Where is the Body of Christ in the Millennium?

[Enoch2021]

Hi Enoch2021,

`Checkmate!!!!!` What gave you that idea. You haven’t seen all my side of the board. And we haven`t hardly begun to open up the scriptures yet, dear friend. Be patient. I like to go one step at a time so we & others can follow the topic.

Now you have bought up some very valid questions that deserve looking into. So let`s start.

You said –

`If God wanted to denote `angels,` in Rev. 19, why didn`t John just say `angels,` like the other 81 other times....?`

That is a great `purpose` question Enoch, (Why did God...`)We don`t get many of those questions, just rehashing positions. Had you thought we also could say `Why didn`t God denote `saints` in Rev. 19.`

 

 

So the big question is `What is God`s purpose for writing `army` & not `angels &/or saints.`

`And the armies which are in heaven, .....were following Him on white horses.` (Rev. 19: 14)

Army – Gk. `strateum,` a body of troops, from the base of `stratos,` an army, & fig. the angels, host.

 

 

Now Jesus tells us some vital information of who He is bringing with Him at this time.

`For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels;...` (Matt. 16: 27)

``...the Son of Man ...when He comes in His glory, & the glory of the Father & of the holy angels.` (Luke 9: 26)

 

 

And what are Jesus & His angelic army going to do? Why yes, war against the beast & his army.

 

`And I saw the beast & the kings of the earth & their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat upon the horse, & against His army.` (Rev. 19: 19)

 

 

To me that is quite clear from scripture that when Christ returns in power & great glory to fight against the beast & his armies, that Christ brings His angelic army with Him. For we know from scripture that Christ is the Captain of the angelic host. (Joshua 5: 13 – 15)

And I can hear you say – that you partly agree with that. As you have said –

`Are all of the armies `the Church?` Probably not....I thought that they are angels also...`

It seems to me you are now on the defence, dear friend. I will address the topic of - the wife/bride/marriage, next.

I do appreciate opening up scriptures with you Enoch & also have a bit of lighthearted banter.

 

Bless you, bro, Marilyn.

 

 

 

====================================================================================================

 

 

That is a great `purpose` question Enoch, (Why did God...`)We don`t get many of those questions, just rehashing positions. Had you thought we also could say `Why didn`t God denote `saints` in Rev. 19.`

 

 

Yes, I did think about that.

 

You're Begging The Question (Fallacy)----- assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.  Your premise is Fallacious.....( Hagios = Angels) Why?...

 

 

"Saints" are mentioned 60 Times in the New Testament (13 Times in Revelation) and ALL denoted by....

 

40   //  agiov  //  hagios   //  hag'-ee-os  // 

from hagos (an awful thing) [cf   53  ,   2282  ]; TDNT - 1:88,14; adj

AV - holy 161, saints 61, Holy One 4, misc 3; 229

1) most holy thing, a saint

 

Including The Passage in Question, here...  (Revelation 19:8) "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

 

In relation to what the armies that are following Christ are arrayed in. 

 

 

The Term "Angels" occurs 81 Times in the New Testament; (23 Times in Revelation alone) ALL denoted by....

32   //  aggelov  //  aggelos   //  ang'-el-os  //

from aggello [probably derived from   71  , cf   34  ] (to bring tidings);

TDNT - 1:74,12; n m

AV - angel 179, messenger 7; 186

1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger

from God

 

 

That's why I said You're in Checkmate......which you most definitely still are; if you are of the position that the armies are Exclusively Angels.

 

 

And I can hear you say – that you partly agree with that. As you have said –

 

`Are all of the armies `the Church?` Probably not....I thought that they are angels also...`

 

 

Then I said "Are all the armies Angels"? Clearly not.

 

I was well aware of the Matthew, Luke, and other passages that talk about HIM returning with Angels.  My position is, it's not them "Exclusively",  Part of the armies are "The Church" and have clearly shown that in Rev 19.

 

 

It seems to me you are now on the defence, dear friend.

 

 

I don't play defense.

 

 

I will address the topic of - the wife/bride/marriage, next.

 

 

I would be in error if I didn't warn you love concerning "adding to" or "taking away" from The WORD of GOD.

 

(2 Corinthians 11:2) "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."

 

(Ephesians 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

 

 

Go ahead and post Rev 21:9-10 and the New Jerusalem.  Technically, you're covered from the warning above because it explicitly mentions the " wife"; however, Literally/conceptually/basic reasoning/logically it's a trainwreck. 

[Last Daze]

 

I would be in error if I didn't warn you love concerning "adding to" or "taking away" from The WORD of GOD.

 

Why do people often use this when discussing different interpretations of prophecy?  Has anyone ever gotten it right the first time?  Is anyone absolutely sure that they're "spot on" with all of it now?  What exactly constitutes "adding to" or "taking away" and what was the purpose of the warning?  Based on the severity of the consequences I'd have to say that it applies to those who willfully manipulate prophecy to some self-serving end, and not to those who are trying to reason through it and understand it.  This warning, in my opinion, should only be used when someone is blatantly embellishing with no regard for the truth.  It all comes down to motive.  As I see it.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

I would be in error if I didn't warn you love concerning "adding to" or "taking away" from The WORD of GOD.

 

Why do people often use this when discussing different interpretations of prophecy?  Has anyone ever gotten it right the first time?  Is anyone absolutely sure that they're "spot on" with all of it now?  What exactly constitutes "adding to" or "taking away" and what was the purpose of the warning?  Based on the severity of the consequences I'd have to say that it applies to those who willfully manipulate prophecy to some self-serving end, and not to those who are trying to reason through it and understand it.  This warning, in my opinion, should only be used when someone is blatantly embellishing with no regard for the truth.  It all comes down to motive.  As I see it.

 

 

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

Why do people often use this when discussing different interpretations of prophecy?

 

 

This is a Strawman (Fallacy) and an Abstract Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

"Different Interpretations" and..... the Outright Changing the Meaning of an Unequivocally Clear Passage from Scripture are two Entirely Different Animals.

 

ps. I can't comment on why "People" often do anything.  I can only speak for myself.

 

What exactly constitutes "adding to" or "taking away" and what was the purpose of the warning?

 

 

"Taking Away":   "The Church is not the Wife/Bride of Christ".  In the Face of....

 

(Ephesians 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

 

"Adding To": "The Earth is Billions of Years Old".  In the Face of....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

 

what was the purpose of the warning?   Based on the severity of the consequences...

 

 

You just answered your own question.

 

 

Based on the severity of the consequences I'd have to say that it applies to those who willfully manipulate prophecy

 

 

100% agree.  Only GOD knows the heart.

 

 

This warning, in my opinion, should only be used when someone is blatantly embellishing with no regard for the truth.

 

 

Should I warn you after you fall off the Cliff or warn you before concerning the Integrity of the rocks close to the edge?

 

 

 

It all comes down to motive

 

 

Hence the Warning and not the Charge.  I can't read minds or judge the intent of the heart.

[ENOCH2010]

The per-tribers pay no mind to adding to scripture, they add a pre trib coming of the Lord, and a pre-trib resurrection of the dead in Christ. Neither of those ideas can be found in the Book.

[Last Daze]

 

 

 

I would be in error if I didn't warn you love concerning "adding to" or "taking away" from The WORD of GOD.

 

Why do people often use this when discussing different interpretations of prophecy?  Has anyone ever gotten it right the first time?  Is anyone absolutely sure that they're "spot on" with all of it now?  What exactly constitutes "adding to" or "taking away" and what was the purpose of the warning?  Based on the severity of the consequences I'd have to say that it applies to those who willfully manipulate prophecy to some self-serving end, and not to those who are trying to reason through it and understand it.  This warning, in my opinion, should only be used when someone is blatantly embellishing with no regard for the truth.  It all comes down to motive.  As I see it.

 

 

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

Why do people often use this when discussing different interpretations of prophecy?

 

 

This is a Strawman (Fallacy) and an Abstract Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

"Different Interpretations" and..... the Outright Changing the Meaning of an Unequivocally Clear Passage from Scripture are two Entirely Different Animals.

 

ps. I can't comment on why "People" often do anything.  I can only speak for myself.

 

What exactly constitutes "adding to" or "taking away" and what was the purpose of the warning?

 

 

"Taking Away":   "The Church is not the Wife/Bride of Christ".  In the Face of....

 

(Ephesians 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

 

"Adding To": "The Earth is Billions of Years Old".  In the Face of....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

 

what was the purpose of the warning?   Based on the severity of the consequences...

 

 

You just answered your own question.

 

 

Based on the severity of the consequences I'd have to say that it applies to those who willfully manipulate prophecy

 

 

100% agree.  Only GOD knows the heart.

 

 

This warning, in my opinion, should only be used when someone is blatantly embellishing with no regard for the truth.

 

 

Should I warn you after you fall off the Cliff or warn you before concerning the Integrity of the rocks close to the edge?

 

 

 

It all comes down to motive

 

 

Hence the Warning and not the Charge.  I can't read minds or judge the intent of the heart.

 

 

This is a Strawman (Fallacy) and an Abstract Equivocation (Fallacy).

 

 

Please don't feel the need to continually repeat these platitudes.  Its a much better discussion when you try to discern the intent of what was written instead of picking it apart technically.

 

 

Should I warn you after you fall off the Cliff or warn you before concerning the Integrity of the rocks close to the edge?

 

 

You should warn those whose behavior justifies it, not just those with whom you disagree.  Since only GOD knows the heart, I'm assuming that you've issued out hundreds of these warnings to those that you find in err, just to be safe.  I haven't seen anything in Marilyn's posts that would lead me to believe that her understandings come from a malicious intent.  Have you? 

[Last Daze]

The per-tribers pay no mind to adding to scripture, they add a pre trib coming of the Lord, and a pre-trib resurrection of the dead in Christ. Neither of those ideas can be found in the Book.

 

Again, I think it comes down to motive.  We're all in the process of learning.  I'd venture to say that none of us has everything right. 

[Enoch2021]

The per-tribers pay no mind to adding to scripture, they add a pre trib coming of the Lord, and a pre-trib resurrection of the dead in Christ. Neither of those ideas can be found in the Book.

 

 

Unsupported Assertion "one liner"(Fallacy).  Allow me to show you how we arrived @ the very clear conclusion,

 

 

We didn't "add" anything...it's right here:

 

(1 Thessalonians 4:16-18) "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  {17} Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.  {18} Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

 

Then we engaged Basic Reasoning and said.... Who are the: "Dead in Christ" and "We which are alive"?  "We" then used fog a mirror reasoning that Paul is referring to "Born Again Christians/ "The Church".

 

We then asked the Question....Who is the "Wife"?

 

(Ephesians 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

 

 

Conclusion 1: Christ's "Wife" is "The Church"/Born Again Christians.

 

 

Then we, all of a sudden like, Looked @ Revelation 19; where it says....

 

(Revelation 19:7-9) "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.  {8} And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.  {9} And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God."

 

 

Then we said, hmmm   ??  

 

Conclusion 2: The Marriage Supper of the Lamb occurs in Heaven while the "Great Tribulation" is still ONGOING and before Christ's Return.  And the "WIFE" is already there.

 

 

Then we said, what are the choices again?  Pre-Great Trib Rapture  vs. Post Great Trib Rapture.  These are Mutually Exclusive.  Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, 2 things that are contradictory can't BE TRUE @ the same time.

 

In other words, if we summarily Rule One of the choices out...then the other choice MUST be TRUE.

 

 

Here's The Rub.... How is "The Bride/The Wife/The Church/Born Again Christians" @ The Marriage Supper in Heaven while still being on the Earth during the Great Tribulation??

 

The Answer is "She Can't"...... it's Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) the conclusion does not and can not agree with the Premise; Ergo, Pre- "Great Tribulation" Rapture

 

 

Savvy?

 

ps. We have many other proofs but they're not needed and would be redundant.

[Marilyn C]

Hi Enoch2021,

 

Oh now I see what you are saying re: saints - holy ones in Rev. 19: 8. I thought you were talking about the `army.` Well I`m on to it now & will get back to you soon. And no I wont be using Rev. 21 & 22 so you can be rest assured.

 

- Queen to king`s pawn.........

 

Marilyn.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Marilyn C

[ENOCH2010]

 Enoch2021 all you just said is only your opinion, it is not written in the Book. Now the second coming of the Lord, and the first resurrection ARE clearly written in the Book, REV : 20     Checkmate!!!!!

[Enoch2021]

You should warn those whose behavior justifies it, not just those with whom you disagree.  Since only GOD knows the heart, I'm assuming that you've issued out hundreds of these warnings to those that you find in err, just to be safe.  I haven't seen anything in Marilyn's posts that would lead me to believe that her understandings come from a malicious intent.  Have you? 

 

 

 

 

======================================================================================================

 

 

You should warn those whose behavior justifies it, not just those with whom you disagree

 

 

The warning is the result of this statement by Marilyn C...

 

"I will address the topic of - the wife/bride/marriage, next."

 

Now, I have already discussed this with Marilyn previously and posted this....

 

(Ephesians 5:31-32) "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  {32} This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."

 

There is NO WAY to dispute the "Very Clear" message/conclusion of these passages.

 

By her statement, in green above, she has "IMPLIED" quite strongly that she may be undertaking a type of obfuscation of these; Ergo, ----the warning. Could I be wrong in my assessment?...Yep.  Ergo, the warning vaporizes....."No Blood, No Foul" sort of motif.

 

ps. we have yet to disagree on this specific subject; Ergo, your claim above is Invalid.

 

 

I'm assuming that you've issued out hundreds of these warnings to those that you find in err, just to be safe

 

 

You've Identified The Problem and invalidates everything downstream from the "Assumption".   And "The Number of Times" something occurs is quite Irrelevant to this specific discussion. 

 

 

I haven't seen anything in Marilyn's posts that would lead me to believe that her understandings come from a malicious intent.  Have you?

 

 

Nope.  But I can't read her mind or judge her intent; hence, the warning.  

 

Moreover, just because something has happened over and over again.....doesn't Ipso Facto mean that it couldn't stop "all of a sudden like" and not happen again or a different or antithetical result occur.