------The Parousia of Jesus Christ----------

[Rev]

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

[Rev]

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

Where are all of the bible scholars?

[TK Burk]

A simple answer is: “YES!”

Look at this:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Here Jesus is said to be coming in “like manner” as they saw Him go. They did not see a horse or throne at Jesus’ ascension. That makes this passage problematic if each of these occurrences were to ‘literally’ take place at Jesus’ Parousia. Since God’s Word is always in agreement one with another, we need to look to see how these do agree. The first step in this is to ask whether the issue in Acts 1 is the ‘cloud’ or is it the way in which Jesus departed? If it is the ‘cloud,’ then the ‘horse’ and ‘throne’ conflict; but if it’s about the way Jesus ascended, then we find agreement. This conformity comes when one sees the ‘cloud,’ ‘horse,’ and ‘throne’ are not speaking of literal instances, but are instead referring to biblical imagery. This is the same hermeneutic used elsewhere when interpreting the meaning of the prophetic language of the Bible.

So your answer is; each of these is in agreement with what would occur during Jesus’ coming. The ‘cloud’ is glory; the ‘horse’ is war; the ‘throne’ is authority. To see this simply look up how the Bible already uses these images in prophetic language. The Bible always interprets itself if a person is willing to study it through.

[Rev]

A simple answer is: “YES!”

Look at this:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Here Jesus is said to be coming in “like manner” as they saw Him go. They did not see a horse or throne at Jesus’ ascension. That makes this passage problematic if each of these occurrences were to ‘literally’ take place at Jesus’ Parousia. Since God’s Word is always in agreement one with another, we need to look to see how these do agree. The first step in this is to ask whether the issue in Acts 1 is the ‘cloud’ or is it the way in which Jesus departed? If it is the ‘cloud,’ then the ‘horse’ and ‘throne’ conflict; but if it’s about the way Jesus ascended, then we find agreement. This conformity comes when one sees the ‘cloud,’ ‘horse,’ and ‘throne’ are not speaking of literal instances, but are instead referring to biblical imagery. This is the same hermeneutic used elsewhere when interpreting the meaning of the prophetic language of the Bible.

So your answer is; each of these is in agreement with what would occur during Jesus’ coming. The ‘cloud’ is glory; the ‘horse’ is war; the ‘throne’ is authority. To see this simply look up how the Bible already uses these images in prophetic language. The Bible always interprets itself if a person is willing to study it through.

Good answer.

The fact is that all three sets of scripture discribe the same event while using a different symbol.

Much of the book of revelation is the same events told over and over again while using different symbols.

[mfblume]

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

First of all, are you dispensationalist?

These first two references are not speaking of the second coming of Jesus. Only the third is.

Dispensationalists agree they ARE the second coming. But with Rev 20:11, Dispensationalism teaches this occurs AFTER THE 1000 years.

I propose the truth is that these first two references are coming in judgment against Jerusalem only. The third one is the resurrection/rapture that takes us to the white throne judgment with no thousand years after the rapture.

[Rev]

First of all, are you dispensationalist?

These first two references are not speaking of the second coming of Jesus. Only the third is.

Dispensationalists agree they ARE the second coming. But with Rev 20:11, Dispensationalism teaches this occurs AFTER THE 1000 years.

I propose the truth is that these first two references are coming in judgment against Jerusalem only. The third one is the resurrection/rapture that takes us to the white throne judgment with no thousand years after the rapture.

What is happening in each set of scriptures?

[mfblume]

What is happening in each set of scriptures?

Although you never offered your answers to MY questions, I will answer your's, while looking to read your answers in your future posts.

In rev 14 and 19 HE IS COMING in JUDGMENT. In Rev 20 He is SITTING in judgment. Difference!

The common denominator WHITE in all three passages is nothing by which we can establish a commonality that proves synonymous time periods. :) ...to say the least!

Rev 14 shows the harvest of the wheat and the judgment of the winepress of Christ. The winepress was trod and Jerusalem was the victim.

Jerusalem is the city.

Revelation 14:20 KJV And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Lamentations 1:8 KJV Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness: yea, she sigheth, and turneth backward.

Lamentations 1:15 KJV The Lord hath trodden under foot all my mighty men in the midst of me: he hath called an assembly against me to crush my young men: the Lord hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a winepress.


Jerusalem was guilty of ALL RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED, adn she would have blood to drink.

Matthew 23:34-37 KJV Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: (35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. (36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Revelation 16:6 KJV For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

Revelation 18:24 KJV And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.


Blood from the winepress is blood to drink.

The BIBLE never said this about any other city except JERUSALEM.

Rev 19 is Jesus coming in JUDGMENT again. Not in resurrection salvation of redemption.

Revelation 19:11 KJV And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.


He does not bring redemption.

This is war. There is no warring by the saints coming with Him... it is a spiritual picture not to be taken literally. A SHARP SWORD COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH.

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


The winepress here is the same one in Rev 14.

Rev 20 is totally different. It is JUDGMENT from the THRONE of all souls. Church included. The resurrection never occurred in Rev 14 or Rev 19. But in Rev 20 it occurs.


My thoughts, anyway.

[Mrs. LPW]

Would someone please offer me the concrete definition of a dispensationalist?

[TK Burk]

Good answer.

The fact is that all three sets of scripture discribe the same event while using a different symbol.

Much of the book of revelation is the same events told over and over again while using different symbols.

Thank you! It's easy to understand the Bible when all things are left in context.

I also agree that these three passages are speaking of the same event.

I am glad you understand that Revelation is mostly imagery. That, in itself, is a huge revelation!

Be blessed.

[Rev]

Although you never offered your answers to MY questions, I will answer your's, while looking to read your answers in your future posts.

In rev 14 and 19 HE IS COMING in JUDGMENT. In Rev 20 He is SITTING in judgment. Difference!

The common denominator WHITE in all three passages is nothing by which we can establish a commonality that proves synonymous time periods. :) ...to say the least!

Rev 14 shows the harvest of the wheat and the judgment of the winepress of Christ. The winepress was trod and Jerusalem was the victim.

Jerusalem is the city.



Jerusalem was guilty of ALL RIGHTEOUS BLOOD SHED, adn she would have blood to drink.



Blood from the winepress is blood to drink.

The BIBLE never said this about any other city except JERUSALEM.

Rev 19 is Jesus coming in JUDGMENT again. Not in resurrection salvation of redemption.



He does not bring redemption.

This is war. There is no warring by the saints coming with Him... it is a spiritual picture not to be taken literally. A SHARP SWORD COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH.



The winepress here is the same one in Rev 14.

Rev 20 is totally different. It is JUDGMENT from the THRONE of all souls. Church included. The resurrection never occurred in Rev 14 or Rev 19. But in Rev 20 it occurs.


My thoughts, anyway.

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

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


Jesus comes to judge and make war. How does he judge? By the sword, or his word.




(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

(Rev 14:18) And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
(Rev 14:19) And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
(Rev 14:20) And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Here Jesus again uses his word (the sickle) to judge Israel. Obviously the city is Jerusalem.


(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Again Jesus is judging by the word of God in the books.

All three are the same event told using different symbolism.

The word of God stands on it's own. Forget the names, or the position one holds.

[Rev]

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

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


Jesus comes to judge and make war. How does he judge? By the sword, or his word.




(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

(Rev 14:18) And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
(Rev 14:19) And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
(Rev 14:20) And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Here Jesus again uses his word (the sickle) to judge Israel. Obviously the city is Jerusalem.


(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Again Jesus is judging by the word of God in the books.

All three are the same event told using different symbolism.

The word of God stands on it's own. Forget the names, or the position one holds.


There are so many more scriptures that would agree with this, but I am restrained from going into more than I already have by the H.G., for the time is not yet!

[Pressing-On]

There are so many more scriptures that would agree with this, but I am restrained from going into more than I already have by the H.G., for the time is not yet!

Good thread, Rev. I'm still looking over the scriptures so I don't have any input at this time.

[mfblume]

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

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

Jesus comes to judge and make war. How does he judge? By the sword, or his word.

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

(Rev 14:18) And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
(Rev 14:19) And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
(Rev 14:20) And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Here Jesus again uses his word (the sickle) to judge Israel. Obviously the city is Jerusalem.

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Again Jesus is judging by the word of God in the books.

All three are the same event told using different symbolism.

The word of God stands on it's own. Forget the names, or the position one holds.

I agree He is judging. But judging while riding a white horse and judging while coming on a cloud is not judging while sitting on a white throne. I always try to abandon preconceived teachings and let the bible speak for itself without my "filters" about what it says. That is why I abandoned futurism. Taking off the futuristic goggles and lenses to read the bible and let the bible says what it says, itself, caused me to deny futurism. Since then, I always study this way.

But to judge out of books and to have the dead raised to be judged so by having THEM BROUGHT to the throne, is not the same as Jesus COMING TO sinners and judging localized judgments on peoples.

The first two are the same, but not the reference in Rev 20. :D

[mfblume]

Would someone please offer me the concrete definition of a dispensationalist?

Dispensationalism teaches that the Christian Church is a "parenthesis", that is, an interruption in God’s divine dealings with the Jewish people, when the Gospel began to be preached to the Gentiles, but that God’s continued care for the Jewish people will be revealed after the end of the Church Age (or Dispensation), when Israel will be restored to their land, and then they will accept Jesus as their Messiah, as is recorded in Zechariah 12:8-10 (KJV):

Hence, dispensationalists typically believe in a Jewish restoration.

Dispensationalism is also credited with inventing the belief in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church from proof-texting in 1 Thessalonians 4, and Revelation 4.

The error I see is that NO WHERE does the New Testament teach God removes the CHURCH before He restores ISRAEL to Himself salvation.

The CHURCH is for BOTH JEW AND GENTILE: BOTH groups in ONE BODY

Dispensationalism denies this passage of scripture by making the CHURCH GENTILE ONLY, when the scripture says it is for BOTH Jews and Gentiles:

Ephesians 2:11-21 KJV Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

[Rev]

I agree He is judging. But judging while riding a white horse and judging while coming on a cloud is not judging while sitting on a white throne. I always try to abandon preconceived teachings and let the bible speak for itself without my "filters" about what it says. That is why I abandoned futurism. Taking off the futuristic goggles and lenses to read the bible and let the bible says what it says, itself, caused me to deny futurism. Since then, I always study this way.

But to judge out of books and to have the dead raised to be judged so by having THEM BROUGHT to the throne, is not the same as Jesus COMING TO sinners and judging localized judgments on peoples.

The first two are the same, but not the reference in Rev 20. :D

Prove your statement with scripture.

[Rev]

Would someone please offer me the concrete definition of a dispensationalist?

In a nutshell, most dispensationalist also hold the futurist doctrine.

[Rev]

In a nutshell, most dispensationalist also hold the futurist doctrine.

I'm going to give one more set of scriptures. But that's all.

(Mat 25:31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(Mat 25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(Mat 25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(Mat 25:34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

It's all there, it agrees with the other three sets of scripture.

Read it carefully!

This is all I can give for now!

[mfblume]

Prove your statement with scripture.

All I said was what the scripture said:

Proof:

I said THE DEAD ARE BROUGHT to Christ in Rev 20:

Revelation 20:12-14 KJV (12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.


I said the Lord COMES TO sinners in Rev 14 and Rev 19: No DEAD are judged.


Revelation 19:11-16 KJV (11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. (12) His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. (13) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (14) And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. (15) And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (16) And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Revelation 14:14-20 KJV (14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle. (15) And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe. (16) And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. (17) And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle. (18) And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe. (19) And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. (20) And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.


As I said, the LORD COMES in rev 14 and Rev 19, BUT NOT Rev 20. The people COME TO HIM.

[Rev]

All I said was what the scripture said:

Proof:

I said THE DEAD ARE BROUGHT to Christ in Rev 20:



I said the Lord COMES TO sinners in Rev 14 and Rev 19: No DEAD are judged.



As I said, the LORD COMES in rev 14 and Rev 19, BUT NOT Rev 20. The people COME TO HIM.



(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
(Rev 14:15) And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
(Rev 14:16) And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
(Rev 14:17) And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!

[mfblume]

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
(Rev 14:15) And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
(Rev 14:16) And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
(Rev 14:17) And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!

Do you mean to say that IMPLIES the DEAD are involved? Are you basing your doctrine on an assumed IMPLICATION?

"REAPED" does not necessarily refer to the dead, brother. Why did you imply the DEAD are involved? You have to insert that thought, since the bible is not saying it.

Gathering people in protection, which Christ said he was willing to do with Jerusalem, but she would not, is not the same as raising the dead for white throne judgment.

You asked me for scripture to prove my point, so I now ask you to prove that REAPING refers to resurrecting the dead in all cases.

[Rev]

Do you mean to say that IMPLIES the DEAD are involved? Are you basing your doctrine on an assumed IMPLICATION?

"REAPED" does not necessarily refer to the dead, brother. Why did you imply the DEAD are involved? You have to insert that thought, since the bible is not saying it.

Gathering people in protection, which Christ said he was willing to do with Jerusalem, but she would not, is not the same as raising the dead for white throne judgment.

You asked me for scripture to prove my point, so I now ask you to prove that REAPING refers to resurrecting the dead in all cases.

I have given you four sets of scriptures where all agree as to what is happening. It should be very clear from them as to the events of those scriptures.

I could give maybe another 20 sets that would also agree. But if you cannot see the truth in those four sets you would not see the truth in another twenty.

(Isa 29:14) Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

[mfblume]

I have given you four sets of scriptures where all agree as to what is happening. It should be very clear from them as to the events of those scriptures.

You claim they agree, but that is only your claim. Sorry, I need more than your claims. And more than WHITE being in all three references.

You could nto answer my questions and could nto prove your point with scripture. All you say is....


I could give maybe another 20 sets that would also agree. But if you cannot see the truth in those four sets you would not see the truth in another twenty.

Nice try.

I see you could not prove your point with scripture. I gave scripture as you requested.

Oh, the golden rule. Where are you?

[Rev]

You claim they agree, but that is only your claim. Sorry, I need more than your claims. And more than WHITE being in all three references.

You could nto answer my questions and could nto prove your point with scripture. All you say is....



Nice try.

I see you could not prove your point with scripture. I gave scripture as you requested.

Oh, the golden rule. Where are you?

My thread! I asked the questions! You are the one that could not refute my posts!

Try again!

[mfblume]

My thread! I asked the questions! You are the one that could not refute my posts!

Try again!

Nice try.

I answered you and you refuse to answer me. Typical. :(

[Rev]

Nice try.

I answered you and you refuse to answer me. Typical. :(

Wrong again.

Any honest hearted person would agree that all four sets of scriptures are of the same event.

Just because they refute your doctrine does not make the word of God wrong. So that just leaves us with one alternative.

Your doctrine is wrong!

[Rev]

Wrong again.

Any honest hearted person would agree that all four sets of scriptures are of the same event.

Just because they refute your doctrine does not make the word of God wrong. So that just leaves us with one alternative.

Your doctrine is wrong!

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Mat 25:31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(Mat 25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(Mat 25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(Mat 25:34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


What is he doing in both sets of scriptures? Judging! Same event! 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ!

[Rev]

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Mat 25:31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(Mat 25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(Mat 25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(Mat 25:34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


What is he doing in both sets of scriptures? Judging! Same event! 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ!

Let me see here. According to your doctrine....

The white throne of judgment is different from the throne of glory.

Let's name a few thrones!

The white throne (Rev 20:11)
The throne of Glory (Mat 25:31)
The throne of David (Isa 9:7) on which he rules forever
The throne of God (Rev 3:21)
Heaven as his throne (Isa 66:1)

I'm sure he stays worn out from changing thrones all the time!

[mfblume]

Wrong again.

Any honest hearted person would agree that all four sets of scriptures are of the same event.

Just because they refute your doctrine does not make the word of God wrong. So that just leaves us with one alternative.

Your doctrine is wrong!

More claims with no evidence? I never even heard of anyone saying the THREE sets of scriptures you provided in rev 14, 19 and 20 were of the same event, let alone considered it. So you cannot speak of "any honest hearted person". I did not stop proposing futurism in favour of partial preterism because I wanted to. And neither do I reject full preterism in favour of partial preterism because I wanted to. how can you make such wild accusations of any dishonesty on my part?

Just explain scripture, Rev. Please stop judging intentions that only God knows perfectly well.

[mfblume]

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
(Rev 20:12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

(Mat 25:31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(Mat 25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(Mat 25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(Mat 25:34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


What is he doing in both sets of scriptures? Judging! Same event! 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ!

Finally some scriptural reasoning! Thanks.

Why would anyone say the commonality if JUDGMENT makes the white throne judgment the same event as Matthew 25? Where are the dead said to be judged in Matt 25, Rev 14 and Rev 19? That is the all-important issue.

[mfblume]

Let me see here. According to your doctrine....

The white throne of judgment is different from the throne of glory.

Because of the issue of THE DEAD being judged. You have nothing conclusive about any DEAD being judged in AD70, despite all your unfounded claims. We can claim many things all day long. But it is only a tired argument that resorts to empty claims, Rev.

I never said the white throne was different from the throne of glory. What happens while on it, and WHEN, is another story. Show me the timeframe is one and the same.

Let's name a few thrones!

The white throne (Rev 20:11)
The throne of Glory (Mat 25:31)
The throne of David (Isa 9:7) on which he rules forever
The throne of God (Rev 3:21)
Heaven as his throne (Isa 66:1)

I'm sure he stays worn out from changing thrones all the time!

You did well in your previous post using scriptural evidence and then flip-flopped again into far less.

Who said He changes thrones? Strawman! You are basing all your supposition on the thought of a THRONE being common to Matt 25 and Rev 20, without any argument from me saying there are multiple thrones?? Let's stop with the strawmen, and please provide me with some substantial scripture without further supposition. Something solid and clear.

Show me a resurrection anywhere in Matt 24 through 25. Show me a resurrection of the dead in Rev 14 and Rev 19, as there is in Rev 20. Until then, I cannot pay attention to assumption and empty claims. Scripture, is all you need to use. Thanks in advance.

[Pressing-On]

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
(Rev 14:15) And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
(Rev 14:16) And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
(Rev 14:17) And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!

Do you mean to say that IMPLIES the DEAD are involved? Are you basing your doctrine on an assumed IMPLICATION?

"REAPED" does not necessarily refer to the dead, brother. Why did you imply the DEAD are involved? You have to insert that thought, since the bible is not saying it.

Gathering people in protection, which Christ said he was willing to do with Jerusalem, but she would not, is not the same as raising the dead for white throne judgment.

You asked me for scripture to prove my point, so I now ask you to prove that REAPING refers to resurrecting the dead in all cases.
Brother Blume,
I'm confused with these thoughts.

Reading Rev's comment above - "The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!"

I'm reading Matthew 13:30, with the thought that the wheat and tares grow together.


Matthew 13:30 "Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Does Rev 14 and Matthew 13 tie in together? Where do the tares stand as opposed to the dead in the book of Rev.?

[Rev]

More claims with no evidence? I never even heard of anyone saying the THREE sets of scriptures you provided in rev 14, 19 and 20 were of the same event, let alone considered it. So you cannot speak of "any honest hearted person". I did not stop proposing futurism in favour of partial preterism because I wanted to. And neither do I reject full preterism in favour of partial preterism because I wanted to. how can you make such wild accusations of any dishonesty on my part?

Just explain scripture, Rev. Please stop judging intentions that only God knows perfectly well.

At least you are consistant in being wrong! Here is the 3rd post on this thread by Lost & Found....

A simple answer is: “YES!”

Look at this:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Here Jesus is said to be coming in “like manner” as they saw Him go. They did not see a horse or throne at Jesus’ ascension. That makes this passage problematic if each of these occurrences were to ‘literally’ take place at Jesus’ Parousia. Since God’s Word is always in agreement one with another, we need to look to see how these do agree. The first step in this is to ask whether the issue in Acts 1 is the ‘cloud’ or is it the way in which Jesus departed? If it is the ‘cloud,’ then the ‘horse’ and ‘throne’ conflict; but if it’s about the way Jesus ascended, then we find agreement. This conformity comes when one sees the ‘cloud,’ ‘horse,’ and ‘throne’ are not speaking of literal instances, but are instead referring to biblical imagery. This is the same hermeneutic used elsewhere when interpreting the meaning of the prophetic language of the Bible.

So your answer is; each of these is in agreement with what would occur during Jesus’ coming. The ‘cloud’ is glory; the ‘horse’ is war; the ‘throne’ is authority. To see this simply look up how the Bible already uses these images in prophetic language. The Bible always interprets itself if a person is willing to study it through.

[Rev]

You did read the title to this thread didn't you?

You said.......

"But to judge out of books and to have the dead raised to be judged so by having THEM BROUGHT to the throne, is not the same as Jesus COMING TO sinners and judging localized judgments on peoples."

So according to your doctrine at the first Parousia Jesus comes and does a localized judgment.

At then at the next Parousia is the white throne judgment!

So if the word Parousia refers to the 2nd. Coming of Jesus Christ that would mean that.....

At the first 2nd. Coming of Jesus Christ it was a local judgment.

At the 2nd 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ was the white throne judgment!

I'm sure that makes sense to you but to no one else!

[Rev]

Brother Blume,
I'm confused with these thoughts.

Reading Rev's comment above - "The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!"

I'm reading Matthew 13:30, with the thought that the wheat and tares grow together.



Does Rev 14 and Matthew 13 tie in together? Where do the tares stand as opposed to the dead in the book of Rev.?

Not only the wheat and the tares but the sheep and goats. Where the goats are cast into the lake of fire (Mat 25:41) and the sheep enter into the kingdom! Wonder what kingdom that is?

It's not only wheat and tares but also sheep and goats, fish, etc.

[The teacher]

Any honest hearted person would agree that all four sets of scriptures are of the same event.


I'm an honest hearted person, and I don't agree all four are the same event.

[Rev]

I'm an honest hearted person, and I don't agree all four are the same event.

So you disagree with Lost and found, and me, so?

Also, most of this discussion was between Bloom and me.

[Rev]

I'm an honest hearted person, and I don't agree all four are the same event.

You must also agree with bloom that there are 2, 3, or 4 Parousias of the Lord!

I don't think so!

[The teacher]

So you disagree with Lost and found, and me, so?

If you all believe the four references represent the same event, then yes, I disagree.

Also, most of this discussion was between Bloom and me. Is this a suggestion that I should not voice my opinion on this open forum?

[The teacher]

You must also agree with bloom that there are 2, 3, or 4 Parousias of the Lord!

I don't think so!

I agree with Bro. Blume (not bloom) that the Lord has come in judgment on more than one occassion, but those do not connote the White Throne Judgment which is still a future event.

For instance, Jeremiah Chp. 4 depicts the Lord sending Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem in judgment, but this is not the White Throne judgment. Also note the language used:
Jer 4:13 Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots shall be as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.

God bless.

[Rev]

I agree with Bro. Blume (not bloom) that the Lord has come in judgment on more than one occassion, but those do not connote the White Throne Judgment which is still a future event.

For instance, Jeremiah Chp. 4 depicts the Lord sending Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem in judgment, but this is not the White Throne judgment. Also note the language used:


God bless.

There is only one Parousia!

[TK Burk]

REV, keep up the great posts! :scoregood

[Rev]

REV, keep up the great posts! :scoregood

Thank You!

[mfblume]

Brother Blume,
I'm confused with these thoughts.

Reading Rev's comment above - "The earth was reaped before the judgment on Jerusalem!"

I'm reading Matthew 13:30, with the thought that the wheat and tares grow together.



Does Rev 14 and Matthew 13 tie in together? Where do the tares stand as opposed to the dead in the book of Rev.?

First of all, I cannot see any dead who were reaped in either Rev 14 or Matt 13.

The reaping is a good thing. Before Jerusalem was destroyed, people who believed Jesus had fled to Pella and escaped the destruction 3.5 years later. So the reaping occurs before the destruction. :)

[mfblume]

At least you are consistant in being wrong! Here is the 3rd post on this thread by Lost & Found....

All these claims that I am wrong, with no scriptural support, are so overwhelmingly convincing, I am not sure if I can be a partial preterist a minute longer. ;)

A simple answer is: “YES!”

Look at this:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Here Jesus is said to be coming in “like manner” as they saw Him go. They did not see a horse or throne at Jesus’ ascension.

Who said they did see a horse? This coming is not the coming of AD70. You assume too much.

That makes this passage problematic if each of these occurrences were to ‘literally’ take place at Jesus’ Parousia. Since God’s Word is always in agreement one with another, we need to look to see how these do agree. The first step in this is to ask whether the issue in Acts 1 is the ‘cloud’ or is it the way in which Jesus departed? If it is the ‘cloud,’ then the ‘horse’ and ‘throne’ conflict; but if it’s about the way Jesus ascended, then we find agreement. This conformity comes when one sees the ‘cloud,’ ‘horse,’ and ‘throne’ are not speaking of literal instances, but are instead referring to biblical imagery.

Jesus physically arose and a cloud physical removed Him. This is yet future. People can say EVERYTHING the Acts detailed in association with Christ's departure, indicated to occur when He returns, will not occur when He returns, all they wish.

But the details of 1 Cor 15's DEMAND that the BODY be understood as to physically CHANGE deny everything about FP. And since Christ DID leave in a physical body, and we do not read it was abandoned afterwards, who is to say Acts 1:11 will not occur with Christ's return? Literal repetition of Acts 1:11 is verified as yet to actually occur because of the details of 1 Cor 15's references to OUR BODIES being changed. Christ will VISIBLY return.

Saying LIKE MANNER refers not to the list of details purposely mentioned around Acts 1:11, is preposterous!

Acts 1:9-11 KJV And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


If the text read, Acts 1:9-11 KJV And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up gloriously in authority (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

...then you might have a point. But when we read IN LIKE MANNER, we are to notice the details. And the details agree with 1 Cor 15's emphasis of VISIBILITY in His return and our resurrection.




This is the same hermeneutic used elsewhere when interpreting the meaning of the prophetic language of the Bible.

So your answer is; each of these is in agreement with what would occur during Jesus’ coming. The ‘cloud’ is glory; the ‘horse’ is war; the ‘throne’ is authority. To see this simply look up how the Bible already uses these images in prophetic language. The Bible always interprets itself if a person is willing to study it through.

You cannot dismiss other passages that clearly refute your premise, just because they refute your premise. 1 Cor 15 is so plain about bodies, that everything else around it must be complicatingly distorted to convince anyone of anything else.

Sorry, your posts are not great. :) Explanations that violate common reasoning of how all other passages must fit the scheme are only seen to be pedantic ramblings. Phil 3:21 ruins the whole premise you propose.

My land, brother. All you did was see how WHITE THRONE can be leaped through hoops to become synonymous with WHITE CLOUD and WHITE HORSE. And you could not show any dead being reaped in Rev 14. Think about that, compounded by the plain reading of CHANGED bodies in 1 Cor 15.

[TK Burk]

Thank You!

You're quite welcome.

This subject is so simple to understand and confirm through Scripture. It’s astonishing how some cannot – or maybe will not – see it.

And regardless what some may think, you’re definitely providing scriptural evidences for your points.

Keep posting!

[Rev]

You're quite welcome.

This subject is so simple to understand and confirm through Scripture. It’s astonishing how some cannot – or maybe will not – see it.

And regardless what some may think, you’re definitely providing scriptural evidences for your points.

Keep posting!

"It’s astonishing how some cannot – or maybe will not – see it."

You nailed it right there! This is what they need.....

(Rev 3:18) I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Can you show a blind man the sun? I think not!

[mfblume]

You're quite welcome.

This subject is so simple to understand and confirm through Scripture. It’s astonishing how some cannot – or maybe will not – see it.

And regardless what some may think, you’re definitely providing scriptural evidences for your points.

Keep posting!

I disagree. 1 Cor 15 is so plain about bodies being CHANGED, and is completely absent from your teachings, brethren. To say the body that decays is not the body that CHANGES into an immortal one, but stays in the earth upon burial when ANOTHER body apart from it is given at death is to violate all plain reading in 1 Cor 15. Sorry. Plain reading is plain reading. THAT is what you folks, albeit good brethren, refuse to see. You blatantly deny 1 Cor 15's CHANGE of body.

Pat each other on the backs all you want. But you deny 1 Cor 15's CHANGED body. You guys need to debate me on the issue of the CHANGED BODY.

[Rev]

I disagree. 1 Cor 15 is so plain about bodies being CHANGED, and is completely absent from your teachings, brethren. To say the body that decays is not the body that CHANGES into an immortal one, but stays in the earth upon burial when ANOTHER body apart from it is given at death is to violate all plain reading in 1 Cor 15. Sorry. Plain reading is plain reading. THAT is what you folks, albeit good brethren, refuse to see. You blatantly deny 1 Cor 15's CHANGE of body.

Pat each other on the backs all you want. But you deny 1 Cor 15's CHANGED body. You guys need to debate me on the issue of the CHANGED BODY.

You are wrong about the ressurrection also.

But, stay with the theme of the thread.

[mfblume]

You are wrong about the ressurrection also.

So you claim.

If Paul said the BODY CHANGES from mortal to immortal, then the dead mortal body is not thrown away for a different body at death, that is not a changed body apart from the mortal one. Again, you deny 1 Cor 15's changed body teaching.

But, stay with the theme of the thread.This is part of the theme since the resurrection occurs at the White Throne judgment. Dealing with EVERYTHING what occurs at a given reference, such as resurrection at the great white throne, helps explain how you are right or wrong about the time of the white throne judgment being when you say it is.

[Rev]

So you claim.

If Paul said the BODY CHANGES from mortal to immortal, then the dead mortal body is not thrown away for a different body at death, that is not a changed body apart from the mortal one. Again, you deny 1 Cor 15's changed body teaching.

This is part of the theme since the resurrection occurs at the White Throne judgment. Dealing with EVERYTHING what occurs at a given reference, such as resurrection at the great white throne, helps explain how you are right or wrong about the time of the white throne judgment being when you say it is.

"Again, you deny 1 Cor 15's changed body teaching."

Wrong again! Consistence thou art a jewel.

I don't deny it! I deny it was in 70AD.



You also do not understand this scripture.....

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

[mfblume]

"Again, you deny 1 Cor 15's changed body teaching."

Wrong again! Consistence thou art a jewel.

I don't deny it! I deny it was in 70AD.

You indeed DO deny it, because you do not believe the bodies of the living and dead saints arose and were changed in that resurrection and made immortal. You believe the body was LEFT in the grave.

You also do not understand this scripture.....

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

That scripture is the reason WHY THE CHANGE MUST OCCUR.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53 KJV (50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


CORRUPTIBLE FLESH AND BLOOD cannot inherit Kingdom----> CHANGED by the corruptible putting on incorruption ----> IMMORTAL AND INCORRUPTIBLE BODY'S INHERITANCE OF KINGDOM

Read the context, bro. What CHANGES in your doctrine? What RESURGES? I am being honest in my questions.

[Rev]

You indeed DO deny it, because you do not believe the bodies of the living and dead saints arose and were changed in that resurrection and made immortal. You believe the body was LEFT in the grave.



That scripture is the reason WHY THE CHANGE MUST OCCUR.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53 KJV (50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


CORRUPTIBLE FLESH AND BLOOD cannot inherit Kingdom----> CHANGED by the corruptible putting on incorruption ----> IMMORTAL AND INCORRUPTIBLE BODY'S INHERITANCE OF KINGDOM

Read the context, bro. What CHANGES in your doctrine? What RESURGES? I am being honest in my questions.

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

What is it about this scripture that you cannot understand?

[mfblume]

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

What is it about this scripture that you cannot understand?

None. I understand all that passage, I believe. I just explained all of that.

Did you not read anything I just said?

Obviously you fail to see the context that BECAUSE flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, FLESH MUCH CHANGE so it can be no more mortal and corruptible, but raised incorruptible. Read it again. Whew. CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.

"this corruptible must put on incorruption,"

[Rev]

None. I understand all that passage, I believe. I just explained all of that.

Did you not read anything I just said?

Obviously you fail to see the context that BECAUSE flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, FLESH MUCH CHANGE so it can be no more mortal and corruptible, but raised incorruptible. Read it again. Whew. CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE.

"this corruptible must put on incorruption,"

What is the kingdom of God?

[mfblume]

Rev, we're going in circles. I showed you that corruption does not inherit incorruption, and that is the reason corruption MUST PUT ON incorruption. I did this to show that Paul preached that the mortal body CHANGES into an immortal one. This disproves the idea the body is left in the grave and a new body is given instead.

Why will you not deal with that instead of asking OTHER questions? First things first. Explain to me how corruption cannot inherit incorruption, but corruption MUST PUT ON incorruption.

[Rev]

Rev, we're going in circles. I showed you that corruption does not inherit incorruption, and that is the reason corruption MUST PUT ON incorruption. I did this to show that Paul preached that the mortal body CHANGES into an immortal one. This disproves the idea the body is left in the grave and a new body is given instead.

Why will you not deal with that instead of asking OTHER questions? First things first. Explain to me how corruption cannot inherit incorruption, but corruption MUST PUT ON incorruption.

No we are not going in circles! You are going in circles!

Here was the question! What is the kingdom of God?

Here is the answer.....

(Rom 14:17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

and

(Luk 17:21) Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[mfblume]

No we are not going in circles! You are going in circles!

You are jumping from one topic to another when you feel you cannot deal with an issue. You asked me to stay on topic. Why don't you? Why does the bible say the corruptible must PUT ON incorruption if it also says corruption does not inherit incorruption?

[Rev]

You are jumping from one topic to another when you feel you cannot deal with an issue. You asked me to stay on topic. Why don't you? Why does the bible say the corruptible must PUT ON incorruption if it also says corruption does not inherit incorruption?

I asked if you understood the scripture!

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

You said you do. I say you don't, because you don't know what the kingdom of God is!

[mfblume]

I asked if you understood the scripture!

(1Co 15:50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

You said you do. I say you don't, because you don't know what the kingdom of God is!

I have an answer about that. But you did not answer the issues regarding the corruptible. You implied I am wrong because you quoted corruption cannot inherit incorruption. So when I showed you that corruption PUTS ON incorruption, you suddenly changed subjects. Why? Is this becoming a habit? Please deal with this in an organized manner and stop jumping topics,.

[mfblume]

Let me answer you although you have not shown the same courtesy to me:

1 Corinthians 15:48-53 KJV (48) As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (49) And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. (50) Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (51) Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, (52) In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (53) For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The above passage is interpreted by yourself as having been fulfilled in AD70. When we speak that this cannot be the case, since there was not a physical change of bodies for those in graves and those living in AD70, you respond about "the Kingdom."

In verse 50 we read that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You respond quoting the following verse, to show that this cannot be speaking about a physical body.

Romans 14:17 KJV For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

But this poses a problem for you. If this was not fulfilled until AD70, then what about the saints of God before AD70? Were they not in the kingdom of God? If your so-called "resurrection" of AD70 fulfilled the opportunity for them to enter the Kingdom of God, and you use Romans 14:17 to show what that kingdom is, then nobody experience Romans 14:17 before AD70. And that is folly.

The truth of the matter is that the soul and spirit of a believe inherits the Kingdom of God upon salvation. This is how we experience Romans 14:17. Everyone in the church before AD70 entered the Kingdom.

John 3:5 KJV Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

We enter the Kingdom by new birth. Everyone born again before AD70 entered the Kingdom. But the reason 1 Cor 15:50 speaks of flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom is because OUR BODY is the one aspect of our existence that is not part of the kingdom! Paul assured us that this shall change!

Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, Paul said we shall all be changed in BODY. The CHANGE will allow our BODIES to "catch up" with our souls and spirits and inherit the Kingdom of God. This will occur by the corruptible body putting on incorruption. Since corruption cannot inherit incorruption, the corruptible body is changed and corruption PUTS ON incorruption. "Putting on" is as different from "inheriting" as much as an unchanged body cannot enter what a changed body can enter.

The context of the passage speaking of the body in this chapter says this, which tells us that there is a physical aspect to the Kingdom of God, though never in this world.

1 Corinthians 15:40 KJV (40) There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

1 Corinthians 15:44 KJV (44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

There is a celestial state involved here. Terrestrial bodies cannot dwell in a celestial state. Hence, a CHANGE is required.

As it stands, we are in the kingdom of God. Soul and spirit have experienced entrance therein, otherwise John 3:5 is error. But the BODY must change as the soul and spirit changed.

[Rev]

Let me answer you although you have not shown the same courtesy to me:



The above passage is interpreted by yourself as having been fulfilled in AD70. When we speak that this cannot be the case, since there was not a physical change of bodies for those in graves and those living in AD70, you respond about "the Kingdom."

In verse 50 we read that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You respond quoting the following verse, to show that this cannot be speaking about a physical body.



But this poses a problem for you. If this was not fulfilled until AD70, then what about the saints of God before AD70? Were they not in the kingdom of God? If your so-called "resurrection" of AD70 fulfilled the opportunity for them to enter the Kingdom of God, and you use Romans 14:17 to show what that kingdom is, then nobody experience Romans 14:17 before AD70. And that is folly.

The truth of the matter is that the soul and spirit of a believe inherits the Kingdom of God upon salvation. This is how we experience Romans 14:17. Everyone in the church before AD70 entered the Kingdom.



We enter the Kingdom by new birth. Everyone born again before AD70 entered the Kingdom. But the reason 1 Cor 15:50 speaks of flesh and blood not inheriting the kingdom is because OUR BODY is the one aspect of our existence that is not part of the kingdom! Paul assured us that this shall change!

Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, Paul said we shall all be changed in BODY. The CHANGE will allow our BODIES to "catch up" with our souls and spirits and inherit the Kingdom of God. This will occur by the corruptible body putting on incorruption. Since corruption cannot inherit incorruption, the corruptible body is changed and corruption PUTS ON incorruption. "Putting on" is as different from "inheriting" as much as an unchanged body cannot enter what a changed body can enter.

The context of the passage speaking of the body in this chapter says this, which tells us that there is a physical aspect to the Kingdom of God, though never in this world.



There is a celestial state involved here. Terrestrial bodies cannot dwell in a celestial state. Hence, a CHANGE is required.

As it stands, we are in the kingdom of God. Soul and spirit have experienced entrance therein, otherwise John 3:5 is error. But the BODY must change as the soul and spirit changed.

Here is the topic:

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.[/QUOTE]

[Pressing-On]

Rev,
Are you being nice to Brother Blume? :)

[mfblume]

Here is the topic:

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

You wanted me to answer on the kingdom, so I did. What gives? :)

[comeasyouare]

At the Parousia, or at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ, will he come on a......

(Rev 19:11) And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Or

(Rev 14:14) And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.


Or

(Rev 20:11) And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

I don't believe any of these texts in Revelation are literal characteristics of the second coming but are symbolical. The book of Revelation is a book of symbolism.

The Greek word, parousia, is one of at least 6 Greek words that describe the second coming. The various words are used INTERCHANGEABLY -- proof that the second coming cannot be separated into 2 distinct, separate "events" -- a secret, pre-tribulational "rapture" and 7 years later another coming at the end of the world.

There is nothing in the term, parousia, that conveys the idea of secrecy. Paul spoke of the "coming [parousia] of Titus" (2 Cor. 7:6); the "coming [parousia] of Stephanas" (2 Cor. 16:17); and of his own "coming [parousia] to Phillipi." (Philippians 1:26).

In 2 Thess. 2:8 Paul places the parousia AFTER the Antichrist -- not before. "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming [parousia]."

Peter spoke of the Lord's "coming [parousia]" at the end of the age, when "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." He exhorted the church to "look for...the coming [parousia] of the day of God..." The time when the elements melt with fervent heat!

Epiphaneia speaks of manifestation and glory that will accompany our Lord. 2 Peter 3:10 the man of sin will be destroyed by the "brightness [epiphaneia] of His coming [parousia]." In 1 Tim. 6:14, 15 the church is told to "...keep the commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing [epiphaneia] of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate.." Why would the Apostle exhort the church to keep the commandment until the epiphaneia -- the glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ -- if, in fact, the "rapture" were 7 years before this?

Peter told the church to "hope to the END for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the REVELATION [apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 1:13). Those who teach that Christ comes first in the "rapture" then 7 years later in the REVELATION face serious difficulties here. It would not be necessary for the church to hope to the END for the grace to be brought to them at the REVELATION of Christ, if, in reality, this grace was to be given at a separate "rapture" 7 years before! In 1 Peter 1:7 Peter spoke of Christians being "found unto praise and honor and glory at the APPEARING [apokalupsis -- revelation] of our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, why would the church be waiting for the "revelation" if the "rapture" comes 7 years sooner? THE RAPTURE CANNOT BE ONE EVENT AND THE REVELATION A LATER EVENT.

Jesus said in Matt. 24:27, "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the COMING [parousia] of the son of man be." LUke's account of the same passage says, "As it was in the days of Noah...even thus shall it be in the day when the son of man is REVEALED [apokalupsis]. (Luke 17:26,30). "Therefore be ye also ready; for in such an hour as you think not the son of man COMETH [erchomai]." (Matt. 24:44). Here, then, parousia, apokalupsis and erchomai are all used of the same event.

Erchomai, in turn, is used to describe the same event as heko: "for yet a little while, and he that shall COME [erchomai] will COME [heko], and will not tarry." (Hebrews 10:37). Heko and parousia are used together: "Where is the promise of his COMING [parousia]? ...The day of the Lord will COME [heko] as a thief in the night." (2 Peter 3:10). Parousia is the phaneroo, for both expressions are used together: "And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall APPEAR [phaneroo], we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his COMING [parousia]." (1 John 2:28).

[houston]

Um. The thread is 5 years old.

[comeasyouare]

Um. The thread is 5 years old.

I haven't been on here (AFF) very long. Excuse me.