

So those pushing the lie that the great tribulation Lord Jesus warned of is the "day of the Lord" are pushing a political agenda against Christ's Church! That because the Scripture is very simple to understand, so one who refuses to abide by it as written show they have no intention of keeping to God's written Word, and have fallen away from Christ Jesus.

Sorry Davy but I believe you got your timing all wrong. 1 Thess 5 is a good summary, let me break it down for you:

"For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. (It comes as a thief upon the unbelieving world, not the church and it begins w/ the signs of the 7th seal. Within a short time, 144,000 are sealed, the church is raptured Rev. 7:9, after enduring the great trib of satan's wrath against the church, Rev. 12:17). 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (The church will have been a thorn in the side of the world w/ our "negative" teaching about a time of judgment coming which is part of the reason for the great trib against us. When us last "enemies of humanity" are gone via the rapture, the earth will heave a sigh of relieve that all the negativity is gone but it will be very short-lived as the trumpet judgments will begin shortly after). 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. (Why are we not in darkness? Because we were given the signs to watch for in Matt. 24, which mirror the seals of Rev. 6) 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.
The Day of the Lord is not one single day, 2Pet. is the only one that mentions it that way and I believe he is speaking of the actual final battle at the end of the millennium per Rev. 20:9. Every time the OT prophecies speak about the "day" or" in that day" they are also speaking of the day of the Lord. It begins w/ the signs of the heavens, takes a brief pause, restarts w/ the trumpet judgements through Armageddon and the sheep and goat judgment, through the time of peace in the millennium, continues when satan is let loose one final time and finally culminates in the Rev. 20:9 war. It is not unusual for prophets to go back and forth between prophetic times because of what is known as, telescopic prophecy, where they see the mountain tops of foretold events but are unaware of the valley of time between them.

 

[Trekson]

@Naomi25 Perhaps therein lies the distinction of the terms 'bride of Christ' and 'wife of Jehovah'?

Just throwing in my two cents but the term "bride of Christ" in not in the bible. God the father and god the son are one, they cannot have separate wives!

 

[farouk]

Just throwing in my two cents but the term "bride of Christ" in not in the bible. God the father and god the son are one, they cannot have separate wives!

Ephesians 5.

 

[Keraz]

I don't expect everyone to agree with how I read this, but this is how I see it, and I see it pretty clearly. I hope I've done a decent job explaining it for you.

Thanks, you have explained it all from your AMillennium viewpoint.
I reject that theory, for the very good reason: the Revelation 20 narrative states it will only be after the 1000 years of Jesus and the resurrected Trib Martyrs rule and King Jesus' reign and the final Judgment, that immortality is conferred.

This sequence is logical and sensible. Only during Eternity can humans have immortality.
Looking at 1 Corinthians 15:23 in Interlineal Scripture; the Greek does not say;... at His coming, but: in His presence. Which will be at the GWT Judgment. To God; just a 'day' later.

The Day of the Lords is not one single day,

Actually it is: Isaiah 9:14, Isaiah 29:5-8, Zechariah 3:9, Psalms 47:9, Revelation 18:8
When it is understood what the Lord will use on His terrible Day of fiery wrath, then you will know how one day can and will literally fulfill all the graphic prophesies about that actual single day.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

See that ALL in 'all the nations'? I think some solid biblical proof will be needed to suggest that Israel doesn't fit in with "all". Because as far as I'm aware, Romans 11 still says that Israel will need to bow before Christ. That means standing before his throne...his "glorious throne". There is no little "side throne excursus" in scripture that mentions a separate interlude for the Jews. Unless you think you can produce it....?

You are awful busy. I will try to get to all your posts today!

First. nations is ethnos which is simply people. In the Bible there are only three people groups recognized After Israel was born, Jews, Gentiles, The Body of Christ. So this gathering is a gathering of peoples, from all lands.

As for Israel? One of the purposes of the Tribulation is to rid the nation of Israel of rebels and force them into the bond of teh New Covenant which God will impose on them. Dan.12:5-7, Ez. 20:33-38

Remember Israel as a nation flees halfway through the trib period and goes to a desert, wilderness, mountainous place God has already prepared for them , most scholars of dispy persuasion recognize this as the city of Petra! Matter of fact that is where jesus returns! Is. 63.

Remember Jesus promised He won't return until Isrtael says blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! That is why the antichrist marshalls his forces in teh valley of Jezreel, marches to petra to wipe out Israel which would mean there would be no Jew to utter that phrase!

So Israel returns with Jesus from Petra to jerusalem where He finally vanquishes the antichrist and false prophet!

John 25: Yes a time is coming when the dead will hear his voice. However that verse is given further clarification to show that that "hour" is separated by at least 1,000 years. That word hour did not exist in Hebrew time and hour (hora) is a common word for a time!
I'm sorry, but what? How do you figure that this 'hour' is somehow separated by 1000 years? Does it say? Implicitly or explicitly? Anywhere? Such claims must be supported.

Once again remember that hour (hora) as 60 minutes was not known at this time in Israel. So hora is used to show a fixed period or time in general.

John 5:27-29
King James Version

27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

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.

so if this was the only passage we had about the future resurrection, then we could with some certainty conclude that the resurrection happens all at once or within a short time. But it isn't.

We know the dead in Christ (just church sainits) are resurrected at the rapture.

Sometime after Jesus' return and before He starts to reign for the thousand years is the first resurrection. Only believers are resurrected here for they are blessed!

Then after the thousand years and after God the Father squashes the final rebellion He will allow, comes the second resurrection which is the resurrection of the lost so we see 3 general resurrection mentioned in Scripture.

Again...sorry. But while I am sympathetic to time issues (I often have them myself), such an explanation is simply untenable. There is no biblical backing or support for your claim. And considering Jesus makes a point during his parables to teach the Jews that the kingdom will be taken FROM them for their disobedience (Matt 21,22), again, your claim is made tenuous at best.

Well teh kingdom was taken away from that generation of Israel for them committing the unpardonable sin! It will be given to a future generation. Jesus said you will not see me until, not if or unless, but until. The Apostles in Act asked if the kingdom would then be restored, Jesus said that time is the Fathers. Plus the myriad of Gods Promises that Israel will have a kingdom.

But that Israel is to have a kingdom and reign over Gentiles:

Jer. 31:31-34(new covenant)

Prophecies still to come to pass:

Is. 29:22-24
Is. 30: 18-22
Is. 44:1-5, 21-23
Is. 45:17
Jer. 24:7
Jer. 50:19-20
Ez. 11:19-20
Ez. 36:25-27
Hos. 1:102:1
Hos. 14:4-8
Joe; 2:28-32
Mic. 7:18-20
Zeph. 3:9-13
Ps. 89:34-37
Jer. 3:18 Israel reunited
Is. 14:1-2
Is. 49:22-23
Is. 61:4-9
Mic. 7:14-17
Zech. 8:23

There are more, but this shows Gods plan for Israel and the people is sure and strong! And remember that in teh tribulation 2/3 of all Jews will die and the 1/3 left will call upon the Lord and cause Jesus to return.

The fact Israel has a national regeneration is the basis for Jesus return to earth!

Lev. 26:40-42
Jer. 3:11-18
Zech 12:10
Hos 5:15 ***** Key
Mt. 23:37-39

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ok, three points here. First is, it's usually considered an hermeneutical mistake to take an exegetical lead from a 'harder to interpret' book like Revelation, over a very clear book like Corinthians. And by that I mean, scholars will, by rule of thumb, say that the gospels and espistles, are, as you like to call them, clearly straight out literal. No imagery, no metaphor or poetry or prophecy to make them...contentious...in their interpretation. Revelation, however, uses some of all of that. It's a letter, there's a little poetry...or perhaps singing, tossed in. Prophecy presented in stark images. That's why the books is called apocalyptic. And it is, by all and large, considered more controversial when it comes to interpreting it...not just what the images mean, but even the chronology of it. So starting with Revelation and making IT determine what Corinthians is saying, is not the best hermeneutical principle.

Who considers that a heremeutical mistake and what is there authority to say so? But if you want to use Corinthians OK!

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

When we are absent from the body, we are present with the Lord! Now unless you are a JW who believes Jesu9s is on earth nvisibly, then He is still in heaven preparing a place for us!

And if the voices of those shouting in REv. 19 and teh bride of Jesus is symbolic, what are they symbols of????????????????????????????????

I see throughout the NT that the church is engaged to Jesus, so why not near the end of time we see the wedding take place! Remember even symbols have literal fulfilments, so you need to back your hypothesis and say if these are not literal, what are they symbolic of and scripture to support it!

So, it seems that what we have is a declaration that the time of the marriage 'has come' and that the bride has made herself ready, yes? But, the same time we see the magnificent Christ not actually stand up for the bride, but crack open the sky and return. It seems to be all one event.
Now, it seems to be a little ambiguous. It could mean the 'marriage' happened just prior to his return...but is doesn't say that. It could mean that Christ is returning SO THAT the marriage can take place...but it doesn't say that either. All that is said is that the time is upon them and the bride is ready. And Christ returns in glory.
Now, you are free to believe what you want about it, but there is no way you can dogmatically claim the marriage happened in heaven before his return. First, because it doesn't say that. Second, not all the 'bride' was present at that point.

Well I let the language speak for itself! ad then understanding the Jewish wedding system, the wedding takes place just before a few witnesses (th eOT saints) then after the wedding the groom takes His bride to where the wedding feast will take place! Because of a lack of anything that it is about to happen, normal understanding means it is to take place right then.

Also the bride is complete.

7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

If there are still members of teh bride of Christ(the church, the body of Christ) then this simple statement is a lie for His bride is not fully ready and not all of the bride has been made fully clean yet!

But because the bride is ready, that means every church saint has gone through the bema judgment, the bad works burned and is now clothed in full righteousness. That means that all the church has to be in heaven.

I'm not sure I followed that thought entirely, I'm sorry, but what I got, I disagree with. You say "you simply cannot have members of the body of Christ on earth suffering the tribulation"
And yet, Dispensationalist happily assign that for the "tribulation saints". Who must, in their minds, occupy some strange place in the family of God, not to truly matter. Its fine for them to 'be beaten'. The problem is, nothing, at all, anywhere in scripture, allows you to assign these people a different sort of 'christianity'. Which means that they too, are part of the body of Christ...the bride. So, how on earth do you explain leaving part of the bride on earth to be 'tortured' (Dispensational terms) while the other, good portion, revels in the promised protection and has the marriage supper?
It's biblically unsupportable.

Its very biblically supportable! it is just your predisposed viewpoint that precludes you from accepting it!

OT saints are not the church.
The Church has been promised to be kept from the wrath to come upon the earth!

god will do what He will do. It doesn't matter what it looks like to us! If God says it- it is!

Well I do not assign them as part of the bride of Christ because the Bible doesn't (see above response to you)

And in a very technical sense they are saved, believers, and saints, but not "Christians", as in the Body of Christ anymore than OT saints are part of the bride of Christ!

REv. 19 clearly says the bride has made herself ready, it doesn't say most of teh bride of 99% of the bride- but the bride! So you then have to defend a almost at the end of the trib rapture so those parts of the body on earth can join the rest of teh bride and be ready or .......

Also when Jesus comes down He is going to allow the sheep to enter into the kingdom? Who are these people? They certainly are not the bride for they are never called the bride! And the parable of the wedding feast speaks of a crowd of guests to be there for the wedding! guests are not part of the bride either.

The church has its wedding ceremony in heaven then returns with Jesus! Unless you can support that the wedding takes on earth with SCripture.

I do see after the announcement the wedding has come that after that an announcement'
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Who are the invitees?

Ah...no. No, I didn't forget...did you read my entire post? I directly linked 1 Cor 15 TO Rev 20. Because IF 1 Cor 15 tells us that AT Christ's return, when he gives us our new bodies...this is the 'end' that is spoken of clearly in the passage, that IF it is AT this moment that death is finally defeated, and death is the LAST enemy before the Kingdom is handed over to the Father....then of course it has to be linked to Rev 20 where death is tossed in the lake of fire. That IS its final defeat, is it not? That is, also, the last, true enemy to go, is it not, in Revelation as well...after the false prophet and the antichrist. After all those who were NOT found in the book of Life. Even after Satan himself. Rev 20 is absolutely clear, and matches 1 Cor 15 absolutely...death IS the FINAL enemy to be tossed in the lake of fire. And Rev 20, like 1 Cor 15, puts that after the 1000 years. Which is interesting, because 1 Cor 15 also puts it AT Christ's return AND the Rapture.

Well the only problem is that death has not een swallowed up in victory at teh first resurrection. for there are still all the lost who are in their graves! 1 Cor. 15 Doesn't say only for believers!

Remember Jesus died for everyone! So everyone will live forever! And it is at teh second resurrection and then when death is thrown into the lake of fire that 1 Cor. 15 is fulfilled.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hey, I don't have an issue with spelling, but it was a little...um...interesting to have a person get on his high horse about how long he'd been a teacher of this particular issue, then not even be able to consistently spell it. I like a good bit of back and forth in the hopes of learning something...because I am, always hoping to learn something...but there are a lot of people on here that have egos and opinions that don't always fit their claims. Sadly. But hey, I know plenty of people who can't spell at all and are scary smart, so I'm happy to see how we go.

And you know I got on my high horse HOw?

Seems to me (and I think I know my feelings maybe just a little better than you) I was just responding to someone else that I also have had a long tenure in Eschatology! But I can give it just as well as I can take it!

 

[farouk]

I think we should keep "looking unto Jesus" (Hebrews 12). "Even so, come Lord Jesus" (Revelation 22).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Post #495 you called my answer 'deceptive'. I quote: "what a deceptive answer you gave!"
Not mistaken, not idiotic...deceptive. You believe I am willfully engaging in deception. And thus, as I am Covenantal, by extension that's how you perceive other Covenanatal theologians as well. You called their hermeneutical strategies "dishonest".

Sorry but that pig don't fly! I called an answer of yours deceptive not you!

If you want to do that you are free to do so! Then this shall be my last post if you wish to play that guilty by extension game. And a deceptive answer does not mean that you are willingly engaging in intentional deception. It means that how you answered was a deception, and that may be because what you were taught is a deception. People can promulgate a deception and not be guilty of willfully deceiving others. It is like th difference between cold blooded murder and accidental homicide! You should know that given your level of intellect I see here online!

I did call some of the covenantal hermenuutic strategies dishonest, because I am convinced it is!

I tend to be very blunt and direct! If I want to call you deceptive I will say you are deceptive! I didn't so you are engaging in a false association (or whatever they call it).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This list is correct. There are more details of course, such as the fulfillment of the Feasts.
It is when people try to fit a 'rapture to heaven' of the Church, that error and confusion sets in.

Sorry Keraz, but the wedding takes place in heaven! IN order for the bride to marry Jesus in heaven they have to be there!

Jesus told us He was going to prepare a place for us in His Fathers house! Last I saw in Gods Word that is in heaven!

Now the wedding feast takes place on earth after we are married, return to earth with the groom and he conquers the enemies, judges the peoples, and establishes the kingdom and lets the saved survivors of the tribulation entrance into the millenial kingdom!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And I've seen people here from "your tribe" who say the demons in Rev are helicopters. So literal!!
We could play that game all day, but that dog won't hunt.

Well if you wish , we can talk about all the fringe elements of our groups, But I have said often, and I now tell you, Dispensational theology (of which eschatology is only a part of) suffers more at teh hands of its proponents than its opponents. But as I rely more on SCripture than Hal Lindsay of Wilkerson and realize that the Trib Force is a fictionalized tale I don't worry oither than to write them and say why some of their conclusions are whacked!

No, it really doesn't. Many, many Amillennialists also see a future restoration of national Israel. Perhaps not in the same way Dispensationalist do (in a physical land etc in the millennial kingdom) but most certainly in a Romans 11 'grafted back onto the tree' way. You want to know why many of us see that? 'Cause it's the literal reading of Romans 11. And that's the way that books calls for it to be read. Am I still being deceptive or not?

Maybe from a 21st Century perspective, but definitely not from a biblical perspective. I sent you earlier a list of promises (not maybes) that God will restore Israel to their land. So if you do not believe in a thousand year kingdom- do you believe He actually physically returns to earth and fights and conquers the antichrists and the forces the beast marshalled to fight Jesus?

How long does Jesus reign if 1,000 years is merely symbolic? Why do you even call it symbolic? What linguistic clue do you have to determine God was not speaking literally?

Wait...Revelation "isn't" a place where numbers or images are used symbolically....but the psalms ARE?
And...seriously? You are PROVING MY POINT! Yes! 1000 HAS been used elsewhere symbolically...'owns all', 'better than anything else'. IS IT, such a stretch to then imagine it can also mean 'the fullness of time'?
Let's be honest, IF the bible clearly uses it in these other ways...which you have fully admitted to...doesn't it then rest upon YOU to prove that it CANNOT, in any way, be used in this manner in this particular instance?

And I showed you why! that Hebrew did not have a word for 1,000 till after Jesus. Eleph is a generic term which is best defined as myriad.

In Peter teh construct of teh passage clearly shows that Peter is using 1,000 Years metaphorically (you know, taking the bible as written) while in REvelation there is no word or phrases such as: "like", likend unto" "as", "as is" or "compared to" which would definitely let us knkow it is not to be taken literallyi.

Bu9t now I need to know what authority you use to declare the 1,000 years used multiple times in one chapter are all symbolic numbers. Especially when it is the word chillios which does mean 1,000 and ther are no terms of comparison?

Please don't just use that Revelation contains many symbols. We are talking about this passage:

Revelation 20
King James Version

20 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 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.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

If the number is symbolic then maybe the angel and the abysiing is symbolic as well?
Maybe that first resurrection is symbolic?
Maybe the final deception is symbolic? What do they all mean?

 

[Keraz]

Sorry Keraz, but the wedding takes place in heaven! IN order for the bride to marry Jesus in heaven they have to be there!

Jesus told us He was going to prepare a place for us in His Fathers house! Last I saw in Gods Word that is in heaven!

Now the wedding feast takes place on earth after we are married, return to earth with the groom and he conquers the enemies, judges the peoples, and establishes the kingdom and lets the saved survivors of the tribulation entrance into the millenial kingdom!

No scriptural support here. Because of course, you are merely spouting your opinions.

The Bible just does not say where the Wedding or the Feast will take place. You make up a scenario to fit with your preconceived beliefs.
Revelation 21:1-2 tells us when the place Jesus is preparing will come to the earth and only then will those worthy live in it. V27

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25 Perhaps therein lies the distinction of the terms 'bride of Christ' and 'wife of Jehovah'?

But the 'distinctions' don't in any way fit as Dispensationalists would like to fit them. If what is left on earth during the time of tribulation is strictly a time for Jewish revival, which they term 'the wife'...but there are great swaths of people - Gentiles - still coming to Christ...at any other time classified by scripture as 'the bride', where is there any biblical justification for the separation of the two in the beginning, let alone in their own doctrine, a merging of the two? IF they insist that the tribulation MUST occur "for the salvation of the Jewish nation" and that is one critical reason 'the bride' must leave...then all the Gentile believers by Dispensational categorizing, cannot be part of 'the wife'. But the 'bride' has already been taken.
You see the great problem here, I trust. There's a 'people', whom the bible would have classified no differently....come to Christ to receive salvation, left hanging...not receiving the promises the Dispensationalists claim is given to "all the body of Christ". They must, I believe, prove definitively, that there IS a distinction between those that go first, and those that are, as they life to say "left behind". Unless they can, these believers ARE of one, exact body. Which mean they ARE the bride as well. Which presents a very big problem for the marriage of the Lamb occurring when a portion of the bride is absent.

 

[Davy]

Well, as an Amillennialist, I would agree. The passage suggests, I think, that it occurs either in heaven immediately before Christ's return, or on earth immediately after it. Or perhaps, on the new earth immediately after it. I struggle with the "in heaven immediately before it" simply because all the 'bride' won't be there. As long as there will be Christians alive on earth, part of the bride will not be in heaven. I don't think it should be argued that Christ would leave some of his bride out of this event, do you?

I am a Premillennialist, but I'm not a Pre-tribulationalist.

Anywhere in God's Word that I see the coming destruction, like that shown there upon the great whore in the first part of Rev.19, it means the last day of this world, which is also the day that Jesus returns to gather His Church.

Concerning the day of His return, Lord Jesus said He comes "as a thief" in Revelation 16:15, which is the same time metaphor that Apostles Paul and Peter used about the destruction to occur on earth on the last day, the "day of the Lord". Even with 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, which verses are about the day of Christ's coming to gather His Church, the KJV phrase there, "day of Christ", is actually 'day of the Lord' in the Greek (Greek 'christos' is not in the manuscripts there, Greek 'kurios' is, which means 'lord'). Lord Jesus also used the thief breaking in idea to mark the day of His coming in the Matthew 24 chapter.

Thus the timeline in Rev.19 that is revealed is the first part of the chapter is post-2nd coming, and then when John sees Jesus coming on the white horse, that is the "day of the Lord" which is the day He returns to gather His Church, and then do battle per Zechariah 14 and begin His "thousand years" reign of Rev.20.

I don't see any of this being difficult to grasp at all, for Lord Jesus and His Apostles left His servants many clues in HIS WORD as to His return on that final day of this world, on that "day of the Lord". Just because the children of darkness want to try and change that day doesn't mean those who listen to Lord Jesus in HIS WORD have to listen to those fakes.

 

[farouk]

But the 'distinctions' don't in any way fit as Dispensationalists would like to fit them. If what is left on earth during the time of tribulation is strictly a time for Jewish revival, which they term 'the wife'...but there are great swaths of people - Gentiles - still coming to Christ...at any other time classified by scripture as 'the bride', where is there any biblical justification for the separation of the two in the beginning, let alone in their own doctrine, a merging of the two? IF they insist that the tribulation MUST occur "for the salvation of the Jewish nation" and that is one critical reason 'the bride' must leave...then all the Gentile believers by Dispensational categorizing, cannot be part of 'the wife'. But the 'bride' has already been taken.
You see the great problem here, I trust. There's a 'people', whom the bible would have classified no differently....come to Christ to receive salvation, left hanging...not receiving the promises the Dispensationalists claim is given to "all the body of Christ". They must, I believe, prove definitively, that there IS a distinction between those that go first, and those that are, as they life to say "left behind". Unless they can, these believers ARE of one, exact body. Which mean they ARE the bride as well. Which presents a very big problem for the marriage of the Lamb occurring when a portion of the bride is absent.

@Naomi25 Well in a sense one is also talking from the standpoint of eternity.

 

[Keraz]

I don't see any of this being difficult to grasp at all, for Lord Jesus and His Apostles left His servants many clues in HIS WORD as to His return on that final day of this world, on that "day of the Lord". Just because the children of darkness want to try and change that day doesn't mean those who listen to Lord Jesus in HIS WORD have to listen to those fakes.

You fail to read and understand Revelation 20:1-10 It clearly describes things to happen on the earth, AFTER Jesus Returns. During His Millennium reign on earth.

Obviously the final end is not at the Return and your scathing and inappropriate remarks reflect badly upon yourself.