Christian Forums

Quote
Linker said:

He is coming again to immortalize His church...

Amen.

But it should be pointed out that 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 isn't pre-trib, for there Paul is referring to the resurrection of all believers at the second coming of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53), the first resurrection (Revelation 20:4-6), when the last trumpet will sound (1 Corinthians 15:52, Matthew 24:31), immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).

Similarly, it should be pointed out nothing in the Bible teaches or requires a pre-trib rapture. Instead, the Bible makes clear that the rapture will be immediately after the tribulation. For Matthew 24:30-31 is referring to the same second coming of Jesus and gathering together (rapture) of the church as 2 Thessalonians 2:1, which is referring to the same second coming of Jesus and catching up together (rapture) of the church as 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.  Matthew 24:29 shows that these things won't occur until immediately after the future tribulation of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18. That's why the marriage of the church doesn't happen until Revelation 19:7, in connection with Jesus' second coming and the resurrection of the church at that time (Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Jesus won't return and gather together (rapture) the church until sometime after there's a falling away (an apostasy) in the church and the Antichrist sits in a third Jewish temple in Jerusalem and declares himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15-31, Revelation 11:1-2, Revelation 13:4-8), and the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place of a third Jewish temple (Matthew 24:15-31, Daniel 11:31). For when Jesus returns to gather together (and marry) the church he will destroy the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1,8, Revelation 19:7,20). Before Jesus returns, the church will have to go through the 42-month worldwide reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:5-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-31).

At Jesus' return, his second coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30, Mark 13:26), the church will be resurrected and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27), not to remove the church from the earth (Proverbs 10:30, John 17:15,20), but to take the church only as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17). At that meeting, Jesus will judge everyone in the church (Psalms 50:4-5, cf. Mark 13:27) by their works (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30) and then marry the obedient portion of the church (Revelation 19:7-8, cf. Matthew 25:1-12) in the clouds, before the obedient portion of the church mounts white horses and comes back down from the sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) and all the unsaved armies of the world (Revelation 19:15-21).

Jesus will then make the wedding supper of Revelation 19:9 for the just-resurrected and married obedient portion of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9, 1 Corinthians 15:54). Jesus and the obedient portion of the church will then reign on the earth for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

Holding too strongly to the mistaken idea of a pre-tribulation rapture (just as holding too strongly to the mistaken idea of partial preterism or full preterism) could leave some believers less prepared mentally to go through the coming tribulation.

The Bible gives us clear warning ahead of time about everything that we're going to have to face during the coming tribulation (Mark 13:23, Revelation 1:3, Revelation 22:16) of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18, so that we can be better prepared mentally not to be blindsided (cf. 1 Peter 4:12-13) or deceived by anything that's coming (Matthew 24:4-5,23-25, Mark 13:5-6,21-23, Luke 21:8, Revelation 13:13-18, Revelation 19:20), and so that we can be better prepared mentally to endure the coming tribulation with patience and faith unto the end (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13), and not get so mad at God over our and our loved ones' awful suffering during the coming tribulation (cf. Isaiah 8:21-22, Matthew 24:9-13, Matthew 13:21) that we wrongly employ our free will to depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Timothy 4:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Luke 8:13, Matthew 24:9-13), to the ultimate loss of our salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6, 2 Timothy 2:12, Mark 8:35-38, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Hebrews 10:38-39).

Quote
Linker said:

He is coming again to immortalize His church and then He is going to being His judgment and wrath against those who refuse to believe the truth about Him

Amen.

But it should be pointed out that this doesn't require that He is coming again pre-trib to immortalize His church. For nothing requires that the entire tribulation of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18 will be God's wrath, or that any part of the tribulation that will be God's wrath will be directed against any of the saved people (1 Thessalonians 5:9) who will be alive on the earth during the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-13, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4). Most of the tribulation could be the wrath of Satan working through evil men and natural forces to bring disaster upon the earth, just like when Satan was allowed to work through evil men and natural forces to bring disaster upon righteous Job (Job 1:12-20), against whom God had no wrath.

The first five seals of the tribulation (Revelation 6:1-11) won't be God's wrath or judgment, because after the first four seals are over the martyrs of the fifth seal ask God when he's going to bring his judgment against the world (Revelation 6:10); and the killing of even more martyrs, which the fifth seal foretells will happen sometime after the fifth seal (Revelation 6:11b), won't be God's wrath against those martyrs. So Jesus unsealing the seals of the tribulation (Revelation 6) doesn't mean that the events that are unsealed will be God's wrath; it simply means that every event that's unsealed will be permitted by God to happen at that time.

The sixth seal of the tribulation (Revelation 6:12-14) will happen sometime before the day of the Lord (Joel 2:31, cf. Revelation 6:12b), whereas the day of the Lord/day of wrath (Zephaniah 1:14-15) won't begin until the second coming of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10), which won't occur until Revelation 19 (see Revelation 19:15b), after the entire tribulation of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18 is over (Matthew 24:29-30).

So the people quoted at the sixth seal (Revelation 6:17), during only the first stage of the tribulation, could be just as mistaken as Job was when Job said that what was happening to him was God's wrath against him (Job 19:11). Just as what was happening to Job was actually Satan's wrath against him, not God's wrath, so the sixth seal could actually be Satan's wrath, not God's wrath. Just as the writer of the book of Job didn't go out of his way to correct Job's mistaken statement in Job 19:11, and just as the apostles John and Matthew didn't go out of their ways to correct the mistaken statements of the people they quoted in John 7:12b and Matthew 27:63a, so the apostle John could have not gone out of his way to correct the statement of the people he quotes in Revelation 6:17.

After the sixth seal of the tribulation will occur the seventh seal of the tribulation (Revelation 8:1). And out of the seventh seal of the tribulation will come the seven trumpets of the tribulation (Revelation 8:1-2). None of the events of the first six trumpets from Revelation 8 up to the end of Revelation 9 are referred to by John as being God's wrath. Also, it doesn't say that any of those events will be directed only at the unsaved; all those events could affect mankind in general, both the saved and the unsaved.

The events of the fifth trumpet will be the work of a swarm of weird locust-like beings from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9:2-10) led by a fallen angel from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9:11). And the events of the sixth trumpet will be the work of a huge army of weird horse-like beings led by four fallen angels previously bound in the river Euphrates (Revelation 9:14-19). So even though good angels of God will sound the six trumpets of Revelation chapters 8-9, this could simply be announcing God's allowing the wrath of Satan to destroy one-third of different things (Revelation 8:7-12, Revelation 9:15,18), just as Satan will subsequently, mid-tribulation, be allowed by God to cause one-third of the angels to be cast down to the earth for good (Revelation 12:4,9).

God allows saved people to be affected by the wrath of Satan (Revelation 12:17, Revelation 2:10), knowing that even if they're killed by Satan, this is no loss for them, but even gain (Philippians 1:21,23, 2 Corinthians 5:8).

The events of the first six trumpets from Revelation 8 up to the end of Revelation 9 will all happen before the start of the 3.5-year worldwide Luciferian (Satanic) reign of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 13:4-18). And the events of Revelation chapters 8-9 could be used by Satan to help prepare the world to welcome that reign. For what Satan could do is first take great pleasure in causing the destruction in each event, but then he could claim that the destruction isn't from him, but from YHWH, and that YHWH is a cruel tyrant god who hates mankind and only wants to make mankind suffer, while he (Satan, as "Lucifer") only wants the best for mankind. In this way, Satan could deceive the world into turning away from YHWH and instead worshipping him (the dragon) and the Antichrist (Revelation 13:4-18). The Antichrist will utterly revile YHWH (Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36).

After the 3.5-year worldwide reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:5-7) is declared legally over at the sounding of the seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:15), the seven plagues of the seven vials of God's wrath will come out of the heavenly temple opening of the seventh trumpet (Revelation 11:19, Revelation 15:5-16:1). The seven vials of God's wrath will then be poured out upon the followers of the Antichrist as God's judgment for their receiving the Antichrist's mark and worshipping his image (Revelation 16:2), and for their killing of people in the church (Revelation 16:6-7) during the prior 3.5-year worldwide reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:5,7,10, Revelation 14:12-13).

During the Antichrist's worldwide reign, people in the church will be hated and killed in every nation on the earth just for refusing to renounce the name of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:9-13). They will be beheaded for refusing to renounce the witness of Jesus Christ (Revelation 20:4), for refusing to accept the antichrist lies that Jesus himself isn't the Christ (1 John 2:22) and that Christ himself isn't in the flesh (2 John 1:7). People in the church will be beheaded for refusing to renounce the sound doctrine of the Bible, the Word of God (Revelation 20:4, 2 Timothy 4:2-4), for refusing to depart from the Biblical faith and give heed instead to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-2). People in the church will be beheaded for refusing to worship the Antichrist's image (Revelation 13:15b, Revelation 20:4).

And all of this, of course, will be the wrath of Satan against the church (Revelation 12:17), not the wrath of God against the church. For the church isn't appointed to God's wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

Even when God's wrath does come subsequently in the seven vials (Revelation 16), the final stage of the tribulation, because the church isn't appointed to God's wrath, none of the vials of God's wrath will be directed at any of those in the church who will still be alive on the earth during that time, still waiting for Jesus' coming as a thief (Revelation 16:15). Instead, they will go into protective chambers which they will have built for themselves on the earth (Isaiah 26:20), just as Noah and his family went into the protective ark which they had built for themselves on the earth (Genesis 7:7).

Only after the seventh vial is completed (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2) will Jesus Christ return and bring the second-coming day of wrath/day of the Lord (Zephaniah 1:14-15, 1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10) upon the unsaved world (Revelation 19:15-21). And before that wrath begins, again because the church isn't appointed to God's wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9), the church will be caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (1 Thessalonians 4:17, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27) into the sky to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

At that meeting, Jesus will judge everyone in the church (Psalms 50:4-5, cf. Mark 13:27) by their works (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30) and then marry the obedient portion of the church (Revelation 19:7-8, cf. Matthew 25:1-13) in the clouds, before the obedient portion of the church mounts white horses and comes back down from the sky (the first heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he brings the second-coming wrath of God upon the unsaved world (Revelation 19:15-21).

After that, Jesus and the obedient portion of the just-resurrected church (including those in the church who had been beheaded by the Antichrist) will be on the earth ruling the surviving unsaved nations with a rod of iron for 1,000 years (Revelation 2:26-29, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 20:4-6, Psalms 2). During that time, Jesus will have to employ his wrath against the surviving unsaved nations in order to bring them into forced submission to him (Zechariah 14:16-19, Psalms 66:3, Psalms 2).

After the 1,000 years are over, the Gog/Magog rebellion will occur (Revelation 20:7-9, Ezekiel chapters 38-39), but it will be defeated by God's wrath against it (Ezekiel 38:19-23, Revelation 20:9b). After the defeat of the Gog/Magog rebellion, the earth will remain in existence for at least seven more years (Ezekiel 39:9b). After those at least seven more years are over, the white throne judgment will occur, in which all the unsaved of all times will be resurrected and judged and cast into God's eternal wrath of the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 20:11-15, Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10,15, Matthew 25:41,46).

Quote
thethinker said:

The inspired apostle CLEARLY said that "these THINGS" (plural) were "DONE" citing both Psalm 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10.

John 19:36's "these things were done" is referring to the things done in John 19:33-34.

Also, with regard to the discussion earlier in this thread about the "fulfilled" part of John 19:36-37, there's yet another way of looking at John 19:36-37, once we realize that John 19:36 actually says "should be fulfilled", instead of "was fulfilled"; and once we realize that Psalms 34:20 doesn't have to mean only at the time of the Crucifixion, but can mean at every moment of time of Christ's incarnation, from the time his bones first formed in Mary's womb, unto eternity in his immortal resurrection body, which has bones (Luke 24:39). That is, Psalms 34:20 can mean that from the moment of Christ's incarnation, unto eternity, none of his bones can have ever been broken, or can ever be broken.

If this is the case, then John 19:36 saying "should be fulfilled" takes on a different meaning then "was fulfilled". The original Greek verb translated as "should be fulfilled" is in the aorist tense and subjunctive mood: "The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time"; and the subjunctive mood "is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances" ( http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=19&v=36&t=KJV#conc/36 -- on that web page, click on the "Tense" button to the right of "should be fulfilled"). So John 19:36's saying "should be fulfilled" actually means "might be fulfilled", and can include a fulfillment in our future.

If it does, then even if someone wants to insist that the "might be fulfilled" part of John 19:36-37 must absolutely apply to both Psalms 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10 -- even though Zechariah 12:10 clearly won't be fulfilled until the still-unfulfilled second coming of Jesus (Zechariah 12:9-14, cf. Zechariah 14:2-21) -- then the "might be fulfilled" part of John 19:36-37 would apply to both Psalms 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10 only in a conditional and future-including sense. That is, under this view, John 19:36-37 would be saying that what happened at the Crucifixion happened so that Psalms 34:20 and Zechariah 12:10 might be fulfilled in our future. For if the soldiers hadn't skipped over Jesus when they were breaking the legs of the crucified people (John 19:32-33), but had broken Jesus' legs also, then Psalms 34:20 could not be fulfilled all the way from the moment of Jesus' incarnation, unto eternity. And if Jesus hadn't been pierced at his Crucifixion (John 19:34; see also Psalms 22:16b), then at his second coming (in our future) he could not be looked upon as one who had been pierced (Zechariah 12:10; see also Zechariah 13:6).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Yes, yes, we are all aware of what position your system adheres to.  All you have done is to cough up your system's view of these things.

Actually, what's been presented hasn't been based on what any man-invented system says, but rather on a close look at what the scriptures themselves say (and don't say).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

May I ask where in Isaiah 11:6 ff it mentions the millennium?  The only place is in your system.  It isn't there in Isaiah 11...

Isaiah 11:6-16, which has never been fulfilled, doesn't have to use the words "the millennium" in order to be referring to what is (in Christian circles) commonly called the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6); just as, for example, Matthew 28:19 doesn't have to use the words "the Trinity" in order to be referring to what is commonly called the Trinity.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You think it's there because you adhere to a overly wooden literalism.

Futurism doesn't adhere to an overly-wooden literalism. It's the scriptures themselves which show that the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25). And the 1,000 years which will occur on the earth right after the physical-body resurrection of the church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10) are commonly called the millennium. Therefore, the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the millennium. And if the still-unfulfilled Isaiah 11:6-9 won't happen until the millennium, then the still-unfulfilled Isaiah 11:10-16 won't either.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

For you, those are real animals in Isaiah 11:6-9.

Indeed.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

For you, you believe animals became tainted by sin.

Both man and animals became subject to suffering (Romans 8:22) because of Adam's sin (Romans 5:12a, Romans 8:20a).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You also believe that the planet Earth was also tainted by sin too.

All of creation has been affected for the worse (Romans 8:22).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

This is the foundation for gnosticism, folks - the physical is bad...

It hasn't been said that the physical is bad, because it isn't. (See reply #47)

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You also believe that in the Lord's 2nd coming, all the animals will be "fixed."

All the animals, indeed all of creation, "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption" (Romans 8:21) at the physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

ABSOLUTELY NO CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO UNDERSTANDING HOW SCRIPTURE EXPLAINS THESE TYPES OF THINGS!

Consideration has been given.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

For you, they are real animals.

Because for the scriptures, they are real animals.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

End of study (actually what study?)

Of the scriptures.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

No thought whatsoever is given to the idea that there are clean and unclean animals listed in that famous Isaiah 11:6-9 passage, no thought whatsoever.

There will no longer be any unclean animals at the time of Isaiah 11:6-9 (cf. Romans 8:21).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

If you actually spent some time in the OT (and the new) you would realize that the Jews thought themselves to be clean.  Gentiles were unclean.

Isaiah 11:6-9 isn't about Jews and Gentiles, but about animals.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Perhaps you are familiar with Peter's vision in Acts 10, and perhaps not.  It would seem to be the latter.

Isaiah 11:6-9 is literal, whereas Acts 10:12 wasn't.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Acts 10:11-15 - And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:   
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.   
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.   
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.   
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

To adhere to the same hermeneutic standard, you would also believe that these should be real animals, insects and birds, right?

No. For (hopefully) no hermeneutic standard says that every verse in the Bible must be literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

But I don't think you do and that is because you have two (or more) hermeneutic standards.  That is very inconsistent!

It's not inconsistent to have a single hermeneutic standard under which some verses are literal and others are symbolic, depending on their immediate context, any subsequent explanations (e.g. Acts 10:34-35 and Acts 11:2-18 explain Acts 10:11-15), and comparing the verses with other, related verses elsewhere in the Bible (Isaiah 28:9-10) (e.g. comparing Isaiah 11:6-9 and Romans 8:19-25).

Hopefully, preterism doesn't claim that every verse in the Bible is symbolic, but can admit that some verses are symbolic and others are literal. For example, (hopefully) preterism doesn't claim that the "beasts" in Genesis 36:6 were symbolic of Jews and Gentiles, instead of being literal animals, simply because the "beasts" in Acts 10:12 were symbolic. And if preterism can admit that the "beasts" in Genesis 36:6 were literal, then it should be able to admit that the animals in Isaiah 11:6-9 can also be literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

To solve the riddle of Peter's vision we only need to refer to Scripture (not a theological system to cough up their misunderstandings)...

Indeed.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Isaiah 11:6-9 is nothing more than common Hebrew idioms and symbolic language.

It's literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

But because you refuse to accept it as clean (Jews) and unclean (Gentiles) and insist upon a wooden literalism that ignores the common literary style of the Bible, you cannot accept Romans 15:12 as the present fulfillment of Jews and Gentiles being gathered into the church.

Futurism doesn't insist upon a wooden literalism, nor does it ignore any literary style of the Bible.

Romans 15:12 quotes Isaiah 11:10 to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8). Romans 15:12 doesn't say or mean that the specific time of Isaiah 11:10 has been fulfilled, because it won't be fulfilled until Isaiah 11:6-16 is fulfilled, which will be during the coming millennium, which won't occur until after the second coming of Jesus (Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You seem to totally ignore the fact that the 30AD to 70AD time frame was a transition period to gather the old covenant remnant into the new covenant in Christ.

From God's point of view, there was no transition period, no overlap at all (Hebrews 10:9b, 7:12) between the time of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and the time of the New Covenant. Instead, the time of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law ended at the moment Jesus Christ died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a) and abolished the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), which was the same moment that Jesus brought the New Covenant into force (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

And yes, because Israel's promises were fulfilled (and ONLY because they were fulfilled) we as non-covenant beings, get to enter the new covenant through Christ as well...

Not all of Israel's promises have been fulfilled (See reply #48).

The way that believing genetic Gentiles get to enter into the New Covenant made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b), is by being grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). Believing genetic Jews remain Israel (Romans 11:1). So the entire church is Israel (Revelation 21:9b,12b, 1 Peter 2:9-10). All those in the church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, 1 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15).

Also, all those in the church, no matter whether they're genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they've undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Most of the other jibber jabber presented in refutation is along the same kind of lines - basic assertions from your own system - no clear explanation from Scripture and a total lack of understanding regarding Hebrew metaphors.

There's been no jibber jabber, no assertions from any man-invented system, and no lack of understanding of Hebrew metaphors. There have been clear explanations from Scripture itself.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

So, I ask you again, where is the millennium mentioned in Isaiah 11:6-19?

That was answered near the start of the previous reply.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Have a great day.

You too.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

If you don't get it by now, you likely may never get it...get your explanations and definitions from Scripture, man.

Already done.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

The number 1,000 indicates fullness/completion...

Not always. It can sometimes indicate 1,000 literally (e.g. Numbers 31:4-6, 35:4, Judges 20:10, 2 Kings 15:19, 1 Chronicles 19:6, Song of Songs 8:11, Revelation 20:2-6).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Does God not own the cattle on hill #1001???

He does. So in the case of Psalms 50:10, the number 1,000 isn't literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Some people, who are not willing to invest the time in studying the actual Scriptures to get the definitions and understandings, refer to these understandings as "selective allegory."

Futurism employs selective allegory, because only some scriptures are allegorical, while others are literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Maybe one day, they will actually sit down and study the Scriptures to see whether these things are so.  I get my definitions and explanations from Scriptures and I use Scriptures to show the explanations.  I insert nothing.

The scriptures don't teach preterism.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You folks insert millennium wherever you see fit.

Yes, but futurism only sees fit to do that based on the scriptures.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

IT AIN'T IN ISAIAH!

It's in parts of Isaiah.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

If it was, you would show it to me, but I know you won't because it ain't there, folks!

It is there, as was shown (with regard to just Isaiah 11:6-16) near the start of the previous reply.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

And while I am at it, the only place you will find any mention of an antichrist is in 1 John and 2 John.

The idea of the individual-man Antichrist isn't based on 1 John and 2 John, because they're referring to "the antichrist" spirit (Greek: 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7).

Also, it should be pointed out that the existence of "many antichrists" (1 John 2:18) doesn't contradict the fact that there will be an individual man (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4,9, Revelation 13:4-18) who's commonly called the Antichrist; just as, on the side of good, the existence of many sons of God (John 1:12) doesn't contradict the fact that there's an individual man who's called the Son of God (John 20:31).

The idea of the individual-man Antichrist doesn't have to be explicitly referred to in scripture as "the Antichrist" in order for it to be true and supported by scripture, just as, for example, the idea of the Trinity doesn't have to be explicitly referred to in scripture as "the Trinity" in order for it to be true and supported by scripture.

The individual man commonly called the Antichrist is the individual "man of sin" who will sit in a third Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4, Daniel 11:36). The Antichrist is the individual-man aspect of the "beast" who will come (Revelation 13:18) and be worshipped by the world (Revelation 13:8), and who will rule the earth for 42 months (Revelation 13:5-10) and have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) who by Luciferian/Satanic miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9), such as calling fire down from heaven in the sight of everyone, will deceive the world into worshipping a speaking image of the Antichrist and receiving his mark on their right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:13-18).

The spirit of antichrist which will animate the Antichrist has been working since the first century (1 John 4:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:7a), animating many antichrists since that time (2 John 1:7). The spirit of antichrist denies that Christ himself is in the flesh (2 John 1:7, cf. Luke 24:39) and denies that Jesus himself is the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (1 John 2:22), so that anyone who denies any of these things is an antichrist (1 John 2:18b,22, 2 John 1:7).

The idea of a future, individual-man Antichrist was correctly recognized in the scriptures by the church from early on. That's why Irenaeus (born c. 140 AD) used the term: "speaking of Antichrist, [Paul] says, 'who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped'" (Against Heresies 3:6:5; quoting 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

"...by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God" (Against Heresies 5:25:1; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36, Revelation 13:8).

"...when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem" (Against Heresies 5:30:4b; cf. Revelation 13:5, 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

"...the number of the name of the beast ... the name of Antichrist" (Against Heresies 5:30:1; cf. Revelation 13:17c-18).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

It you were to take inspiration's account of the description given to these antichrists, you would dump your system's explanation real quick...but I don't suppose that is going to happen either.

Inspiration's description of antichrists doesn't contradict Futurism.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Don't be. Just return to Futurism, because it's what the scriptures themselves show.

Quote from: Bible2 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 - 04:33:03

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

May I ask where in Isaiah 11:6 ff it mentions the millennium?  The only place is in your system.  It isn't there in Isaiah 11...

Isaiah 11:6-16, which has never been fulfilled, doesn't have to use the words "the millennium" in order to be referring to what is (in Christian circles) commonly called the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6); just as, for example, Matthew 28:19 doesn't have to use the words "the Trinity" in order to be referring to what is commonly called the Trinity.

I will address just this one facet because the rest is based upon this central fallacy (assumption) that Isaiah speaks of Bible2's millennium...

Bible2, you used Matthew 28:19 to refer to what is commonly called the Trinity:

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  

I agree that Isaiah 11:6-16 doesn't have to use the word "millennium" either but the elements of that millennium MUST be there in order for it to be associated with it, right?  I would have no problem with Matthew 28:19 because the basic elements of that passage express the components of the Trinity.  However, I have repeatedly asked, "Where is the millennium in Isaiah 11:6 ff?"  In other words, where are ANY of the elements that speak concerning your 1,000-year millennium?

All I see is COMMON animal symbolism for the clean and the unclean and it is based upon Scripture (what Paul said) - not upon a particular paradigm.

Your millennial view of this verse comes ONLY from your particular system; it cannot be proven from this passage of Scripture.

What the inspired apostle said in Romans 15:8-12 in regard to the Gentiles joining together with the Jews in the new covenant in Christ at the church of Rome makes perfect sense in regard to the clean and unclean coming together.  You seem to ignore the entire context (Gentile salvation) of that particular Roman's passage of Scripture.

The apostle Paul is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, using Isaiah 11:10 to represent a FUTURE anything.  He uses it to show that what was prophesied by Isaiah had come to pass in Paul's first century generation.  And we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "in that day" includes the animal symbolism of the clean and the unclean dwelling together in harmony (the new covenant)...well, not all of us see that  

One would have to greatly wonder that if the clean and unclean animals were ACTUAL animals, then why would the inspired Apostle Paul use that Isaiah passage in the context of the Gentiles coming into covenant with God through faith in Jesus Christ (the church)?  Please answer that very specific question.

On the basis of what the inspired Paul said and in what connection it was used, the idea of ACTUAL animals is preposterous - that is why the animal symbolism (in this particular instance) is the correct understanding.

It is evidently clear that you do not wish to consider any passage as metaphorical, symbolic, or figurative when it contradicts your particular system.  You completely ignore the inspired Apostle Paul's illumination of the Isaiah passage, as you do other NT passages.

An off-the-present-subject question concerning the following:

Isaiah 40:4-5 - Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:  
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.  

I am curious, do you see the above passage as an actual physical event (mountains and hills being leveled, crooked things made straight, and rough places made smooth) or do you see the connection with the Gospel ministry expressed by Isaiah in figurative language? And what SCRIPTURAL PROOFS would you use to back up your explanation?

Bible2 said:

QuoteThe idea of the individual-man Antichrist isn't based on 1 John and 2 John, because they're referring to "the antichrist" spirit (Greek: 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7).

John's epistles teach exactly the opposite. They do NOT say that the antichrist is one individual man. They indicate that the antichrist is ANYONE who denies that Jesus is the Christ.


First, you left out 2:22 which says,

22 Who is the liar? It is WHOEVER denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is THE antichrist—denying the Father and the Son," NIV

John asked, "who is the liar?" Then he answered, "It is WHOEVER denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is THE antichrist."


Second, 2 John 1:7 says the very same thing,

"I say this because MANY deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. ANY SUCH PERSON is the deceiver and THE antichrist."


Third, Paul uses the term "MAN of sin" in the same sense he uses the term "the new MAN" which is in the corporate sense. In Ephesians 2 Paul said that Christ brought Jew and Gentile together and made from them ONE new man.


Give up your futurist superstitions Bible2! The antichrist is not some mysterious person who is to appear. He is the Jehovah's Witness who knocks on your door.


thinker

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #64):

Isaiah said that the lion shall lie with the calf (11:6). But 35:9 says that there shall be NO LION there. If the futurist's literal method is correct, then we have a blatant contradiction in the scripture for the literal lion cannot both be there and not be there.

Isaiah 35:9 and Isaiah 11:6 are both literal, but they don't contradict each other, because Isaiah 35:9's "No lion" means no violent lion. For, in its context, "No lion" in Isaiah 35:9 is immediately followed by "nor any ravenous [violent] beast". Lions in the millennium will be peaceful (Isaiah 11:6b), and will eat straw (Isaiah 11:7b), instead of attacking other animals (or attacking people walking along a highway: Isaiah 35:8-9).

Also, if preterism (mistakenly) says that a contradiction between Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 35:9 can only be avoided if the lion in Isaiah 11:6 isn't literal while the lion in Isaiah 35:9 is literal, then preterism has to admit that Isaiah 35:9 is literal, and so preterism has to show when that verse and its context (Isaiah 35:8-10) was fulfilled literally in the past.

Quote
thethinker said:

Then there is the problem in 30:6. It says that the lion shall carry his riches on the back of the donkey. Okay futurist go ahead and say it. Go ahead and say that literal lions will use donkeys to carry their riches.

Isaiah 30:6 doesn't say that the lion shall carry his riches on the back of the donkey. The "they" in Isaiah 30:6 are "the rebellious children" in Isaiah 30:1. The literal "young and old lion" in Isaiah 30:6 are simply used to describe what's in "the land of trouble" (Isaiah 30:6). Isaiah 30:1-7 is referring to what occurred in the 8th century BC: Jews were wrongly moving back into Egypt, thinking that the military strength of the Pharaoh would protect them from the ruthless Assyrians (who defeated the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC). God wanted the Jews to remain in Judah and trust in God alone for their protection (Isaiah 30:7), like Hezekiah did (Isaiah 37:15-37).

Quote
thethinker said:

The animal metaphors in prophecy is beautiful poetry for the conversion of the gentiles as you have correctly noted.

The animals in Isaiah 11:6-8 are literal.

Quote
thethinker said:

The futurists take the beautiful and the poetic and make it the absurd.

Futurism doesn't make any scripture absurd.

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #65):

God told Israel that if he planted a kingdom and that the people obeyed, he would keep the good word He spoke to them. But if they disobeyed He would "REPENT" of the word He promised (Jeremiah 18:6-10).

Why is it that the futurist believe that the promises are "sure" but not the threats?

Futurism believes that both the promises and the threats are sure. With regard to the Jews, the threat of Jeremiah 18:9-10 was fulfilled first in the time of Jeremiah, when God allowed the Jewish state to be destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC (the Jewish state was then restored in 538 BC). Then the threat of Jeremiah 18:9-10 was fulfilled again when God allowed the Jewish state to be destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD (the Jewish state was then restored in 1948 AD). The threat of Jeremiah 18:9-10 could be fulfilled again if God allows the current Jewish state to be destroyed by the Baathists in a future war at the start of the coming tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18/Matthew 24. The Jewish state will be restored at Jesus' second coming (See reply #48), which will occur immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).

One way this war could happen is that the U.S. could build up the Iraqi Army until it's huge enough and well-equipped enough to serve as a proxy army (for the U.S. and Israel) for an all-out ground invasion of Iran (to end Iran's nuclear weapons program and extremist regime). As part of the buildup of the Iraqi Army, the U.S. could reinstall some of the former Baathist military hierarchy to run the Iraqi Army more efficiently and ruthlessly. And if the current Shiite-dominated government of Iraq balks at any invasion of fellow-Shiite Iran, the CIA and the Mossad could then help the Baathists (who see non-Arab Iran as an enemy of Arab autonomy) to take back complete control of Iraq via a coup d'etat.

To help get the Iraqi masses and the world behind the idea of an all-out Iraqi invasion of Iran, false-flag operations could be managed by the CIA and the Mossad by which it will be made to seem that (non-Arab, Persian) Iran is attacking the Iraqi Sunni Arabs and their little children terroristically with "dirty bombs" made from Iranian-enriched uranium, so that the Iraqi Arab masses will become enraged and begin to call for all-out retaliation against (what they could call) "the vile Persians", and the world could see an Iraqi invasion of Iran as being completely justified by self-defense.

But then, right when Iraq is all ready to invade Iran, the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel (led by a false Messiah) could destroy the Muslim Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque (the third holiest sites in Islam) on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to prepare the site for the building of a third Jewish temple. This could so enrage Muslims worldwide, including the (Muslim) Iraqi Army, that the Iraqi Baathist Generals could see it as a perfect excuse to abandon the plan to invade huge Iran and instead turn and send their huge army against tiny Israel, completely defeating it (Daniel 11:15-17; in verse 17, the original Hebrew word translated as "daughter" is "bath").

But this would not be the ultimate reason for the Baathist attack, which could continue on south to also defeat Egypt (Daniel 11:15), the regime of which (even if there's some ostensible change in Egypt) the Baathists could see as still being a puppet of the U.S., just as they could see Israel as being a colony of the U.S.  The ultimate aim of Baathism is to unite all Arab lands from Oman to Morocco into one massive, powerful United Arab States free of all foreign hegemony.

The all-out Iraqi attack on Israel could be joined by the Baathist Syrian Army (with all of its missiles, many tipped with nerve agents), as well as by all of Iran's long-range missiles and all of Hezbollah's and Hamas' missiles and guerrillas. Tiny Israel could find itself suddenly attacked from three directions at the same time, with tens of thousands of missiles raining down on its cities and military bases, and thousands of Iraqi tanks (meant to defeat huge Iran) pouring across its borders. As Israel starts to see its tiny sliver of land completely overrun, and sees its defeat as imminent, in retaliation it could drop nuclear bombs on Baghdad, Damascus (Isaiah 17:1), Tehran and other major cities of Iraq, Syria and Iran.

There could be so many nuclear explosions sending so much radioactive dust and ash so high into the atmosphere that it could be blown eastward and fall on hugely-populated South Asia, ruining so many crop fields and immune systems there with radiation that a fourth of the world could end up dying from the war and its aftermath of famines and epidemics. This could fulfill the horrible war which will begin the coming tribulation, which war will, with its aftermath of famines and epidemics, end up killing a fourth of the world (Revelation 6:4-8). The great sword of this war (Revelation 6:4) could be Israel's nuclear weapons.

After an Iraqi Baathist General who could lead the defeat and occupation of Israel and Egypt mysteriously disappears from the scene (Daniel 11:19), the Antichrist, who could be an Arab, could arise peacefully out of Lebanon (from the modern city of Tyre: Ezekiel 28:2, cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and he could take up the mantle of Baathism and vow to (in his words) "complete the great work of Arab liberation and unification".

The first thing the Antichrist could do once he's given control (Daniel 11:21) of a Baathist confederation of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and a "United Palestine" (i.e. a defeated Israel), is to perform a very small and localized attack against an army of ultra-Orthodox Jews holed up in the walled Old City of Jerusalem and led by a false ultra-Orthodox Jewish Messiah (Daniel 9:26a, Daniel 11:22). They could have managed to hold off the first Baathist attack even as it overran the rest of Israel, because the walled Old City of Jerusalem is considered holy to the Muslims, and so it's not to be bombarded or destroyed. The Antichrist could manage in some way to take the Old City without doing it much harm.

Then, instead of executing all the ultra-Orthodox Jews and their false Messiah, the Antichrist will do an amazing thing: he will make a peace treaty with them (Daniel 11:23); he will "cut" a peace treaty with them and their false Messiah (Daniel 9:26a), permitting them to keep a third Jewish temple (Revelation 11:1) which they will have built on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, and to keep control of the Old City, for at least seven more years (Daniel 9:27a), so long as they give up the outer court of the temple (Revelation 11:2a) to the Muslims so that the Muslims can rebuild the Al Aqsa Mosque on the southern end of the Temple Mount and resume worship there.

By this seven-year peace treaty, the Antichrist could present himself to the world as (in his words): "A reasonable man, a man of peace. I am no Hitler. I do not desire a second Holocaust. I am willing to give the religious Jews in the Old City seven years to show that they are willing to live peacefully with others, that they are different than the Zionist Jews who have just destroyed the world with their nuclear weapons".

And if the Antichrist gets flak from his fellow Baathists for letting the ultra-Orthodox Jews keep the Old City, he could explain to them privately that (in his words) "It's all a temporary ruse, meant to keep world opinion off guard while we consolidate our position". The Baathists could consolidate their position by becoming so well dug-in, and so well equipped and advised militarily by the Russians (in the name of "Arab self-determination"), that a U.S. counter-attack to "restore" (i.e. to take back) Israel and Egypt could fail, and leave the Baathists in control, and in a position to extend their power over all the rest of the Arab nations.

For if the Baathists defeat Israel, they will be hailed by the Arab masses as magnificent heroes, so that the Baathists could have no problem persuading the Arab masses to support them. And the Baathists could justify their defeat of the Egyptian military regime, and then their subsequent defeat of other regimes such as in Jordan, by railing against them as being (what they could call):

"These vile cronies of the Americans. These cronies pretended to be for the Arab people while in fact they were taking American bribes in the billions, completely selling out our Palestinian brothers to the endless cruelties of the Zionist occupation, and keeping you, the great majority of the Arab people, in poverty. These cronies, like the Zionists themselves, were the American bulwarks against our glorious Arab unification and return to world power. Join now with us, the Baathists, that we might bring about the long-awaited Arab Renaissance, the long-awaited Arab Resurrection [the Arab word 'Baath' can mean 'Renaissance' and 'Resurrection'], that we Arabs might all rise up together and unite, from Oman to Morocco, into one great United Arab States, one great Arab Empire, shaking off completely all the shackles of the West, placed upon us so long ago, and return to our former glory as we had during the Middle Ages, when we were far superior to the West".

The Baathists could also rail against the kings and sheikhs of the Arab Gulf States for (in their words) "hoarding the huge oil wealth given by Allah to all the Arabs, and keeping the Arab masses in poverty and subjugation to Western interests". The Baathists are socialist, and so could call for the distribution of the Arab oil wealth to the Arab masses (Daniel 11:24). In this way, and by their defeat of Israel, the Baathists could easily turn the masses to their side in every Arab nation.

During the first few years of the seven-year peace treaty, the Antichrist could employ Baathism as the means by which he will gradually and peacefully put together a United Arab States, or Arab Union, stretching from Oman to Morocco. Once he has accomplished this, he could then begin to downplay Baathism and start speaking of "world peace and the unity of mankind". He could convince an oil-thirsty European Union to let the oil-rich Arab Union join it, thereby forming a massive Mediterranean Union, which he could manage to peacefully gain control of and use as his base of power to eventually exert his hegemony over the entire earth (Revelation 13:7b).

Then, only some 3.5 years after making the seven-year peace treaty, the Antichrist will break the treaty, attack the third Jewish temple in Jerusalem, stop the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices offered in front of it, and sit in the temple and proclaim himself God (Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:4). He will then rule the whole earth in all the power of Lucifer/Satan (the dragon: Revelation 12:9) for 42 months (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 11:2b), or 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6, Revelation 11:3), or "a time, and times, and half a time" (Revelation 12:14, Daniel 12:7, Daniel 7:25).

The return of Jesus Christ from heaven (Matthew 24:30, Revelation 19:11-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:16) may not occur immediately after the 1,260 days of the Antichrist's worldwide reign are over, but could occur 75 days later, on the 1,335th day after the Antichrist and his followers set up the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing android image of the Antichrist) in the holy place of the Jewish temple (Daniel 12:11-12, Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15). The 75 days could be taken up by the vials of God's wrath which will be poured out on the worshippers of the Antichrist (Revelation 16). When Jesus returns he will completely defeat the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) and the False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:8), and he will have Satan bound in the bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3). Then Jesus and the just-resurrected church (including those in the church who had been beheaded by the Antichrist) will reign on the earth for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

(See reply #48)

Some possible objections to the Baathist war scenario outlined in the previous reply:

1. "Wouldn't the Baathists be deterred from attacking, by Israel's nukes?"

Even though Iraq and Syria know of Israel's nuclear weapons and its tendency to retaliate in huge measure against attacks, Iraq and Syria could still decide to make an all-out attack against Israel, for a couple of reasons. First, by that time Iran could have successfully built (or secretly purchased from North Korea) and tested its first nuclear weapon, and have claimed to have built a few more to (in its words) "serve solely for defensive purposes against Israel's nuclear threat". Iraq and Syria could then think that Israel won't use its nuclear weapons against them, even if they do attack Israel with all their conventional forces, because Israel would then have to fear Iran retaliating against Israel with nuclear weapons.

Second, the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque could so enrage the rank and file of the (Muslim) Iraqi and Syrian Armies that they could demand an immediate invasion of Israel, and threaten an all-out revolt against their generals if their generals refuse to lead them in the attack. Fearing for their own lives at the hands of their own soldiers, the generals could initiate the attack against Israel, figuring that even if Israel goes ahead and nukes Baghdad and Damascus in retaliation for the defeat of Israel, by that time the Iraqi and Syrian armies will all be in Israel, out of harm's way from Israel's nukes, for Israel isn't going to nuke its own land.

But what good would it do the Baathists to gain "Palestine" and Egypt while losing Baghdad and Damascus to Israeli nukes? The Baathists could figure that the loss of Baghdad and Damascus (which they could evacuate ahead of time) is worth it in order to completely defeat Israel and Egypt, thereby removing the very foundation of U.S. hegemony over the Arab world. And by the time the U.S. makes its counter-attack to "restore" (i.e. take back) Israel and Egypt, the Baathists could have become so well dug-in, and so well equipped and advised militarily by the Russians (in the name of "Arab self-determination"), that the U.S. counter-attack could fail, and leave the Baathists in control, and in a position to extend their power over all the rest of the Arab nations.

---

2. "Wouldn't the Israeli Air Force be able to take out any forces streaming toward Israel?"

The Israeli Air Force could be unable to hit enough of the massive Iraqi invading force to prevent the tiny territory of Israel from being overrun. For between Baghdad and Israel is basically flat desert across which massive numbers of Iraqi tanks, armored personnel carriers and rapid-fire, rapidly-moving tracked howitzers could stream west toward Israel in wide and staggered formations which Israel's Air Force could have difficulty taking out quickly. And interspersed liberally among the Iraqi forces could be large numbers of highly mobile Iraqi SAM units which could manage to take out most of Israel's Air Force as it's attacking the Iraqi forces.

Any Iraqi force configuration which the U.S. will make sure is capable of surviving all of Iran's air and surface defenses and overrunning Iran's relatively huge territory could have no problem with surviving Israel's air and surface defenses at least to the point of still being able to overrun the tiny territory of Israel.

---

3. "What about the U.S. forces in Iraq, or Kuwait?"

There could be no U.S. forces in Iraq by the time the war happens (they've already been scheduled to vacate Iraq by the end of the year). And even if they shift into Kuwait, they would have a hard time justifying to the Iraqi masses the U.S.'s killing of Iraqi troops (starting on their way across the desert to defeat Israel).

Also, if the Iraqi Army basically vacates Iraq in order to defeat Israel (with a promise from Israel-hating Iran not to invade Iraq in the meantime), then if all the U.S. forces in Kuwait went chasing westward after the Iraqi Army to attack and weaken it before it reaches Israel, the U.S. would have to fear Iran invading and occupying a then completely-defenseless Iraq (which occupation Iran could justify by saying that it's just there to defend the Iraqi masses from any retaliation by U.S. forces until the Iraqi Army can return from its defeat of Israel), not to mention that it would also leave the U.S.'s own flank in Kuwait dangerously exposed to an Iranian invasion and occupation.

---

4. "Wouldn't the U.S. be able to counter-attack with its forces in the West and restore Israel and Egypt?"

If the Baathists defeat and occupy Israel and Egypt, the U.S. could begin a counter-attack to "restore" (i.e. take back) Israel and Egypt by attempting a huge amphibious assault on Egypt, only to see its invasion force cut to shreds in the sea by tens of thousands of rockets and missiles fired from shore, resulting in the loss of something like 30,000 U.S. military personnel in a single day.

This could cause a huge uproar among the U.S. public, which could cry out: "What are we doing over there? Who cares about Egypt? And why in the world do the Israelis have to live in that awful region surrounded by so many hateful and powerful enemies? Let all the Israelis come over here to America and live in freedom and peace with us. Why should any more of our precious young men and women be slaughtered over this madness in the Middle East?" And so the U.S. could withdraw from attempting any more counter-attacks to "restore" Israel and Egypt. Also, a bankruptcy of the U.S. government at this same time because of a massive run on the U.S. dollar after its disastrous failure in the counter-attack could render the U.S. simply unable for a time to finance any more huge military adventures overseas.

The U.S. could instead blockade the Baathists with its Navy and call an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to address the situation. But Russia and China could veto any votes to send in U.N. forces, saying "What right does the world have to interfere in this act of Arab self-determination? How is Arab Iraq and Syria invading Arab Palestine and Egypt to establish a free union of Arabs any different than the American North invading the American South during the American Civil War to establish a free union of Americans? Should the U.N. invade the U.S. to restore the Confederacy? And how is the Arabs throwing the Jews off their ancestral land any different than the U.S. throwing the American Indians off their ancestral lands? Should the U.N. invade the U.S. to restore the American Indians to their ancestral lands?"

The U.S. could then turn to the U.N. General Assembly, only to have its spokesman hooted and shouted from the podium by a world that is jealous of America's power: "Ha! Ha! Great America is defeated! And no one wants to help it restore its hegemony in the Middle East!"

The U.S. could then turn to NATO, only to have the Europeans turn down its request to send the armies of Europe (as they could say) "into the jaws of death, and for what?"

Russia and China, seeing America's isolation, could then send in military "advisors" into an ever-expanding "United Arab States" and shore it up with massive amounts of military hardware and training. Oil-thirsty China could do so in exchange for cheap oil, and oil-rich Russia could sell its military hardware in exchange for huge amounts of cash (and just to be able to thumb its nose at a defeated U.S. and keep the U.S. from taking back hegemony over the Middle East).

Ultimately, after the Baathists have completed taking control of the entire Arab Middle East and North Africa, the U.S. could find itself completely blocked out of those regions and all of their oil, but could say that it's those regions that are blockaded by the huge U.S. Navy. To get around the U.S. naval blockade, China could lay an oil pipeline from the Middle East to a point on the coast of the Indian Ocean (where oil tankers could get the oil) beyond the blockade. (Also, if most of the U.S. Navy gets deployed to blockade the huge region controlled by the Baathists, China could see that as the time for it to make an all-out attempt to restore Taiwan to mainland Chinese control, and also to take control of every disputed island in the South China Sea.)

Russia could get around the U.S. naval blockade by sending into the Middle East and North Africa any military hardware sales it would have delivered by ship, by delivering them instead via rail and truck crossing the Caucasus and eastern Turkey. And Europe could get around the blockade and obtain oil from the Middle East and North Africa by building a pipeline across the Bosporus, and possibly even by digging a pipeline tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar.

---

5. "Didn't Iraq fail to defeat Iran the last time?"

Yes, but the U.S. could build up a Baathist Iraqi Army until it's much more powerful than it was under (Baathist) Saddam Hussein, to the point where the U.S. could become convinced that another stalemate-war (like in the 1980s) between a Baathist Iraq and a theocratic Iran will be avoided, and that Iraq will be able to completely overrun and occupy Iran. (But then Baathist Iraq could decide not to invade Iran at all, but to turn and defeat Israel and Egypt instead.)



*******

Some possible objections to the Baathist, Arab political unity scenario outlined in the previous reply:

1. "Isn't there no political unity, but only much divisiveness, in the Arab world?"

There's no unity now, when the Arab masses are unnaturally divided by rival military dictatorships, many supported by the U.S. and Israel. But all the current political divisiveness in the Arab world could be overcome if Baathism is able to ignite Arab nationalism as the cause celebre among the Arab masses, who could overthrow any Arab governments insistent on keeping the Arab world splintered up into petty, political fiefdoms. Take out the different dictatorships and replace them with one popular, charismatic Arab-nationalist Baathist dictator (i.e. the Antichrist) who distributes the Arab oil wealth to the Arab masses (Daniel 11:24), and you'll get political unity in the Arab world in a heartbeat.

---

2. "Isn't the Arab world hopelessly divided by religion (i.e. Sunnis vs. Shiites), killing its own without batting an eyelid?"

The beauty of Baathism (from a Baathist's point of view) is that it downplays religion and focuses on Arab nationalism. The Baathists could point to Sunni vs. Shiite terrorism to show that religious extremism is only hurting the Arabs themselves, and that the Arabs need to assert religious moderation across the board. Almost all Arabs are already religiously moderate; they're just too scared of the religious extremists to speak out against extremism. But if the Baathists squash the extremists militarily, the Arabs can unite politically under Arab nationalism and a moderate Islam into one powerful United Arab States, regardless of the majority religious sects within its various states.

---

3. "Isn't Arab unity and power impossible because they aren't Western thinkers, they don't have Western intellects?"

The Arabs won't have to become Western thinkers (in the sense of embracing democracy or women's rights) in order to become united, like they were united at times during the Middle Ages, when for centuries Arab intellectual endeavors far excelled those in Europe. The Arabs are in no sense stupid intellectually. Their masses have just in recent centuries been suppressed intellectually, not educated in any matters beyond religion. Dubai shows that, once educated in a modern fashion, the Arab mind is more than capable of developing a modern, technological society like that in the West. Imagine the level of development in Dubai spread across the Arab world, from Oman to Morocco, and you can begin to grasp the potential power of a United Arab States.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #76):

I will address just this one facet because the rest is based upon this central fallacy (assumption) that Isaiah speaks of Bible2's millennium...

The rest of reply #73 wasn't based on any fallacy or assumption, but was based on what the scriptures themselves show.

Also, there's no such thing as "Bible2's millennium". It's the Bible itself which shows there will be a millennium:

After the second coming of Jesus (Revelation 19:7-20:3, Zechariah 14:3-4), he will reign physically on the earth with the just-resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 2, Psalms 66:3-4).

During the millennium, Jesus will place obedient Christians over cities (Luke 19:17-19) and nations (Revelation 2:26-29) and political divisions within nations (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30), while Jesus himself will be King of Kings (Revelation 19:16) over the entire earth (Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11), reigning in the earthly Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-21).

---

Regarding who will populate the millennium, in the sense of having offspring during the millennium, it will be populated by the unsaved people "left" alive in their mortal bodies at the second coming of Jesus (Matthew 24:39b-40, Zechariah 14:16-19). It could also be populated by the elect Jews who will get saved at the second coming (Romans 11:25-29, Zechariah 12:10-14), for they could enter into the millennium (Zechariah 14:5-21) while still in their mortal bodies. For the resurrection/changing of the saved into immortal bodies, at the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, Revelation 20:4-6), could be only for those who had become saved before the second coming.

---

Amillennialism ends up (inadvertently) logically requiring the error of full preterism (2 Timothy 2:18), because claiming that the resurrection of the church in Revelation 20:4-6 is already present requires that the second coming of Jesus Christ has already happened, because the church won't be resurrected until the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Also, amillennialism ends up (inadvertently) logically requiring the error of partial preterism, because claiming that the resurrection of those beheaded by the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) during the coming tribulation and their subsequent reigning on the earth with Jesus for the full 1,000 years of the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6) is already present, requires that the worldwide reign of the Antichrist during the tribulation (Revelation 13:4-18) has already happened.

Also, amillennialism is mistaken because it requires that the devil is currently bound in the bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-6), when in fact he's currently walking around on the earth seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8).

---

Premillennialism was the teaching of the early church (see Papias) subsequent to John's writing down the book of Revelation, based on the clear prophecy of Revelation 19:7-20:6, which shows that the millennium will occur subsequent to Jesus Christ's second coming. Amillennialism was an error that didn't crop up until later. The scriptural truth of premillennialism was recovered in relatively modern times because it was only then that a significant part of the church became interested again in eschatology, and believers could then search the scriptures for themselves to see that premillennialism was true, as opposed to during the many centuries when the mistakenly-amillennial Roman Catholic Church hierarchy mistakenly kept the scriptures from believers and simply told believers what to believe.

---

It's Jesus who showed the church in Revelation 19:7-20:6, Revelation 5:10, and Revelation 2:26-29 that after his return, he and the resurrected church will reign physically on the earth for 1,000 years. For the entire book of Revelation is from Jesus to the church (Revelation 1:1, Revelation 22:16). He didn't tell the church about the millennium before Revelation, because he waits to tell the church things when the church is ready to hear them, and not before (John 16:12). What's really sad is that even after he tells the church things, there can be some in the church who still can't hear them, but choose to reject them and replace them with man-made ideas (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4).

---

Just as Jesus' coming down to the level of an earthly man (John 1:1,14) isn't wrong, because it in no way affects his continuing to be God at the same time (John 10:30, John 20:28), so Jesus' future taking, as the human son of David, the earthly throne of David forever (Luke 1:32-33) won't be wrong, because it will in no way affect Jesus' continuing to be God at the same time (Isaiah 9:6-7).

Just as Jesus Christ is both man and God at the same time, so Jesus Christ is both Savior and King. His name "Jesus" points to his role as Savior (Matthew 1:21), and his title of "Christ" points to his role as King (Mark 15:32).

---

Jesus Christ not establishing his physical kingdom at his first coming wasn't a failure, because he was never meant to establish his physical kingdom at his first coming. Instead, he was meant to meekly suffer and die on the Cross for our sins (Isaiah 53), by which work his spiritual kingdom (Romans 14:17) could be established on the earth first. It wasn't a contingency plan, but was always determined that he wouldn't establish his physical kingdom until his second coming (Zechariah 14:3-21, Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #76):

Bible2, you used Matthew 28:19 to refer to what is commonly called the Trinity:

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:  

I agree that Isaiah 11:6-16 doesn't have to use the word "millennium" either but the elements of that millennium MUST be there in order for it to be associated with it, right?  I would have no problem with Matthew 28:19 because the basic elements of that passage express the components of the Trinity.  However, I have repeatedly asked, "Where is the millennium in Isaiah 11:6 ff?"  In other words, where are ANY of the elements that speak concerning your 1,000-year millennium?

It's a matter of timing: As was pointed out in reply #73, the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25). And the 1,000 years which will occur on the earth right after the physical-body resurrection of the church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10) are commonly called the millennium. Therefore, the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the millennium.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

All I see is COMMON animal symbolism for the clean and the unclean and it is based upon Scripture (what Paul said) - not upon a particular paradigm.

Isaiah 11:6-9 is literal, based upon Scripture (what Paul said in Romans 8:19-25) -- not upon a particular man-invented paradigm. Also, there will no longer be any unclean animals at the time of Isaiah 11:6-9 (cf. Romans 8:21).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Your millennial view of this verse comes ONLY from your particular system; it cannot be proven from this passage of Scripture.

Futurism's millennial view of Isaiah 11:6-9 comes not from any particular man-invented system, but can be proven from another passage of Scripture (Romans 8:19-25). (See reply #73)

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

What the inspired apostle said in Romans 15:8-12 in regard to the Gentiles joining together with the Jews in the new covenant in Christ at the church of Rome makes perfect sense in regard to the clean and unclean coming together.  You seem to ignore the entire context (Gentile salvation) of that particular Roman's passage of Scripture.

It wasn't ignored. As was pointed out in reply #73, Romans 15:12 quotes Isaiah 11:10 to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8). Romans 15:12 doesn't say or mean that the specific time of Isaiah 11:10 has been fulfilled, because it won't be fulfilled until Isaiah 11:6-16 is fulfilled, which will be during the coming millennium, which won't occur until after the second coming of Jesus (Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

The apostle Paul is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, using Isaiah 11:10 to represent a FUTURE anything.

That's right, in the sense that even though the timing of Isaiah 11:10 is future, Paul is using its general principle of Gentile salvation to give scriptural support to what was already happening in his time.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

He uses it to show that what was prophesied by Isaiah had come to pass in Paul's first century generation.

He uses it to show that Gentiles getting saved is a scriptural idea.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

And we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "in that day" includes the animal symbolism of the clean and the unclean dwelling together in harmony (the new covenant)...well, not all of us see that  

Just as Isaiah 11:10's Gentile salvation is literal, so Isaiah 11:6-9's animal peace is literal. Also, again, there will no longer be any unclean animals at the time of Isaiah 11:6-9 (cf. Romans 8:21).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

One would have to greatly wonder that if the clean and unclean animals were ACTUAL animals, then why would the inspired Apostle Paul use that Isaiah passage in the context of the Gentiles coming into covenant with God through faith in Jesus Christ (the church)?  Please answer that very specific question.

On the basis of what the inspired Paul said and in what connection it was used, the idea of ACTUAL animals is preposterous - that is why the animal symbolism (in this particular instance) is the correct understanding.

Paul doesn't use Isaiah 11:6-9. He uses only the general, Gentile-salvation principle of Isaiah 11:10.

Also, because of what Paul says in Romans 8:19-25, the idea of Isaiah 11:6-9 referring to actual animals isn't preposterous at all.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

It is evidently clear that you do not wish to consider any passage as metaphorical, symbolic, or figurative when it contradicts your particular system.

That could simply be turned around: It is evidently clear that preterism does not wish to consider any passage as literal when it contradicts preterism's particular system.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

You completely ignore the inspired Apostle Paul's illumination of the Isaiah passage, as you do other NT passages.

Paul doesn't refer to Isaiah 11:6-9 at all. He refers only to Isaiah 11:10, the general, Gentile-salvation principle of which hasn't been ignored at all. Also, no other NT passage has been ignored.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

An off-the-present-subject question concerning the following:

Isaiah 40:4-5 - Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:  
5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.  

I am curious, do you see the above passage as an actual physical event (mountains and hills being leveled, crooked things made straight, and rough places made smooth) or do you see the connection with the Gospel ministry expressed by Isaiah in figurative language? And what SCRIPTURAL PROOFS would you use to back up your explanation?

Luke 3:2b-6 connects Isaiah 40:3-5 with John the Baptist's ministry.

I see that the existing understanding of Isa 11 during the first century is being left out of the discussion.

The apostles (especially Saul/Paul) grew up with a futurist view of Isa 11, that there would be a Messianic kingdom.  You find no "millenium" mentioned as there is no time frame mentioned. 

Since all the first followers of Our Lord grew up with that understanding, and that there is no specific refutation of the futurist view recorded in the NT, it stands in the New Covenant as well.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 05:47:30
I see that the existing understanding of Isa 11 during the first century is being left out of the discussion.

The apostles (especially Saul/Paul) grew up with a futurist view of Isa 11, that there would be a Messianic kingdom.  You find no "millenium" mentioned as there is no time frame mentioned.  

Since all the first followers of Our Lord grew up with that understanding, and that there is no specific refutation of the futurist view recorded in the NT, it stands in the New Covenant as well.

Isaiah 65 has a "timeframe" and mentions the animals also,  

Isaiah 65:17-25 KJV
17.  For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18.  But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19.  And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20.  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child (HSN#5288 na`ar) shall die an hundred (HSN#3967 me'ah) years old; but the sinner being an hundred (HSN#3967 me'ah) years old shall be accursed (HSN#7043 qalal).
21.  And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22.  They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23.  They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
24.  And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25.  The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

Original Strong's Ref. #5288
Romanized  na`ar
Pronounced nah'-ar
from HSN5287; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interchangeable of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):
KJV--babe, boy, child, damsel [from the margin], lad, servant, young (man).

Original Strong's Ref. #3967
Romanized  me'ah
Pronounced may-aw'
or metyah {may-yaw'}; properly, a primitive numeral; a hundred; also as a multiplicative and a fraction:
KJV--hundred([-fold], -th), + sixscore.

Original Strong's Ref. #7043
Romanized  qalal
Pronounced kaw-lal'
a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) light, literally (swift, small, sharp, etc.) or figuratively (easy, trifling, vile, etc.):
KJV--abate, make bright, bring into contempt, (ac-)curse, despise, (be) ease(-y, -ier), (be a, make, make somewhat, move, seem a, set) light(-en, -er, -ly, -ly afflict, -ly esteem, thing), X slight[-ly], be swift(-er), (be, be more, make, re-)vile, whet.

Isaiah 65:20
20.  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the boy shall die, (Bar-Mitzvah) at an hundredfold years; but the sinner being an hundredfold years shall be a reprobate-castaway, (2Cor.13:5-6, Jude 1:12 "twice dead").

Just remember that one day IN CHRIST is as a thousand years!

2 Peter 3:8 KJV
8.  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with (GSN#3844 para) the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

2 Peter 3:8 TUA
8.  Hen de touto me lanthaneto humas, agapetoi,hoti mia hemera para Kurio hos chilia ete kai chiliaete hos hemera mia.

Original Strong's Ref. #3844
Romanized  para
Pronounced par-ah'
a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local [especially beyond or opposed to] or causal [on account of]:
KJV--above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give [such things as they], + that [she] had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side...by, in the sight of, than, [there-]fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

2 Peter 3:8
8.  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day BESIDE the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.



PS. Satan fell from heaven as lightning and was locked up when you first believed...

Quote from: Bible2 on Fri Nov 18, 2011 - 04:43:20
Amillennialism ends up (inadvertently) logically requiring the error of full preterism (2 Timothy 2:18), because claiming that the resurrection of the church in Revelation 20:4-6 is already present requires that the second coming of Jesus Christ has already happened, because the church won't be resurrected until the second coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7-20:6).

I don't know about preterism, but it is clear that you do not understand amillennialism.

Rev 20:4-6 speaks of the first resurrection implying that there is to be a second resurrection.  Is there anywhere else in the NT that speaks of two resurrections?  Yes, as a matter of fact, Jesus speaks of two resurrections;

First resurrection:

John 5:24  "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
John 5:25  Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

Second resurrection:

John 5:28  "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
John 5:29  and come out--those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.  

Bible2 still has not shown the millennium from Isaiah 11...

He emphatically states that the animals are actual animals and denies any symbolism to Jews (clean) and Gentiles (unclean).

He then goes about (in great length) using his theological system as a proof.  All I have asked is for the INTERNAL proof of Isaiah 11 that:

1.  It refers to his (yes, his) future millennium
2.  These are physical, actual animals

I have shown so far how the inspired apostle Paul uses Isaiah 11:10 (from Romans 15:12) to show the present salvation of the Gentiles with the present salvation of the Jews in that first century church at Rome.  Surely, Bible2 must agree that both Jews and Gentiles were being saved way back in the first century.  Paul used Isaiah 11:10 as prophetical support for the GENTILE conversion.

Isaiah 11:1-10 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:  
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;  
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:  
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.  
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.  
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.  
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.  
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.  
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.  
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.  

The kicker is that we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE ANIMALS AND HOW THEY WOULD BEHAVE TOGETHER.

It would seem that Bible2 agrees, at least according to his following quote of:

QuoteIt wasn't ignored. As was pointed out in reply #73, Romans 15:12 quotes Isaiah 11:10 to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8). Romans 15:12 doesn't say or mean that the specific time of Isaiah 11:10 has been fulfilled, because it won't be fulfilled until Isaiah 11:6-16 is fulfilled, which will be during the coming millennium, which won't occur until after the second coming of Jesus (Revelation 19:7-20:6).

Bible2 agrees that Romans 15:12 refers to Isaiah 11:10 in reference to the Gentiles being saved.  Bible2 seems to gloss over THE FACT that these Jews and Gentiles WERE BEING SAVED BACK THEN.

However, he will not allow the obvious "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 to refer back to the description of THAT DAY of the preceding verses of Isaiah 11:1-9 - AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

Bible2 says Isaiah 11:6-9 (animals and their behaviour) refers to actual animals and a yet future millennium.
The "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 refers back to the verses that describe this alleged millennium.
Paul uses Isaiah 11:10 to refer to the conversion of the Gentiles.

Now, unless Bible2 says that the "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 does NOT refer back to Isaiah 11: 1-9, and represents an entirely different day, it is irrefutable proof that the apostle Paul is using the animals as symbolic representations of Jew (clean) and Gentile (unclean) as dwelling together in harmony because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (salvation).

Bible2 needs to come clean regarding whether he believes Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9 which includes the animals and their behaviour.

If he affirms that as being true, then the apostle Paul proves Bible2 wrong.

If he affirms that as being false, he is going to have a lot of explaining to do, because I don't know of a single individual who believes that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" does NOT refer back to the previous 9 verses!!!!!!

No matter what jiggling and jangling a person does, if Isaiah 11:10 refers back to its description in the previous 9 verses (and it most surely does), then it does not matter WHEN the verse is fulfilled because Paul associates this time with the conversion of the Gentiles.  And we know that Bible2's conversion of the Gentiles occurs BEFORE his alleged millennium.  The point is moot because Paul is speaking of the present first century conversion of the Gentiles.

If one understands the previous few chapters in Romans 10-14, one is more able to understand WHY Paul brought forth those four OT passages in Romans 15:9-12 to express the prophesied inclusion of the Gentiles for salvation. The reason: Their was friction between the Jews and Gentiles of that Roman church...Paul was showing the Jewish Christians that it had always been God's intention to save the Gentiles as well (at least those who received the Gospel).

Bible2, I wish you could understand these things.  I know your understanding of the millennium is a difficult thing to let go because I held to your understanding for more than 20 years.  It just can't be substantiated with Scripture.

And as for Romans 8 and its use of creation, you must believe that dirt, rocks, trees, alligators, insects, birds, dust and bacteria all have the ability to hear the Gospel and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.  Paul is not using "creation" to refer to people AND OBJECTS; he uses creation in people terms only.  This is why Christians are called the NEW CREATION IN CHRIST (2 Corinthians 5:17):

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.  

Compare with Isaiah 65:

Isaiah 65:17 - For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.  

Compare with Revelation 21 and in regard to the NEW JERUSALEM:

Revelation 21:4 - And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.  

The old heaven and earth was representative of the old covenant.
The new heaven and earth is representative of the new covenant.
The new creation is of the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem.

That is why the (old) heaven and earth had to pass away in Matthew 5:18:

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  

Do you see the connection with the old covenant here?

If this (old) heaven and earth has NOT passed, then we all should still be living under every jot and tittle of the law!!!!!!

Please consider these things.

Bible2 wrote:

QuoteIsaiah 35:9 and Isaiah 11:6 are both literal, but they don't contradict each other, because Isaiah 35:9's "No lion" means no violent lion. For, in its context, "No lion" in Isaiah 35:9 is immediately followed by "nor any ravenous [violent] beast".

The whole verse says, "There shall be no lion there, nor any ravenous beast; but the REDEEMED shall walk there."

The "lion" in this context is defined by contrast as the unsaved. Therefore, all that is said is about PEOPLE. Animals represented men.

Furthermore, Isaiah also said that the lion shall carry his riches on the backs of donkeys. You obviously do not understand Hebrew poetry. Your interpretation is quite foolish.

WHY DID YOU OMIT THE PHRASE "BUT THE REDEEMED SHALL WALK THERE?"

thinker

Edited for clarification. No change in content or substance.

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #77):

John's epistles teach exactly the opposite.

John's epistles don't teach exactly the opposite of what was said in reply #75: that the idea of the individual man commonly called the Antichrist isn't based on 1 John and 2 John.

Quote
thethinker said:

They do NOT say that the antichrist is one individual man.

It wasn't said that John's epistles refer to the individual man commonly called the Antichrist, but neither do they contradict his future coming (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4,9, Revelation 13:4-18).

Quote
thethinker said:

They indicate that the antichrist is ANYONE who denies that Jesus is the Christ.


First, you left out 2:22 which says,

22 Who is the liar? It is WHOEVER denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is THE antichrist—denying the Father and the Son," NIV

John asked, "who is the liar?" Then he answered, "It is WHOEVER denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is THE antichrist."


Second, 2 John 1:7 says the very same thing,

"I say this because MANY deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. ANY SUCH PERSON is the deceiver and THE antichrist."

When 1 John 2:22 and 2 John 1:7 say (in the Greek) that if someone denies those things he's "the" antichrist, this doesn't mean that he's the only antichrist, because many different people deny those things, and so there are "many antichrists" (1 John 2:18). Also, this doesn't contradict the future coming of the individual man commonly called the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4,9, Revelation 13:4-18), just as the existence of many sons of God (John 1:12) doesn't contradict the future coming (again) of the individual man called the Son of God (John 20:31, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8).

Quote
thethinker said:

Third, Paul uses the term "MAN of sin" in the same sense he uses the term "the new MAN" which is in the corporate sense.

When Paul refers to "that man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3), he's referring to an individual man (commonly called the Antichrist) who will sit in a third Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4, Daniel 11:36). Also, as was pointed out in reply #75, the Antichrist is the individual-man aspect of the "beast" who will come (Revelation 13:18) and be worshipped by the world (Revelation 13:8), and who will rule the earth for 42 months (Revelation 13:5-10) and have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) who by Luciferian/Satanic miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9), such as calling fire down from heaven in the sight of everyone, will deceive the world into worshipping a speaking image of the Antichrist and receiving his mark on their right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:13-18).

Quote
thethinker said:

In Ephesians 2 Paul said that Christ brought Jew and Gentile together and made from them ONE new man.

True. But that has nothing to do with the man commonly called the Antichrist.

Quote
thethinker said:

Give up your futurist superstitions Bible2!

Futurism isn't based on any superstition, but on what the Bible itself shows.

Quote
thethinker said:

The antichrist is not some mysterious person who is to appear.

The individual man commonly called the Antichrist will appear in the future (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4,9, Revelation 13:4-18).

Quote
thethinker said:

He is the Jehovah's Witness who knocks on your door.

JWs, as well as Gnostics, are antichrists, because they deny that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7, Luke 24:39). Muslims are also antichrists, because they deny that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2:22b, Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72).

Quote
daq said (in reply #84):

Isaiah 65:17-25

Isaiah 65:17 will occur after the millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-21:1).

Isaiah 65:20 could refer to a new race of humans which will be created along with the new earth, and which will fall into sin and mortality, like Adam and Eve did. But even as mortals, they could live for around 900 years before they die, like Adam and generations after him lived that long before they died (Genesis 5:5-27), so that if one of them dies at only 100 years old, it will be like he died in his youth (Isaiah 65:20b).

Isaiah 65:20 can't refer to any humans born on our present, old earth, because by the time the new earth is created (Revelation 21:1), all humans born on the old earth who got saved and remained obedient will have been resurrected or changed into physical bodies which will never die (Revelation 21:4, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, Romans 8:23-25), and all humans born on the old earth who didn't get saved or who remained disobedient will have been cast into the eternal punishment of the lake of fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8, Isaiah 66:22,24, Mark 9:45-46, Revelation 20:10,15, Revelation 14:10-11, Matthew 25:41,46).

On the new earth (Revelation 21:1-4), the humans from the old earth who got saved and resurrected or changed into immortality could minister to the new race of fallen, mortal humans (Isaiah 65:20) in the same way that angels now minister to our race of fallen, mortal humans on this old earth (Hebrews 1:14). For resurrected, immortal humans will be like angels (Luke 20:36).

Quote
Jimmy said (in reply #85):

I don't know about preterism, but it is clear that you do not understand amillennialism.

Not true.

Quote
Jimmy said:

Rev 20:4-6 speaks of the first resurrection implying that there is to be a second resurrection.  

That's right. The first resurrection will occur before the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6), at Jesus's still-unfulfilled second coming (Revelation 19:7-20:6, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16), which won't occur until immediately after the still-unfulfilled tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7-20:6) of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18. Then, after the millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-10), there will be another resurrection, at the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).

Quote
Jimmy said:

First resurrection:

John 5:24  "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

John 5:24 isn't referring to the first resurrection, because (as was pointed out above) the first resurrection won't occur until Jesus's still-unfulfilled second coming (Revelation 19:7-20:6, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16), which won't occur until immediately after the still-unfulfilled tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7-20:6) of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18.

John 5:24 is referring to salvation in the sense of our present spiritual salvation, as opposed to the still-future redemption of our physical bodies (Romans 8:23-25).

Quote
Jimmy said:

John 5:25  Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

"The hour is coming, and now is [Greek present tense, not perfect tense], when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).

John 5:25's "a time is coming" is referring to the (still-future) time of the first resurrection: the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus's second coming (Revelation 19:7-20:6, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Romans 8:23-25).

John 5:25's "and now is" was referring to the time of Jesus' first coming, which included when Jesus on the Cross "cried with a loud voice", which some physically dead people in their graves heard, and they came back to life (Matthew 27:50,52b).

Quote
Jimmy said:

Second resurrection:

John 5:28  "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
John 5:29  and come out--those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.  

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 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 5:28-29).

Regarding John 5:28-29, it wasn't until much later (cf. John 16:12) that Jesus showed the apostle John that there will be two still-future physical resurrections separated by a thousand years (Revelation 20:5). John 5:28-29 can include both of these resurrections, because the original Greek word translated as "hour" doesn't have to mean a literal hour, but can refer figuratively to any period of time. For example, the last "hour" of 1 John 2:18 (see the Greek) has been going on for the last two thousand years. So the "hour" of everyone's still-future physical resurrection (John 5:28-29) can easily span over a thousand-year period (Revelation 20:5).

Also, at both the first resurrection and the second resurrection, some people will undergo "the resurrection of life", while other people will undergo "the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:29). For the first resurrection, at Jesus' still-unfulfilled second coming (Revelation 19:7-20:6, 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16), before the millennium (Revelation 20:4-6), will be of all those who became Christians (1 Corinthians 15:21-23), some of whom will be damned (will lose their salvation) at the second coming (Luke 12:45-46), so that their resurrection will be a "resurrection of damnation" (John 5:29). The second resurrection, at the white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), after the millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-15), will include all those of all times who never became Christians, and all those who became Christians during the millennium (Isaiah 66:19-21). At the white throne judgment, only those Christians who will lose their salvation (will have their names blotted out of the book of life: Revelation 3:5) will be cast into the lake of fire along with all non-Christians (Revelation 20:15).

Bible2 wrote:

QuoteTrue. But that has nothing to do with the man commonly called the Antichrist.

What is "commonly called" the antichrist is NOT the antichrist. It is the figment of the futurist's imagination. Paul said that the man of sin "SITS" (present tense) in the temple. He was sitting in the temple in Paul's day.

QuoteFuturism isn't based on any superstition, but on what the Bible itself shows.

Your views are based on LaHaye and not on the bible.

QuoteThe individual man commonly called the Antichrist will appear in the future (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4,9, Revelation 13:4-18).

Those texts say NOTHING about the future. Paul said that the man of sin "SITS" (present tense) in the temple and the Revelation says nothing about the man of sin at all. Furthermore, 1:1-3 says that the things which John saw were to "SHORTLY" come to pass for the time is "NEAR." So when are you going to provide scripture which says that the man of sin is to appear in the future?

Paul said that the Thessalonians would get relief from their persecutions "WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN" (2 Thess. 1:3-8). The Thessalonians were to be ALIVE at Christ's coming. Therefore, the man of sin CANNOT appear in the future.

You seem to be a clone of Tim LaHaye.

thinker

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

Bible2 still has not shown the millennium from Isaiah 11...

What's been shown is that the Bible shows that there will be a millennium (See reply #81); and it has been shown that Isaiah 11:6-16 won't occur until the millennium (See reply #73 and reply #82).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

He emphatically states that the animals are actual animals...

That's right. Just as the child and the straw and the hole and the hand and the den in Isaiah 11:6-8 are all literal, so the animals in Isaiah 11:6-8 are all literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

...and denies any symbolism to Jews (clean) and Gentiles (unclean).

That's denied with regard to Isaiah 11:6-8, not with regard to Acts 10:12.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

He then goes about (in great length)...

What's been presented shouldn't be considered to be of great length, when even the entire book of Hebrews should be considered as being only a "few words" (Hebrews 13:22). As believers, we must be careful not to become conformed (Romans 12:2) to a Twitterized world that has the attention span of a gnat. Even though the Bible as a whole is almost a million words, Christians should still read every word of the Bible (Matthew 4:4), for they can benefit from every word of it (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

...using his theological system as a proof.

No man-invented system has been used as proof, but what the Bible itself shows.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

All I have asked is for the INTERNAL proof of Isaiah 11 that:

1.  It refers to his (yes, his) future millennium
2.  These are physical, actual animals

Just as preterism can't give any internal proof, but must employ external verses (e.g. Acts 10:12) to claim (mistakenly) that the animals in Isaiah 11:6-8 must be symbolic; so futurism can employ external verses (e.g. Romans 8:19-25) to show (correctly) that the animals in Isaiah 11:6-8 are literal. And it's been shown that their being literal requires that Isaiah 11:6-16 won't happen until the millennium (See reply #73 and reply #82).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

I have shown so far how the inspired apostle Paul uses Isaiah 11:10 (from Romans 15:12) to show the present salvation of the Gentiles with the present salvation of the Jews in that first century church at Rome.

Paul uses Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, just as he uses other OT verses in Romans 15:9-12, to support the idea of Gentile salvation (Romans 15:9a)

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Surely, Bible2 must agree that both Jews and Gentiles were being saved way back in the first century.

Yes, of course (e.g. Acts 6:1).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Paul used Isaiah 11:10 as prophetical support for the GENTILE conversion.

That's right.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

The kicker is that we all know that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9, WHICH INCLUDES THOSE ANIMALS AND HOW THEY WOULD BEHAVE TOGETHER.

Paul quotes Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:12, just as he also quotes other OT verses in Romans 15:9-12, only to support the general principle that God had always intended to save Gentiles (Romans 15:9a) as well as Jews (Romans 15:8), and so the salvation of Gentiles that was going in Paul's day (e.g. Romans 11:13-24) (and is still going on today) was God's will.

In Romans 15:12, Paul purposely leaves out the "In that day" part of Isaiah 11:10, just as he purposely in no way refers to the animals in Isaiah 11:6-9, because he's in no way referring to the specific time frame of Isaiah 11:6-16. For the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the still-unfulfilled physical-body resurrection of the church (Romans 8:19-25).

The 1,000 years which will occur on the earth right after the physical-body resurrection of the church (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10) are commonly called the millennium. So the end of the suffering of all the animals (Isaiah 11:6-9) won't happen until the millennium. And if the still-unfulfilled Isaiah 11:6-9 won't happen until the millennium, then the still-unfulfilled Isaiah 11:10-16 won't either.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Bible2 agrees that Romans 15:12 refers to Isaiah 11:10 in reference to the Gentiles being saved.

Yes.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Bible2 seems to gloss over THE FACT that these Jews and Gentiles WERE BEING SAVED BACK THEN.

That salvation has never been denied.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

However, he will not allow the obvious "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 to refer back to the description of THAT DAY of the preceding verses of Isaiah 11:1-9 - AND THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

See above (in reply to "The kicker...").

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Bible2 says Isaiah 11:6-9 (animals and their behaviour) refers to actual animals and a yet future millennium.

Yes.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

The "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 refers back to the verses that describe this alleged millennium.

Yes, except that the millennium has been proven to be scriptural (See reply #81).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Paul uses Isaiah 11:10 to refer to the conversion of the Gentiles.

Now, unless Bible2 says that the "IN THAT DAY" of Isaiah 11:10 does NOT refer back to Isaiah 11: 1-9, and represents an entirely different day, it is irrefutable proof that the apostle Paul is using the animals as symbolic representations of Jew (clean) and Gentile (unclean) as dwelling together in harmony because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (salvation).

Bible2 needs to come clean regarding whether he believes Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" refers back to the description given in Isaiah 11:1-9 which includes the animals and their behaviour.

If he affirms that as being true, then the apostle Paul proves Bible2 wrong.

If he affirms that as being false, he is going to have a lot of explaining to do, because I don't know of a single individual who believes that Isaiah 11:10's "IN THAT DAY" does NOT refer back to the previous 9 verses!!!!!!

No matter what jiggling and jangling a person does, if Isaiah 11:10 refers back to its description in the previous 9 verses (and it most surely does), then it does not matter WHEN the verse is fulfilled because Paul associates this time with the conversion of the Gentiles.  And we know that Bible2's conversion of the Gentiles occurs BEFORE his alleged millennium.  The point is moot because Paul is speaking of the present first century conversion of the Gentiles.

If one understands the previous few chapters in Romans 10-14, one is more able to understand WHY Paul brought forth those four OT passages in Romans 15:9-12 to express the prophesied inclusion of the Gentiles for salvation. The reason: Their was friction between the Jews and Gentiles of that Roman church...Paul was showing the Jewish Christians that it had always been God's intention to save the Gentiles as well (at least those who received the Gospel).

See above (in reply to "The kicker...").

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Bible2, I wish you could understand these things.  I know your understanding of the millennium is a difficult thing to let go because I held to your understanding for more than 20 years.  It just can't be substantiated with Scripture.

It can be, and has been (See reply #81).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

And as for Romans 8 and its use of creation, you must believe that dirt, rocks, trees, alligators, insects, birds, dust and bacteria all have the ability to hear the Gospel and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

Every kind of created thing, not just humans, can hear the gospel (Mark 16:15) and can worship God (Revelation 5:13), because consciousness isn't something which requires a human brain. For a human soul remains conscious outside of the body, whether the body is still alive (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) or has died (Revelation 6:9-10). And a soul can have consciousness based on something even more fundamental than itself: spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23).

All consciousness ultimately being based on spirit would make sense, for God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and he can be thought of as being an infinite consciousness because he's aware of everything everywhere (Jeremiah 23:24). And if spirit is the same as consciousness, then every kind of created thing can have some consciousness (Revelation 5:13, Mark 4:39-41, Luke 17:6, Matthew 17:20), because everything exists within God (Acts 17:28a), in that everything is brought into and maintained in existence by God's Spirit (Psalms 104:30).

A scientific way to think of this would be that, even though spirit isn't physical, the relationship between the spiritual and the physical may be analogous to the relationship between energy and matter: Just as the relationship of energy to matter (that which has mass) is summarized by the equation e=mc^2 (superscript 2), which means that immense amounts of energy are congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny particle of matter; so the relationship between spirit and energy could theoretically be summarized by, for example, the equation s=ec^2 (superscript 2), meaning that immense amounts of spirit may be congealed and compacted, as it were, in order to form each tiny photon of energy.

So if all matter is based on energy, and all energy is based on spirit, and all spirit is consciousness, then all matter is ultimately based on consciousness, and so all matter can have some consciousness. This would explain how a puff of wind, a wave of water, a tree or a mountain can obey a human command (Mark 4:39-41, Luke 17:6, Matthew 17:20), and it would explain how every kind of created thing can worship God (Revelation 5:13).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Paul is not using "creation" to refer to people AND OBJECTS; he uses creation in people terms only.  This is why Christians are called the NEW CREATION IN CHRIST (2 Corinthians 5:17):

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.   

2 Corinthians 5:17 in no way restricts "the creature" in Romans 8:19-22 to saved humans, who are specifically distinguished from it in Romans 8:19-25.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

Compare with Isaiah 65:

Isaiah 65:17 - For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 

Compare with Revelation 21 and in regard to the NEW JERUSALEM:

Revelation 21:4 - And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:4 won't occur until after the millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-21:1).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said (in reply #86):

The old heaven and earth was representative of the old covenant.

The "heavens and the earth, which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which are going to be burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12), are literal; just as "the heavens" and "the earth" which "were of old" (2 Peter 3:5-6) were the literal heaven and earth which God created in Genesis 1, and which "perished" at the time of the Flood (2 Peter 3:6, Genesis 6:13-21).

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

The new heaven and earth is representative of the new covenant.
The new creation is of the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem.

The "new heavens and a new earth", which the church is still waiting for (2 Peter 3:13) -- because the new heaven and earth won't be made until after the still-unfulfilled millennium and subsequent events are over (Revelation 20:7-21:1) -- will be literal; just as the "old" heavens and earth were literal (2 Peter 3:5-6); and just as the heavens and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7) are literal.

Quote
EdwardGoodie said:

That is why the (old) heaven and earth had to pass away in Matthew 5:18:

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  

Do you see the connection with the old covenant here?

If this (old) heaven and earth has NOT passed, then we all should still be living under every jot and tittle of the law!!!!!!

Please consider these things.

The "old" heaven and earth perished at the time of the Flood (2 Peter 3:5-6), which was over 1,000 years before the Old Covenant Mosaic law was established in Exodus. The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments was abolished the moment Jesus died on the Cross (Matthew 27:50-51a, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7:18-19, 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), which was the same moment that Jesus brought the New Covenant into force (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 10:19-20, Matthew 27:51a).

Matthew 5:18 is referring to the literal heaven and earth "which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which are going to be literally burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12). Matthew 5:18 didn't mean that they had to be burned up before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but simply that Christ had to fulfill the letter of all the Old Covenant Mosaic law's prophecies regarding the Christ's first coming, before he could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16). For Luke 24:44-46 shows that Matthew 5:17-18 meant that Jesus came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Christ's first coming, but to personally fulfill all those prophecies (e.g. Acts 3:22-24, Isaiah 53).

It is obvious that the fullness of the gentile nations has not yet been added to His church .... this is still an ongoing process today

There is a day coming [could be before this day is over] when He will end the adding .... He will then abruptly [quickly] bring His wrath and judgment upon an unbelieving world which will include unbelieving Israel .... but a remnant of these will discover the truth and turn to Him as their Messiah and King

The preterists of various sectors of professing christianity will simply not give up their traditional methodologies of historical allegorical interpretations of Bible prophecy ..... if they did then all of the foundational underpinnings of the sect would become meaningless and void

One will find that most of the professing church today teaches the preteristic view with regard to Bible prophecy ..... and these things will accompany this false teaching:

All embrace replacement theology with regard to national Israel .... they teach that the Lord is finished with Israel as a national entity .... the prophetic scriptures teach just the opposite

All refute the Lord's intent to immortalize His church just before He brings His coming judgment and wrath upon the earth .... all of the related scriptures on this subject give 100% evidence that this event is going to take place

And most have no focus upon coming end time events scheduled for the same period since they believe that all of the prophecies have already been fulfilled and relegate them to the past

The major sects of the RCC and liberal protestants all embrace preterism which serves to protect their own brand of professing christianity .... no Israel, no "rapture" standing

And the various forms of the fundamental sects who do tout their proprietary views of the prophetic scriptures are legion and many are "cult like" organizations led by pied piper false prophets and false teachers      

QuoteOne will find that most of the professing church today teaches the preteristic view with regard to Bible prophecy ..... and these things will accompany this false teaching:

All embrace replacement theology with regard to national Israel .... they teach that the Lord is finished with Israel as a national entity .... the prophetic scriptures teach just the opposite

Actually the Scriptures teach otherwise. You need to read about preterism objectively, without the dispensational literalism that blinds and deafens.

And thanks be to God that the church is teaching the preterist view today!
Some try  preterism with ignorant labels as "replacement theology."

That is the term they have been told.

Little do they read, there is a whole other theology which is the basis of preterism. It is Covenant theology.

I stand by my link in post#11.  The fulness of the gentiles came in. It was quality and not quantity.

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #87):

The whole verse says, "There shall be no lion there, nor any ravenous beast; but the REDEEMED shall walk there."

The whole verse says, "No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there" (Isaiah 35:9).

Quote
thethinker said:

The "lion" in this context is defined by contrast as the unsaved.

That's right, in the sense that in Isaiah 35:9 the absence of literal, violent lions and all other literal violent animals is in contrast to the presence of "the redeemed", which will include not only people, but every kind of literal animal as well, for they too will all be physically redeemed (Romans 8:19-25), so that they will all become non-violent toward each other and people (Isaiah 11:6-8).

Quote
thethinker said:

Therefore, all that is said is about PEOPLE.

What's said is about both people and literal animals.

Quote
thethinker said:

Animals represented men.

Not in this case.

Quote
thethinker said:

Furthermore, Isaiah also said that the lion shall carry his riches on the backs of donkeys.

Isaiah 30:6 doesn't say that the lion shall carry his riches on the backs of donkeys. The "they" in Isaiah 30:6 are "the rebellious children" in Isaiah 30:1. The literal "young and old lion" in Isaiah 30:6 are simply used to describe what's in "the land of trouble" (Isaiah 30:6). Isaiah 30:1-7 is referring to what occurred in the 8th century BC: Jews were wrongly moving down into Egypt, thinking that the military strength of the Pharaoh would protect them from the ruthless Assyrians (who defeated the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BC). God wanted the Jews to remain in Judah and trust in God alone for their protection (Isaiah 30:7), like Hezekiah did (Isaiah 37:15-37).

Quote
thethinker said:

You obviously do not understand Hebrew poetry.

It's not poetry.

Quote
thethinker said:

Your interpretation is quite foolish.

It's not foolish at all.

Quote
thethinker said:

WHY DID YOU OMIT THE PHRASE "BUT THE REDEEMED SHALL WALK THERE?"

Because that phrase wasn't relevant to the fact that Isaiah 35:9's "No lion" simply means no violent lion, for "No lion" in Isaiah is immediately followed by "nor any ravenous [violent] beast". In both cases the animals are literal. Literal lions in the millennium will be peaceful (Isaiah 11:6b), and will eat literal straw (Isaiah 11:7b), instead of attacking other literal animals or people, for example, while they're walking along a literal highway (Isaiah 35:8-9).

Bible2 said:

QuoteThe "heavens and the earth, which are now" (2 Peter 3:7), and which are going to be burned up in our future (2 Peter 3:7-12), are literal; just as "the heavens" and "the earth" which "were of old" (2 Peter 3:5-6) were the literal heaven and earth which God created in Genesis 1, and which "perished" at the time of the Flood (2 Peter 3:6, Genesis 6:13-21).

The passing of heaven and earth had to with with old covenant Israel. It is not the literal heaven and earth. And God only destroyed the wicked within in the Flood. He would never destroy His heaven - and the foundations of the earth were not destroyed in the Flood. God did shake once more not only the earth but heaven- This was  a term for God's covenant people Israel.

Elements in 2 Peter 3

The greek word for elements is stoikion . It appears seven times in the New Testament. Two times occur in 2 Peter 3. In context stoikion never refers to the physical world or the elements on the periodic table, but always denotes the elementary principles of the Old Covenant. The Bible is a covenantal book from Genesis to Revelation and 2 Peter 3 is also covenantal. It is using symbolic apocalyptic langauge to describe the transition of the from Old to New Covenant in 70 A.D.

2 Peter 3:10
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements [stoikion] will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

2 Peter 3:12
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements [stoikion] will melt with fervent heat?

Galatians 4:3
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements [stoikion] of the world.

Galatians 4:9
9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements [stoikion], to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Colossians 2:8
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles [stoikion] of the world, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2:20
20 Therefore,[a] if you died with Christ from the basic principles [stoikion] of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—

Hebrews 5:12
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles [stoikion] of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

Not the literal. Got it now?

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #91):

What is "commonly called" the antichrist is NOT the antichrist. It is the figment of the futurist's imagination.

The individual man commonly called the Antichrist isn't a figment of the imagination, but is found in the Bible, for he's the individual "man of sin" who will sit in a third Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Daniel 11:36). He's the individual-man aspect of the "beast" who will come (Revelation 13:18) and bring the world into the worship of Lucifer (Satan, the dragon) and himself (Revelation 13:4,8, Revelation 12:9). He will rule the earth for 3.5 years (Revelation 13:5-10, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7), and will have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20), who by Luciferian/Satanic miracles (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9), such as calling fire down from heaven, will deceive the people of the world into worshipping a speaking image of the Antichrist and receiving his mark on their right hands or foreheads (Revelation 13:13-18). None of these things has happened yet.

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #91):

Paul said that the man of sin "SITS" (present tense) in the temple.

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

In the original Greek, "sitteth" isn't in the present tense, but in the aorist tense and infinitive mood, so that it means "to sit".

Quote
thethinker said:

He was sitting in the temple in Paul's day.

In Paul's day, no man ever sat in the Jewish temple and proclaimed himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31), just as no man ever fulfilled other scriptures referring to the individual man commonly called the Antichrist (e.g. Revelation 13:4-18, 2 Thessalonians 2:9).

The coming Antichrist will fulfill 2 Thessalonians 2:4 when he by force takes control of a third Jewish temple, stops the daily Mosaic animal sacrifices (which the ultra-Orthodox Jews will have been offering in front of it), and then has the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing android image of the Antichrist) set up in the holy place of the Jewish temple (Daniel 11:31, Matthew 24:15, Revelation 11:1-2).

The Antichrist could make quite a show of his sitting himself in the Jewish temple and declaring himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31). He could even make a TV/web broadcast of it which will be seen live by the world (cf. Matthew 24:15). He could be shown entering the temple's Holy of Holies in magnificent golden robes. He could then step up to the Ark of the Covenant (which could have been discovered, and been claimed and placed in the temple by the ultra-Orthodox Jews) and lift the Mercy Seat off of it, showing the Ark to be empty. He could then look into the camera and say: "Where is YHWH? He is not here! He is a distant fraud! His power on this earth is as hollow as this empty Ark!" (The Antichrist will utterly revile YHWH: Revelation 13:6, Daniel 11:36.)

Then the Antichrist could raise the Mercy Seat high above his head only to suddenly smash it down violently to the ground, breaking it into pieces. The sound of crowds roaring with approval could then be heard in the background. Then the Antichrist could place his hands on the Ark and stare into the camera: "WE can do better than this". He could then knock over the Ark and stamp it with his foot, bashing in its side. Two of the Antichrist's followers in robes could then quickly come in and clear away the rubble of the Mercy Seat and the Ark, while four more men in robes carry into the Holy of Holies a magnificent golden throne and place it right where the Ark had been before. All the men could then bow down and motion with their arms for the Antichrist to sit upon the throne. He could then grandly take his seat upon it.

Glorious symphonic music could then swell as the sound of crowds roaring with approval increases. Then the Antichrist's False Prophet (Revelation 19:20) (who could be a future, apostate pope) could enter the Holy of Holies and approach the Antichrist carrying a magnificent golden crown encrusted with large diamonds and all kinds of precious stones. The Antichrist could take the crown from the pope's hands, and as the Antichrist is placing the crown upon his own head, a camera could zoom in on his face as he says: "I AM THAT I AM. I AM YOUR GOD. Worship me, all ye nations of the Earth!" (Revelation 13:8, Daniel 11:36, 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

---

With regard to the Antichrist first entering the Holy of Holies, it's possible that instead of entering from its front, he could enter through an opening broken through its back wall. This possibility arises when we consider the symbolism associated with the original tabernacle. (See the next reply, especially the last two paragraphs)

(Continued from prior reply)

The parts of the Old Covenant Mosaic tabernacle could have foreshadowed YHWH's New Covenant way of salvation (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The altar for animal sacrifices (Exodus 27:1, Exodus 29:12-13) could have foreshadowed Christ's New Covenant sacrifice (Matthew 26:28). The laver with its water (Exodus 30:18) could have foreshadowed water baptism (Acts 22:16). The menorah with its flames (Exodus 25:31,37) could have foreshadowed Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5b, Acts 2:3-4). The table with its shewbread (Exodus 25:23,30) could have foreshadowed communion (1 Corinthians 11:26). The altar for incense (Exodus 30:1) could have foreshadowed Christian prayer (cf. Revelation 8:4). The ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:10, Numbers 10:33) with its mercy seat (Exodus 25:21) could have foreshadowed the establishment of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28) and Christians obtaining its mercy (Hebrews 4:16), unto eternal life (Jude 1:21).

At the same time, the tabernacle could have been a figurative model of the earth and its three heavens (2 Corinthians 12:2b). The courtyard of the tabernacle could have represented the earth and it atmosphere, the first heaven (Genesis 1:20b). The holy place of the tabernacle could have represented the second heaven, outer space (Deuteronomy 4:19). And the most holy place of the tabernacle could have represented the third heaven spiritual realm (2 Corinthians 12:2b).

In the courtyard of the tabernacle, the altar (Exodus 27:1) could have represented the earth's land areas. The laver with its water (Exodus 30:18) could have represented the sea (cf. also "the sea" part of the first temple: 1 Kings 7:23). And the veil between the courtyard and the holy place (Exodus 26:36) could have represented the atmosphere. The five pillars that held up that veil (Exodus 26:37) could have represented the five most powerful (now fallen) angelic princes who (before they were fallen) were assigned by God to rule the earth from its atmosphere/sky/air (Ephesians 6:12). The central of these five pillars could have represented Lucifer, "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2), while the other four pillars could have represented four of his most powerful lieutenants.

In the holy place of the tabernacle, the seven lights (Exodus 25:37) could have represented the seven (moving) lights in outer space visible to the naked eye from the viewpoint of earth: the sun, the moon, the first planet from the sun, the second planet, the fourth planet, the fifth planet, and the sixth planet. The twelve loaves (Leviticus 24:5-6) could have represented the twelve constellations of the Mazzaroth (Job 38:32). At the same time, the seven lights (both in the tabernacle and in the sky) could have been patterned after the third heaven's "seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God" (Revelation 4:5b).

In the most holy place of the tabernacle, the veil between the holy place and the most holy place (Exodus 26:33b) could have represented the line between outer space (i.e. space-time throughout the universe) and the third heaven spiritual realm. The four pillars that held up that veil (Exodus 26:32) could have represented the four dimensions of space-time, the four fundamental forces of space-time (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force), and the four possible states of matter in space-time (solid, liquid, gas, plasma); so that going past the four pillars could have represented going beyond space-time and into the third heaven spiritual realm. At the same time, all the different sets of four things referred to above could have been patterned after the third heaven's four beasts/seraphims (Revelation 4:8, Isaiah 6:2-3).

The vertical boards which formed the back wall of the most holy place of the tabernacle included six boards (Exodus 26:22) of a regular width of 1.5 cubits (Exodus 26:16), plus two corner boards (Exodus 26:23) which each had to have been 1/3 the regular width, so that the width of the back wall would be 10 cubits, equal to the 10-cubit height of the boards (Exodus 26:16), and equal to the 10-cubit length of the most holy place (this length being based on the top-covering curtains of the tabernacle in Exodus 26:1-13 having been most likely coupled by the taches of gold at the line between the holy place and the most holy place). That is, in order for the most holy place to have been a perfect cube, 10 cubits (15 feet) on a side (similar to how the literal, heavenly city of New Jerusalem is a perfect cube, 1500 miles on a side: Revelation 21:16), the back wall of the tabernacle had to have been formed by the equivalent of 6.66 regular-width boards.

That the back wall of the most holy place of the tabernacle had, in effect, the number "6.66" connected with it could have represented the future rebellion of the Antichrist, the gematrial number of whose name is 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18). For he could break through the back wall of the third Jewish temple (which will be built) and he could then enter in that back way when he sits in the temple and proclaims himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4). He could take great delight in entering the holy of holies by this forced, "back way", for it would be the exact opposite of him showing submission to YHWH's way to eternal life, pictured by the tabernacle.

Quote
thethinker said (in reply #91):

Your views are based on LaHaye and not on the bible.

What's been presented isn't based on him, but on the Bible itself.

Quote
thethinker said::

Those texts say NOTHING about the future.

They do.

Quote
thethinker said::

Paul said that the man of sin "SITS" (present tense) in the temple...

That (mistaken) claim was addressed in the second reply above.

Quote
thethinker said::

...and the Revelation says nothing about the man of sin at all.

It doesn't have to use the exact phrase "man of sin" in order to be referring to him.

Quote
thethinker said::

Furthermore, 1:1-3 says that the things which John saw were to "SHORTLY" come to pass for the time is "NEAR."

Part of what Revelation chapters 2-3 foretold could have begun unfolding "shortly" after John saw his vision (Revelation 1:1,3). For the letters to the seven literal first-century local church congregations (Revelation chapters 2-3) in the Roman province of "Asia" (Revelation 1:11) could have foretold a first-century persecution (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:10) under the Roman Emperor Domitian which happened shortly after John saw his vision around 95 AD, near the end of Domitian's reign (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3c).

But even all the still-future events of the coming tribulation and second coming (Revelation chapters 6-19) will unfold "shortly" after John saw his vision (Revelation 1:1,3), for from the viewpoint of God, even the passing of some 2,000 years is like the passing of only two days (2 Peter 3:8). Christians should look at the future fulfillment of Revelation chapters 6-19 from the viewpoint of God, not men, for whom the passing of some 2,000 years seems like a long delay for its fulfillment (cf. 2 Peter 3:9).

Quote
thethinker said::

So when are you going to provide scripture which says that the man of sin is to appear in the future?

They've already been provided (See the third reply above).

Quote
thethinker said::

Paul said that the Thessalonians would get relief from their persecutions "WHEN THE LORD JESUS IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN" (2 Thess. 1:3-8). The Thessalonians were to be ALIVE at Christ's coming.

Some Thessalonian Christians could still be alive at Christ's (as yet unfulfilled) second coming, for many Christians are living in Thessalonica today.

Quote
thethinker said::

Therefore, the man of sin CANNOT appear in the future.

He can, and he will.

Quote
thethinker said::

You seem to be a clone of Tim LaHaye.

No: he teaches pre-trib rapturism, and so probably also teaches dispensationalism; whereas what's been presented in this thread is post-trib rapturism, and covenantalism (See reply #70 and reply #74).

Quote
Linker said (in reply #96):

It is obvious that the fullness of the gentile nations has not yet been added to His church .... this is still an ongoing process today

That's right, for when Paul says "until the fulness (pleroma) of the Gentiles be come in" (Romans 11:25b), he means until the full number of genetic Gentile individuals have become saved, which won't happen until right before the second coming of Jesus (Romans 11:26b); just as Luke 21:24 shows that "the times of the Gentiles" won't be "fulfilled" (pleroma) until the treading down of Jerusalem during the coming 42-month worldwide reign of the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) (Revelation 11:2b, cf. Revelation 13:5-18) is completed during the latter half of the coming tribulation of Revelation chapters 6-18/Matthew 24. Then, immediately after the tribulation, at the second coming (Matthew 24:29-30), all the unsaved elect genetic Jews will become saved (Romans 11:26-28) by God's grace when they see the returned Jesus in person and believe in him (Zechariah 12:10-14). And so they will all become part of the church at that time, just as when genetic Jews believe in Jesus now they become part of the church, for there are no believers outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-5).

Quote
Linker said:

There is a day coming [could be before this day is over] when He will end the adding ....

Are you referring to the idea of an imminent, pre-trib rapture? If so, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 and Matthew 24:29-31 expressly counter that idea (See reply #49 and reply #70).

Quote
Linker said:

He will then abruptly [quickly] bring His wrath and judgment upon an unbelieving world which will include unbelieving Israel .... but a remnant of these will discover the truth and turn to Him as their Messiah and King

Are you referring to the idea of the tribulation being His wrath? If so, see reply #71.

Quote
Linker said:

The preterists of various sectors of professing christianity will simply not give up their traditional methodologies of historical allegorical interpretations of Bible prophecy ..... if they did then all of the foundational underpinnings of the sect would become meaningless and void

True.

But it should be pointed out that pre-trib rapturism has its own mistaken "foundational underpinnings", one of which is dispensationalism (See reply #74), and another of which could be the same fear which could also underpin preterism (See reply #49).

Quote
Linker said:

One will find that most of the professing church today teaches the preteristic view with regard to Bible prophecy ..... and these things will accompany this false teaching:

All embrace replacement theology with regard to national Israel .... they teach that the Lord is finished with Israel as a national entity .... the prophetic scriptures teach just the opposite

That's right (See reply #48).

Also, even though the church is Israel (Revelation 21:9b,12b, 1 Peter 2:9-10), the church doesn't "replace" Israel, because Gentiles in the church are grafted in to become only parts of an already-existing Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16) which also includes the Jews in the church (Romans 11:1).

Quote
Linker said:

All refute the Lord's intent to immortalize His church just before He brings His coming judgment and wrath upon the earth .... all of the related scriptures on this subject give 100% evidence that this event is going to take place

That's right, the Lord's intent is to immortalize His church (1 Corinthians 15:51-53), physically (Romans 8:23-25), just as he has already been immortalized physically (Luke 24:39, Philippians 3:21).

But it should be pointed out that 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 isn't pre-trib, for there Paul is referring to the resurrection of all believers at the second coming of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53), the first resurrection (Revelation 20:4-6), when the last trumpet will sound (1 Corinthians 15:52, Matthew 24:31), immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31).

Quote
Linker said:

And most have no focus upon coming end time events scheduled for the same period since they believe that all of the prophecies have already been fulfilled and relegate them to the past

The major sects of the RCC and liberal protestants all embrace preterism which serves to protect their own brand of professing christianity .... no Israel, no "rapture" standing

And the various forms of the fundamental sects who do tout their proprietary views of the prophetic scriptures are legion and many are "cult like" organizations led by pied piper false prophets and false teachers

Sadly, they include not only those who (mistakenly) teach preterism, but also those who (mistakenly) teach pre-trib rapturism and dispensationalism. For when the tribulation begins in the future, the shaky doctrinal wall, which (in their different ways) both preterism and pre-trib rapturism/dispensationalism have tried to build up between the living church and the tribulation, will be completely shattered (cf. Ezekiel 13:10-12) as the living church begins to suffer in the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-31, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-12, Revelation 20:4). Both preterism and pre-trib rapturism may have left some in the living church completely unprepared mentally to undergo this suffering, to where both preterism and pre-trib rapturism could even contribute to some in the living church ultimately losing their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6, 2 Timothy 2:12, Mark 8:35-38, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 3:6,12,14, Hebrews 10:38-39) because of committing apostasy during the tribulation as they became "offended" that God was making them and their little ones go through it (Matthew 24:9-12, cf. Isaiah 8:21-22, Matthew 13:21, Luke 8:13).

Even though the living church will have to suffer through the coming tribulation of Matthew 24/Revelation chapters 6-18, the living church need not fear this (cf. 1 Peter 4:12-13, Revelation 2:10), because even though many in the living church will suffer and die during that time (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), this will be to their gain (Philippians 1:21,23, 2 Corinthians 5:8, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Timothy 2:12), and it will in no way rob them of the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) of obtaining eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal, physical resurrection body (Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39) at the second coming of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 20:4-6).