Who are they, and where have they come from?

[CrowCross]

Something is symbolic when symbols are used. In the interpretations given from Reformed amil theologians who do so, they obtain the meanings from within their use in the OT. And I don't just go around making up my own. I lean on the writers I trust to do that extensive work, and then I check to see that it isn't far fetched. They will usually give the places from which the symbolism is drawn. And no one gets everything right all the time. Revelation is not a map. What is your basis for saying that Orthodox amillennialist (whatever Orthodox means in that sentence) seem to thrive on speculation. Serious question that I would like an answer to.

You present it as if I have simply made the pre-trib stuff up...have not done extensive work...the scores of writers don't know what they're talking about.

Give me just two examples and the Amillennialist that presented it, and why you think it is speculation.

There is the symbolic 1000 year reign...that is presented as literal 6 times in the passage.
There is the symbolic "mark" that can literally happen world wide.

Is that sarcasm? Would you consider a seal a mark? The believer is sealed in Christ. Is that a visible mark?

They are two different topics. Would you like me to post a link to where current technology is right now concerning a mark?

Compare these two passages:
Rev 13:16-17 It (the beast) causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast and the number of its name.

Deut 6:4-8 "Hear, O Israel: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might, And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to our children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between our eyes.

Symbolic or literal?

How would the second keep one from buying or selling? the first, literally yes.

Comfort isn't a matter of being comfortable. The comfort is that nothing not, even death, can take us out of God's hands. Romans 8. The devil, through world systems has always been making war on the saints. That is what is evident in the news of the day.

Yes, it is in the news today....and will be in the news tomorrow.
The beast system will be world wide

Now, could you please address the other points in my post. Post #112

 

[XrzrX]

Something is symbolic when symbols are used. In the interpretations given from Reformed amil theologians who do so, they obtain the meanings from within their use in the OT. And I don't just go around making up my own. I lean on the writers I trust to do that extensive work, and then I check to see that it isn't far fetched. They will usually give the places from which the symbolism is drawn. And no one gets everything right all the time. Revelation is not a map. What is your basis for saying that Orthodox amillennialist (whatever Orthodox means in that sentence) seem to thrive on speculation. Serious question that I would like an answer to.

Give me just two examples and the Amillennialist that presented it, and why you think it is speculation.

Is that sarcasm? Would you consider a seal a mark? The believer is sealed in Christ. Is that a visible mark?

Compare these two passages:
Rev 13:16-17 It (the beast) causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast and the number of its name.

Deut 6:4-8 "Hear, O Israel: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might, And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to our children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between our eyes.

Symbolic or literal?

Comfort isn't a matter of being comfortable. The comfort is that nothing not, even death, can take us out of God's hands. Romans 8. The devil, through world systems has always been making war on the saints. That is what is evident in the news of the day.

Now, could you please address the other points in my post. Post #112

Interesting you juxtaposed the phylactery with the 'mark' which I noticed years ago, and have never heard anyone else mention.

 

[XrzrX]

You present it as if I have simply made the pre-trib stuff up...have not done extensive work...the scores of writers don't know what they're talking about.

There is the symbolic 1000 year reign...that is presented as literal 6 times in the passage.
There is the symbolic "mark" that can literally happen world wide.

They are two different topics. Would you like me to post a link to where current technology is right now concerning a mark?

How would the second keep one from buying or selling? the first, literally yes.

Yes, it is in the news today....and will be in the news tomorrow.
The beast system will be world wide

This is where "dual" prophesy is possibly a thing.. the "second", the phylactery... symbolic of Deut Law, dead ministry.. "beast system".. 2nd Temple, Solomon.. 666 talents of gold, Queen of the South accusing... and yeah, rabbit hole but.....
..there could be a duality, of the real time destruction of that "system, and now... the same spirit, same war.. on a global scale.

 

[Josheb]

One more post avoiding the logical necessities of Revelation 7:14.

And another one!

Who are they and where have they come from?

Would you accept any explanation that wasn't consistent with modern futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism?

Would you accept any explanation that wasn't consistent with modern futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism? Apparently not.


Do you know what that makes the op (josh asks as if an actual answer will follow)?

What does what the verse states mean relative to the belief Christians do not go through the great tribulation?

They are wrong.

Do you believe we are in the great tribulation...or it has already happened?

Because I cannot get an answer to the question asked and you, apparently, want this to be a thread where only you get to ask questions with an expectation of answers I am moving on. If and when I read an answer to the question asked (which would - when correctly reasoned from - will lead to an answer to all the questions you've posted) I will reconsider. Until then.....


See you in the next op.

 

[CrowCross]

Would you accept any explanation that wasn't consistent with modern futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism? Apparently not.

For the most part...no.

There are many verses that make up the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the 7 year tribulation period and the 1,000 year reign, When the entire council of the bible is looked at and understood it become obvious that your interpretation is in error.

 

[Arial]

For the most part...no.

There are many verses that make up the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture of the church, the 7 year tribulation period and the 1,000 year reign, When the entire council of the bible is looked at and understood it become obvious that your interpretation is in error.

How so? Specifics are needed here. Ones that include the full council of the Bible.

 

[Arial]

You present it as if I have simply made the pre-trib stuff up...have not done extensive work...the scores of writers don't know what they're talking about.

I didn't say anything about what you are doing. Scores to writers have also written about the absolutness of the age of the earth as billions of years, the theory of evolution, and conversely also the big band theory. Does that mean they know what they are talking about?

There is the symbolic 1000 year reign...that is presented as literal 6 times in the passage.
There is the symbolic "mark" that can literally happen world wide.

You say it is literal. The ones seeing it as a representative number as it repeatedly is in the OT, do not see it as literal. Why does the way you see it trump the way they see it?

A literal mark has always been possible worldwide as to the known world at any given time. Since we are talking about Bible interpretation, we need to use the Bible to interpret it. The passages I showed you in Deut were marks setting aside a particular group of people and their instructions from God, as his people. And they were not literal. The NT tells us the believer is sealed in Christ. A seal is a mark identifying someone who belongs to someone else. It is not a literal seal/mark. Why would the mark that identifies those who worship the beast need to be literal? They are identified by their allegiance.

How would the second keep one from buying or selling?

Laws and law enforcers.

Yes, it is in the news today....and will be in the news tomorrow.
The beast system will be world wide

It always has been both of those things.

 

[Josheb]

For the most part...no.

Do you know what that makes this op?

 

[CrowCross]

How so? Specifics are needed here. Ones that include the full council of the Bible.

They have been provided...have you not been following what i have said and presented in the threads?

 

[CrowCross]

Do you know what that makes this op?

Apparently not.

 

[Arial]

They have been provided...have you not been following what i have said and presented in the threads?

You have provided nothing that includes the full council of the Bible. You simply pick verses that you interpret to be speaking of the rapture. And they have been shown to not be, or at least other possible interpretations have been presented, and these you don't bother to address or consider. So, no, you haven't been. Your only response, in essence, to what is presented as alternatives is to say, that it is wrong.

 

[Josheb]

Would you accept any explanation that wasn't consistent with modern futurism/Dispensational Premillennialism? Apparently not.

For the most part...no.

Do you know what that makes this op?

Apparently not.

Disingenuous.

The op asks a question its author self-reports having little interest in any answer that is not consistent with his already existing beliefs. Rhetorical questions are posed to prompt discussion, rather than to actually elicit an answer, but there's no actual discussion going on here relevant to this op's inquiry. The Socratic method also might ask questions thusly in order to further discussion of a point being made by the inquiry but, again, that did not happen here, and according to you, that's because there was not going to be any acceptance of any answer not consistent with the already existing position no matter what scripture states, or how explicitly it is stated. There's no honest inquiry here. The op is disingenuous on all three counts.

And in the end the case for modern futurism was unproved except in the mind of the one already holding that position.

 

[CrowCross]

You have provided nothing that includes the full council of the Bible.

I suppose there may be a verse or two that points to a pre-trib rapture that I left out.

You simply pick verses that you interpret to be speaking of the rapture.

Really? I have to disagree.

And they have been shown to not be, or at least other possible interpretations have been presented, and these you don't bother to address or consider. So, no, you haven't been. Your only response, in essence, to what is presented as alternatives is to say, that it is wrong.

I've considered other interpretations. I find your view lacking just as I find a post-trib view lacking.

 

[CrowCross]

Disingenuous.

The op asks a question its author self-reports having little interest in any answer that is not consistent with his already existing beliefs. Rhetorical questions are posed to prompt discussion, rather than to actually elicit an answer, but there's no actual discussion going on here relevant to this op's inquiry. The Socratic method also might ask questions thusly in order to further discussion of a point being made by the inquiry but, again, that did not happen here, and according to you, that's because there was not going to be any acceptance of any answer not consistent with the already existing position no matter what scripture states, or how explicitly it is stated. There's no honest inquiry here. The op is disingenuous on all three counts.

And in the end the case for modern futurism was unproved except in the mind of the one already holding that position.

Bravo Sierra......

The real issue here is I asked and you couldn't properly respond. When I did respond I asked questions about your response and you got huffy. Kind-of a belittling "how dare you disagree" with me response.

In fact I don't believe you ever answered the question.

 

[Arial]

I suppose there may be a verse or two that points to a pre-trib rapture that I left out.

What about all the ones that don't? What about all the posts that demonstrated the ones you use just might not be pointing to a pre-trib rapture and why? They were all ignored.

Really? I have to disagree.

So the verses you pick you don't interpret them to be speaking of the rapture?

I've considered other interpretations. I find your view lacking just as I find a post-trib view lacking.

Is the reason you find them lacking because you are set on a pre-trib rapture and can't/won't see anything else? You only ever respond to them by repeating your view, not by taking them apart to demonstrate what is wrong about them.

 

[CrowCross]

What about all the ones that don't? What about all the posts that demonstrated the ones you use just might not be pointing to a pre-trib rapture and why? They were all ignored.

I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting for you to show me how the white horse refutes what I have said.

So the verses you pick you don't interpret them to be speaking of the rapture?

Is the reason you find them lacking because you are set on a pre-trib rapture and can't/won't see anything else? You only ever respond to them by repeating your view, not by taking them apart to demonstrate what is wrong about them.

Just as I will never see Jesus as not being God.