Amills/ Prets and One World Government

[Guest]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But it sounds to me as if you are saying that one is only to interpret passages of Revelation symbolically if they are coupled with an explanation. Is this correct?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if they are coupled with an explanation, one normally ought not to interpret the explanation symbolically. There may be rare cases when the explanation itself contains symbolic elements. But to interpret the entire explanation symbolically, is in my opinion, a blatant error in exegesis.

[Guest]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. But it sounds to me as if you are saying that one is only to interpret passages of Revelation symbolically if they are coupled with an explanation. Is this correct?

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if they are coupled with an explanation, one normally ought not to interpret the explanation symbolically. There may be rare cases when the explanation itself contains symbolic elements. But to interpret the entire explanation symbolically, is in my opinion, a blatant error in exegesis.

I don't ever think I said that explanations of symbols were symbolic. What I am saying however is that the book as a whole from ch. 4 thru 22 is symbolic by nature being that it is apocalyptic. And that it should be treated as such. And if there are explanations inserted then that's a little less work for us.

Knowing this, how can one take something that is symbolic(the millenium) and treat it as though it were not?

What gives you or any other millenarian the right to say that the key the pit the chain and the dragon are symbolic but that the 1000 years is not?

[Guest]

I must admit Mike, re: the thessalonians and they thinking they missed the Lords Return, and what would entail (i.e. the destruction of some/all the planet)...........is a great point!

I dont think i have recognized that before (maybe i have, but the memory, u know)

thanks for that.

JIM D.

p.s Paidon, cold up in Canada??

[Guest]

Hi Jim from Covina. You're right!! That was a good point. I have a question for you. We know that in 70 A.D. what Jesus spoke about in Luke 21:24 (refernce below) concerning Jerusalem took place. Could you tell me though, when was the time of the Gentiles was fulfuilled?


Luk 21:24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

[Guest]

HEY ELY..........

Re: our little discussion here with the Thessalonians.....i am curious to hear a response.........with what mike had said.

Would the thessalonians be expecting the destrucing of the heavens and earth??

And if so.....why would they fear they missed it then? (per mikes little quip, they only had to look outside)

jim

[Guest]

HELLO RON...

I guess i would suggest, that since the passage in lu 21 is talking about the destruction in 70 A.D., then obviously whatever is associated with that event, (i.e. the times of the gentiles) must have been taken place also at that time.

jim

[Guest]

HEY ELY..........

Re: our little discussion here with the Thessalonians.....i am curious to hear a response.........with what mike had said.

Would the thessalonians be expecting the destrucing of the heavens and earth??

And if so.....why would they fear they missed it then? (per mikes little quip, they only had to look outside)

jim

Aside from the fallacy of arguing from silence (which i think i exposed previously), the question also rests on an assumption that premillennialists think that the world is going to be completely destroyed and then replaced at the Parousia. Some do (as do amillenialists) but I'm not expecting such a thing.

I don't believe that the "New Heavens and New Earth" motif is meant to indicate a complete destruction and replacement. In 2 Peter, the apostle says that the world that that existed in Noah's time "perished, being flooded with water" (3:6). He then compares this with what is going to happen to the heavens and earth at the DOTL (v.10). The flood did not completely anhialate the physical world and neither will the world be completely anhialated at the DOTL. The idea is more like a painful purifying, a renovation, a renewing. This is what Paul and the Thessalonians (and me) were expecting at the DOTL.

The more I think of it, the more I think that the Thessalonians were being hoodwinked by some proto-preterists. They must have been swayed by the notion that the DOTL had actually been some localised event (famine, flood, crushing of a rebellion, mass arrest) which most had passed the attention of the vast majority of the world as I'm sure Jerusalem's destruction in AD70 did. Or maybe the the decievers were correct in their basic idea (the what) but were incorrect at to timing (the when)?


I've got a quesiton for you guys. Paul was talking about the coming of Jesus Christ and of their "gathering together to Him" (2 Thess 2:1). In what sense were the Thessalonians "gathered together to Him" in AD70?

[Guest]

I've got a quesiton for you guys. Paul was talking about the coming of Jesus Christ and of their "gathering together to Him" (2 Thess 2:1). In what sense were the Thessalonians "gathered together to Him" in AD70?

Since anyone worth their weight in salt, preterist or futurist believes that Matthew 24:4-31 was talking about AD70, I would say it was the same thing as Jesus spoke about in vs. 31:

"And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

THAT WAS EASY!!!

Does that answer your question? It shoooo weren't literal.

If you don't agree that Matthew 24:4-31 is speaking about 70AD, I'm sure all of us would like a resonable explanation as to why it isn't. Especially if we are to be expected to change.

Mike

[Guest]

Ely, if those Thessalonians were taught by Paul, wouldnt they understand that the day of the Lord was to be more than something local (even a famine or non-destructive event spoken of by Peter)??

Or are you suggesting that that is what paul taught them, and so thats how they could of thought that they missed it??

jimd

[Guest]

I don't ever think I said that explanations of symbols were symbolic. What I am saying however is that the book as a whole from ch. 4 thru 22 is symbolic by nature being that it is apocalyptic. And that it should be treated as such. And if there are explanations inserted then that's a little less work for us.

Knowing this, how can one take something that is symbolic(the millenium) and treat it as though it were not?

I thought that my previous quote of the 1000 years as being the "explanation" and therefore to be taken at face value, was sufficient.
Apparently not. But I'll quote it again anyway. I'll place in green, the words describing what John saw in his vision. I'll place in red, the words he used to explain what he saw. The explanation, should not be taken figuratively.

Revelation 20:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years have ended, Satan shall be loosed from his prison...

The explanation in red states what will happen (future to John's time).
He says that those who will participate in the first resurrection, shall reign with Christ a thousand years. That is part of his explanation.
Thus the thousand years are to be taken at face value, and not figuratively.