Diaste

The prophecies in the OT of Jesus arrival in the 1st century were all fulfilled to the letter, in the physical world. Daniel's prophecies of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece were fulfilled to the letter, in the physical world. What is the distinction you employ to differentiate between a prophecy that comes to pass in time and space and a mere sociopolitical commentary?

That exception is manufactured by religious zealots. And there isn't a nation of Jews, Jews are members of a religion Jesus categorized as vipers and hypocrites. While I agree it's abhorrent, it's meant to exist. Is it wrong? Sure. No need to fear them, the plan will advance as required, in the timing and will of the Lord Jesus. Okay, but that's been misconstrued by the political/religious zealots. We can see the truth here: And in all the land, declares the LORD, two-thirds will be cut off and perish, but a third will be left in it. 9This third I will bring through the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on My name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘They are My people,’ and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’” Only after the refining process do the 1/3 call on the Lord, and this is before the Lord returns. Who cares? They think a thing, so what? I have seen many sincerely convinced they are correct and it turns out they are just as sincerely wrong. It's not like a group can just think and do and thwart the Lord's plan of salvation. Do the Zionists want to take over the world and enslave the goyim? Sure! Will they succeed? Probably. Can this defeat the Lord and His plan and His power and might? Absolutely, unequivocally...NO! I agree.

So this... "And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." ...establishes the fact of the 1000 year reign of Christ with His elect. This... "When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison, 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to assemble them for battle." ...immediately follows the 1000 year and the setting is earth. Says right there, " the nations in the four corners of the earth". One has to ask themselves, "What is 'the camp of the saints and the beloved city' "? And Where is it? I see clues in Rev 21. 24By its light the nations will walk, and into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory. 25Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day, because there will be no night there. 26And into the city will be brought the glory and honor of the nations. 27But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who practices an abomination or a lie, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. The glory and honor of the kings and nations of the earth will be brought into this city. That's clearly on earth. Says so right here, " into it the kings of the earth will bring their glory." A city described as, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. And that city came down from heaven to earth, "the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. Now is this the city that is the beloved city of Rev 20, the camp of the saints, the same city besieged by Satan? From Rev 21 there was certainly great care in the adornment of the city, it's called a bride. Seems this city is loved deeply. I assume this is the same beloved city from Rev 20, the seat of the power of the Lord in Zech 14. So it's not a deception to hear the prophecy tell us of a great city on earth, from which the Lord and His friends rule for 1000 years. You are free to dispute, allegorize or dismiss according to your will. But to say it's a deception implies there is sketchy evidence of a 1000 year rule on earth, or the evidence that exists is twisted and manipulated akin to the pretrib rapture falsehood. That is not the case in light of direct statements answering the critical questions: Who, What, Where, When and Why. Well, my friend, the city as described in Rev 20 and 21 isn't the result of mankind's schemes. Perhaps you're right and there is a dark plan to raise up a city from which a political group rules, and maybe that's a bad thing, and maybe scripture has been misused to promote such a city and rally groups to the cause; that does not cancel the prophecies of Zech 14 and Rev 20-21. A city mankind could raise up by force of will for evil purpose, even with the supernatural help and influence of Satan, would be a vile, garish monstrosity as compared to the beloved city.

That's what the prophecy says. My point wasn't about the authenticity of the prophecy or the elements, my point was to show there is a prophesied kingdom on earth, the Lord ruling, on earth. You seem to use scripture as evidence of your position. I quoted from Zech 14. Why do you dismiss it?

Greetings! Is this an argument that exists out there? Never heard this before right now. Sure. I think. This must the conclusion, yes? I assume neither the kingdom or Christians are of this world. yes? Interesting. I'm always a bit suspicious of scholarly works. I'm a stickler for proper definitions. One should not interchange concepts and pretend they are equal, nor omit ideas critical to understanding. The problem is; if one is not of Israel, one is not in Christ. There is no 'church' that exists apart and distinct from true Israel, the Israel of God. This idea of lumping together national Israel, the Jews, and Israel, and then creating an ever widening gulf between that false narrative and the entity called 'the Christian church', is in my mind a subtle and deeply ingrained deception. Where is such a thing even implied in the canon? The religious sector of the nation of Israel desires an earthly kingdom, and they will get it. I see nowhere in scripture implying there is a 1000 year reign to 'get right with Jesus' exclusively for some ultra religious, Middle eastern peoples. Fact is there will be an earthly kingdom set up in which Christ rules for 1000 years with a select group of His close friends. " And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." It's pretty clear the ones who faced the beast, and did not succumb to it's pressure, live and reign with Jesus for a millennium. Whatever you want to label this group, Jews, Christians, Israel, the elect; it's clear from the testimony of Rev 20 there is a group living and reigning with Christ for 1000 years. You question where this takes place. Rev 19:17-21 places Jesus on earth defeating the beast, the false prophet and their armies which followed them. There isn't a direct statement changing the location. In Rev 20:1-3 the angel comes down from heaven and Satan is bound for 1000 years so he cannot deceive the nations until the end of the millennium. This is on earth, the nations are not in heaven, or anywhere else, but on the earth. Rev 20:7-10 is also on earth and is the end of the millennium. A vast army marches across the broad expanse of the earth and surrounds the city. A city called beloved, and also the camp of the saints. Here we have a city that appears to be 1000 years old, housing the saints, and Satan has mustered a fighting force, marching to assail the city. So, however one is to define the saints or the beloved city, there is a city on earth at the end of a 1000 year period of time, in which saints dwell, and is about to be besieged by the forces of darkness. None of Rev 20:1-10 takes place anywhere but the ground of the earth. The location Rev 20:11-15 could be disputed but as of right now, with the information I have, that possibly takes place on earth also. To the argument you made previously: It seems something like the above will take place. I don't think your position is one of two kingdoms of Jesus being set up, it's more like no kingdom will be set up on earth for anyone, and certainly not a 1000 year kingdom where people 'get right with Him'. However: "Then all the survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.d 17And should any of the families of the earth not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, then the rain will not fall on them. 18And if the people of Egypt will not go up and enter in, then the rain will not fall on them; this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 19This will be the punishment of Egypt and of all the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles." Zech 14 Here there is kingdom of the Lord on earth, the nations existing and ruled over with rules and consequences. Do you think there is planting and harvest and rain in heaven? Egypt isn't in heaven, it's on earth. Time doesn't exist in heaven, but here we have years, which implies a need to count using basic units, like days. From all that, there is plenty of evidence of a lasting, earthly kingdom over which Jesus and His people rule. I would like to understand which position you hold: "There is never going to be an earthly kingdom over which Christ rules." "There isn't going to be a kingdom of Christians on earth, or heaven, and one where the Jews pay penance." "There isn't an earthy kingdom or a heavenly one where anyone lives and reigns with Christ." Or something else?

That's adaptation. The real problem is a philosophical. God did not create to evolve. I don't know how anyone can read Gen 1 and conclude evolution was God's plan. It's clear the living creatures were made complete at the moment of creation. Trying to ingratiate one's self with the world system and it's incoherent conclusions about how life as we know it came to be is misplaced faith, belief and trust.

Balderdash!

The evidence exists in Rev 20. "They came to life and lived and reigned with Christ 1000 years." "The rest of the dead did not come come back to life till after the 1000 years were complete." But this is resurrections, not gatherings. For resurrections there are two salient ones, the primary and the 2nd resurrection. I see the main gathering when Jesus returns. There have been other gatherings of individuals: Enoch, Elijah and Jesus. When I said 'everyone else waits for the end of the 1000 years' that was in reference to the primary and 2nd resurrections, not the gathering of the elect.

The second time. Here's why there is a first time tied to God's wrath at the end of the age, at the 2nd advent, and the gathering of the nations in the valley of Jehoshaphat: "And there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, and a great earthquake the likes of which had not occurred since men were upon the earth—so mighty was the great quake. 19The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. And God remembered Babylon the great and gave her the cup of the wine of the fury of His wrath Then every island fled, and no mountain could be found. 21And great hailstones weighing almost a hundred pounds eacha rained down on them from above. And men cursed God for the plague of hail, because it was so horrendous." Rev 16-7th bowl "The mountains will be thrown down, the cliffs will collapse, and every wall will fall to the ground. And I will summon a sword against Gog on all My mountains, declares the Lord GOD, and every man’s sword will be against his brother. 22I will execute judgment upon him with plague and bloodshed. I will pour out torrents of rain, hailstones, fire, and sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him. 23I will magnify and sanctify Myself, and I will reveal Myself in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 38 These are so similar in timing, location, purpose, affects and the people involved it's the same event, described millennia apart. In contrast, none of the above is described in Rev 2o when Satan is released, the setting isn't similar, the beloved city exists and the camp of the saints. The difference in the settings alone is enough for me to conclude Rev 20 is not the same event as Ezekiel 38. The destruction of Gog in Rev 20 is also dissimilar to Ezekiel 38: "But fire came down from heavena and consumed them". A speedy end, totally unlike Ezekiel 38. The release of Satan is also important. Satan has to be released from prison for the Rev 20 Gog war to commence. Satan is captured after this: "Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies assembled to wage war against the One seated on the horse, and against His army. 20But the beast was captured along with the false prophet, who on its behalf had performed signs deceiving those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both the beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21And the rest were killed with the sword that proceeded from the mouth of the One seated on the horse." After the Gog 'war' of Rev 20 Satan is thrown into the pit from which there is no return. Satan is clearly bound and imprisoned after a major battle, per Rev 21. The release of Satan shows something major occurred prior to Rev 20 Gog 'war' to get him imprisoned; that event is Ezekiel 38, the battle of Armageddon.

I was only referring to ones beheaded for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, per Rev 20. And I was only making the concession based on the wording of the verse as that condition doesn't seem predicated on the existence of the beast, in contrast to the language relating conditions caused by the beast. So while those that stood firm and refused the mark of the beast, and refused to worship the beast or it's image are only from the time when the beast exists and has demanded the mark and worship, the beheaded for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ could possibly be a part of the Rev 20 group, but from whatever time they were executed in like manner for the stated reason.

Um....Jesus is the Creator. Jesus is the inspiration for the scriptures. Paul said, "I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud, and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." So we could push that back to at least Exodus. Jesus said, "“Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!h”" Now we can push that back to the time before Abraham. "Then the man and his wife heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the breezeb of the day, and they hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden." Seems to me this is Jesus Christ, the Lord. So yeah, ALL time.

I feel scripture is saying this is a delusion, not reality. I don't know when this would be. It's not a reality in Israel right now, and likely won't be in the future. In the Millennial Kingdom, there's a vast city surrounded by equally vast walls, with gates; wherein people dwell. So I guess I'd like to identify some land as described. Thoughts will come into your mind? And that's the impetus for the plan? That sounds like delusion and not information based. Let's say "I will go up to the land of unwalled villages" means that some villages are unwalled without bars or gates. I could understand that, but not like an entire region or even a whole country. This idea is to liken Eze 38 with the Millennial Kingdom, yes?

Ezekiel 38:10 "On that day, thoughts will arise in your mind, and you will devise an evil plan. " This king has created a delusion in his mind. This negates the idea the land is filled with 'unwalled villages;' and 'a quiet people who dwell securely, all of them living without walls or bars or gates' as established fact. This is a falsehood the king tells himself to justify his action; it's easy pickings, might as well take advantage. Maybe it's true it's a land of 'unwalled villages...a quiet people who dwell securely, all of them living without walls or bars or gates', but v 10 makes it clear it's thoughts and an evil plan, not necessarily grounded in reality.

Nope. Can't find it. All I see gathered is the group that came out of GT and faced the beast. The one exception I can make are the ones beheaded; that could be from all time.

Right. And that understanding comes from facts that will alter other conclusions about the timeline.

Closer and closer all the time. Bravo!

The aorist is not a past action. The aorist has no tense. One Greek linguist described the aorist as an aerial photograph of a parade, a snapshot of a moment. From the photo one cannot tell when the parade began, when it ends, nor how long the parade will take. Then, one cannot have a past completed action here in Rev 6 at the 6th seal " 17For the great day of Theirc wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?”" and then in Rev 11 at the 7th Trumpet 18The nations were enraged, and Your wrath has come. In English we would say, "The time has come.", "The day has come." meaning, the moment or day has arrived, not that the moment or day is a past completed action. If we did that we would miss every important day and moment. In both Rev 6:17 and Rev 11:18 the verb is 'erchomai' and is used thus: "The Greek verb "erchomai" primarily means "to come" or "to go." It is used extensively in the New Testament to describe physical movement from one place to another, as well as metaphorical or spiritual coming, such as the coming of the Kingdom of God or the return of Christ. It can denote both the act of coming and the state of having arrived." Nothing here would imply a past completed action beyond the newly completed arrival of Jesus. So the past action here is the trip from heaven to earth, not the completed wrath. I think what you are referring to is the imperfect verb and not the aspect of the aorist. In that case yes, wrath and everything surrounding it is complete in the past. The aorist, "The AORIST tense always conveys a single, discreet action (i.e. simple aspect). " You can read about it here: https://www.publiconsulting.com/wordpress/ancientgreek/chapter/52-aorist-tense/ That means the aorist in Rev 6:17 and Rev 11:18 is conveying an arrival, a snapshot, with no duration nor timestamp. Are you saying the bowls of wrath are all poured out before the people hide themselves from the wrath they are about to endure. You're not saying that, are you? Also, "the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains." What are they hiding from if wrath is already done and over with? They also ask. "For the great day of Theirc wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?”" Would they not be asking an irrelevant question since wrath is already complete? That question would have been asked at the onset of wrath, before Rev 6:17, according to your account.

Before A of D but after the beginning of the Final Week?

Therefore?? That's conclusory. You offer no evidence of 'nothing new' yet make a sweeping statement it's all old news. I don't think you're off to a good start. Obsession? Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion. That's pretty bold of the creature to say of the creator. You really didn't establish the difference between symbolic and literal and if indeed the values quoted are symbolic or not. In fact, there isn't evidence the durations or volumes are symbolic. I wonder if this conceptual trickery is tantamount to, I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book.

The outpouring of wrath isn't mentioned in Rev 6:12-17. And I watched as the Lamb opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs dropping from a tree shaken by a great wind. 14The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place. 15Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide usb from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. 17For the great day of Theirc wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?” All we see here are the signs preceding His arrival, the fear of the people and their going into hiding, then the anticipation of the wrath to come. "Has come" here is the aorist verb. Wrath exists in state of assurance the wrath will occur, but here there isn't a beginning, end or duration. That, and the fact we see no wrath-like events or effects at this point. The 6th seal is a herald of the coming of the Lord and the consuming wrath promised as one consequence of His arrival.

As far as I can tell there is no definitive starting gun in scripture. Will we be able to discern where we are in time in relation to the final 7 years? Yes, I'm convinced we will. We are to watch. But there is a difference between watching for what we are told to watch for, and trying to see something that isn't there. I think it well established the A of D is the middle of the week. This is a definitive event with a clear timestamp. The start of the week event and what happens before the A of D is murky. As far as I can tell no event is labeled as the start point of the final week. So what would we watch for? I think the context of the above tells us what to watch for. "Watching" is in the context of the coming of Jesus. "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day on which your Lord will come. 44For this reason, you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour you do not expect." Watch and be ready for the coming of the Lord; not, watch and be ready for the start of the last week.

I have been around a while and been studying Jesus return for over 40 years. Two things are for sure: There is no timeline for the start of the last week in relation to other world events, and prophecy can only be known to come to pass in an absolute sense when that prophecy is coming to pass, or after it has come to pass. That means any and all claims about the start of the week are speculation. We must listen, wait, and trust. That's our task in this proving ground, the battle in this arena.

Not even close. How do you get to your conclusion? Then all the survivors from the nations that came against Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of Hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles" In your take Jerusalem would have to come against Jerusalem. Here it's the NATIONS. Whoever remains in Zion and whoever is left in Jerusalem will be called holy—all in Jerusalem who are recorded among the living— Here God is speaking about the ones IN Jerusalem, not the NATIONS that are outside and not a part of Jerusalem. The idea of parallel here is one of time, but certainly not a parallel event as in two witnesses of the same event, but one of only within the same time frame. "And this will be the plague with which the LORD strikes all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem:" Why do you insist on ignoring the text? The plague here strikes those who made war AGAINST Jerusalem, not the people of Jerusalem. So you highlight the vast difference between the NATIONS and those that REMAIN IN JERUSALEM, yet you can't see it, comprehend it, take it in to account?

Not saying you would. A incorrect definition, or misunderstanding the concept of predestination, negates a volume of scripture. Yes. Just not a predestination by lineage, name, ethnicity, race, etc. "predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ" is what the scripture says. The seed of Abraham is the seed of faith in God's promises. Abraham was made the people of God by faith, not birthright. There was no lineage before Abraham. Anyone that's the seed of Abraham is of the seed of faith.

I will closely note no such thing. The gathering of evidence here seems sketchy as much evidence is left out, the analysis wanting. I might get back to this later.