A question asked but never answered

[Allyn]

Allyn wrote:

If I remember from your verse x verse teachings you are an amillennialist - which means you take the 1000 years to be a time from the 1st century continuing on for at least 2000 years and counting. But yet the time statements have also been your teaching in your Matthew lectures.
You seem to have a problem with my honesty that Rev 20 does present a mystery for me when there is no other Scripture to nail it down as absolute according to my view or absolute according to your view for that matter.

Actually it must have been a while since you listened to those lectures. If you would listen to them again, I do not think you would be able to say "there is no other Scripture to nail it down"—since I give multiple cross-references for every detail of Revelation 20, such as leave its interpretation in no reasonable doubt.

While it is true that neither you nor I take the thousand years literally, you think it refers to a very short time, while I take its meaning to be a very long time. Given the consistent use of the number thousand throughout scripture, my identification would seem abundantly justified. Where in scripture is the number 1000 used as an indicator of a "small" number?

Your argument is with your own inconsistencies - not mine. You make it be not only a time far beyond a 1000 years but you also inappropriately place the whole church in it therefore saying it will end since the 1000 year period says it ends, while I confirm it to be a time when the saints who died for their faith reign with Christ for a period while the reign of Christ never ends.

there is only one correct view and yours is just as apt to be wrong as mine. But at least I am consistent in my arguments.

[Mellontes]

While it is true that neither you [Allyn] nor I take the thousand years literally, you [Allyn] think it refers to a very short time, while I take its meaning to be a very long time. Given the consistent use of the number thousand throughout scripture, my identification would seem abundantly justified. Where in scripture is the number 1000 used as an indicator of a "small" number?

Boy, this thread has sure shifted off the topic of COMING verses...may as well join in.

Why does thousands (yes, plural) have to do with length of time at all? Why can't it just represent fullness as it does in Psalm 50:10?

Psalms 50:10 - For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Theology is never more so divided as it is regarding the alleged millenium (and eschatology in general). Even the word millenium in itself is a presupposition, implying that it must mean 1,000 years. Theologians have been arguing for a long time as to whether Christ's coming would be before this alleged millenium or after this alleged millenium. Yet, this same Christianity is absolutely sure that Christ's coming is future. And then there is the eschatoogy of the dispensationalists...
Heck, even the cults believe in a future coming...But yet all this inconsistency is supposed to be "proof" that the fullpreterists are wrong. Hmmmmm.

[Conquest]

This is a real interesting quote,

I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that.

In light of this quote

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill








As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Knowing you are not a partial nor full-pret, steve, I think this is a fair question and one every end times point of view contends with. Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

Something tells me it is not, “as simple as that”. How about this,

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” 1 Corinthians 15:24

“after destroying” sounds explicit, when were “every rule and every authority and power” destroyed?

Conquest

[Allyn]

This is a real interesting quote,

I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that.

In light of this quote

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill








As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Knowing you are not a partial nor full-pret, steve, I think this is a fair question and one every end times point of view contends with. Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

Something tells me it is not, “as simple as that”. How about this,

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” 1 Corinthians 15:24

“after destroying” sounds explicit, when were “every rule and every authority and power” destroyed?

Conquest

PaulT - you have been found out. Or should I say Paul Gates from Reno Nevada - the same who has been banned from here and from CARM

[Mellontes]

This is a real interesting quote,

I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that.

In light of this quote

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill

And for all intents and purposes. When I said "at hand," it was always in relation to the coming of the Lord - the Parousia. Obviously, there were other "at hand" fulfillments that did not refer explicitly to the second appearing...

As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Knowing you are not a partial nor full-pret, steve, I think this is a fair question and one every end times point of view contends with. Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

Something tells me it is not, “as simple as that”. How about this,

“Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” 1 Corinthians 15:24

“after destroying” sounds explicit, when were “every rule and every authority and power” destroyed?

Conquest

Hey PaulT. How's it going? We have answered you before at CARM regarding this. You don't seem to wish to understand how the old covenant was the enemy and how that system with its attending priests, scribes, pharisees, Sanhedrin are the ruling authorities of that system. And since the old covenant economy was DESTROYED, as you say, then that is when I say is the answer to your question.

[Conquest]

Hey PaulT. How's it going? We have answered you before at CARM regarding this. You don't seem to wish to understand how the old covenant was the enemy and how that system with its attending priests, scribes, pharisees, Sanhedrin are the ruling authorities of that system. And since the old covenant economy was DESTROYED, as you say, then that is when I say is the answer to your question.

I'm not sure who you think you are addressing, but it doesn't seem you have a very good answer to the question asked. Maybe the reason the other poster you mention didn't accept this answer of yours was because it doesn't take into consideration what the text actually states. The text states the end won't come until "every" enemy is destroyed. Now I suppose you could argue the Jews were an enemy but "every" would seem to include more than just one group. Are you really suggesting the imperial cult of Rome wasn't an enemy? I guess the point is “every” means “every” to me, but not to you. It just comes down to that.

Conquest

[steve]

Mellontes,

You wrote:

Boy, this thread has sure shifted off the topic of COMING verses...may as well join in.

I don't think it has shifted. Your question was answered in the first two posted responses. Most of the subsequent posts have been cross-examining the first of those responses. I await with bated breath a response to my post (the second response).

[Allyn]

Hey PaulT. How's it going? We have answered you before at CARM regarding this. You don't seem to wish to understand how the old covenant was the enemy and how that system with its attending priests, scribes, pharisees, Sanhedrin are the ruling authorities of that system. And since the old covenant economy was DESTROYED, as you say, then that is when I say is the answer to your question.

I'm not sure who you think you are addressing, but it doesn't seem you have a very good answer to the question asked. Maybe the reason the other poster you mention didn't accept this answer of yours was because it doesn't take into consideration what the text actually states. The text states the end won't come until "every" enemy is destroyed. Now I suppose you could argue the Jews were an enemy but "every" would seem to include more than just one group. Are you really suggesting the imperial cult of Rome wasn't an enemy? I guess the point is “every” means “every” to me, but not to you. It just comes down to that.

Conquest

Hey Conquest or Paul Gates or PaulT or whoever you will be tomorrow. When did the New Covenant come in completely or has it? I have asked you this question before and you dodged the question because you know I can show you when it came in. Lets see if you ignore it here or respond with the same question that indicated you think there are two or more New Covenants.

[Conquest]

Hey Conquest or Paul Gates or PaulT or whoever you will be tomorrow. When did the New Covenant come in completely or has it? I have asked you this question before and you dodged the question because you know I can show you when it came in. Lets see if you ignore it here or respond with the same question that indicated you think there are two or more New Covenants.

Boy you guys sure are sensitive, just point out a couple of your contradictions and you resort to such mean and nasty behavior. Is this typically how you deal with people whom you've never interacted with? I'm not sure why you think I've responded to you on this topic or any topic before. Why are you demanding of me an answer to a question? All I did was provide a scriptural answer to a question asked and then pointed out where the respondent didn't represent the text I referenced factually.

I don't know you and I really don't know what you are asking of me. Frankly, based on how you have gone off accusing me of stuff, I really don't feel inclined to answer you. It may have been a different story if you hadn't falsely accused me. I think I will wait until I get an answer to the point I've already made. Then if you start treating me with a little respect, I may answer you.

Conquest

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,

You wrote:

Boy, this thread has sure shifted off the topic of COMING verses...may as well join in.

I don't think it has shifted. Your question was answered in the first two posted responses. Most of the subsequent posts have been cross-examining the first of those responses. I await with bated breath a response to my post (the second response).

My original post was just looking for a list of COMING scriptures and whether they applied to 70 AD or the traditional yet future coming. I have made this request in greater detail here: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =10#p43403. I think that post may have gotten lost within the flurry of responses.

The reason for this thread was based upon the fact that we have been accused of shoehorning or cramming the coming verses to fit 70 AD. I want to know which COMING Scriptures are used to represent the future coming and which ones apply to 70AD.

I even gave a sample COMING passage, but I can see how it could be taken that I was just looking for anything to do with the parousia, which is what you answered to. Sorry to have wasted your time in that regard. I want the COMING verses and which category they apply to.

As I stated in that clarifying link, I am not interested in any verses that do NOT refer to some kind of "A COMING." This is a specific COMING request. I hope I have made myself a little more clear in this matter. Sorry for any confusion on my part.