What is the difference in the rapture and the second coming?

[thereselittleflower]

I am not going to sit here and read an online novel.   Provide the proof  in a succinct manner.  Frankly, nothing in what you presented even comes close to making that point.   But I will give you a chance to try.

 

 

So you require others to give you exact proof that you don't have to search through,  while you point others to books and chapters and leave them to find what it might be you're relying on?

 

I've done my best to reason with you and allow you to do for myself and others what you require us to do for you.   But it seems to be to no avail.   

[Guest shiloh357]

Not true.  JohnD  presented me with three long posts and at the time I didn't feel like wading through really long posts to find what I was looking for, so I asked him to boil it down for me.   I didn't say I was not willing to  consider his points.    He refused to do so.  

[Guest shiloh357]

No littleflower,

 

All you have done is avoid my questions, and repost the same false values that you assign to my arguments over and over and over.   I have to keep repeating myself with you because you keep accusing me circular reasoning and it simply isn't true. 

 

You are extremely dishonest and it makes it very hard to actually get you to prove any of your claims.  I have never met such a dishonest person on these boards

[thereselittleflower]

 

Asking her to back up her facts isn't bullying.   It's calling on her to prove her case instead of ignoring the same questions over and over.

 

Asking once as you imply is not bullying.

 

Still waiting...

 

is bullying and you owe her an apology rather than trying to excuse your way out of it.

 

 

 

For some reason shiloh seems unable or unwilling to accept that the proof he is looking for is in the very genre of the book itself, as well as the fact that nowhere else in the bible is "a thousand years" used literally.   

 

How is it that anywhere else the phrase "a thousand years"  is found, in non apocalyptic portions of the scripture, and thus not highly symbolic by genre, it is not used literally, but somehow when we read a book that is the most highly symbolic of all books in the scriptures it suddenly becomes literal?

 

Non-apocalyptic (not highly symbolic) books in non- apocalyptic genres - "a thousand years" = symbolic, figurative language

 

Apocalyptic (highly symbolic)  book in apocalyptic genre - "a thousand years"  =  literal language

 

 

This defies all rationality, all logic, all right use of reason.

[thereselittleflower]

No littleflower,

 

All you have done is avoid my questions, and repost the same false values that you assign to my arguments over and over and over.   I have to keep repeating myself with you because you keep accusing me circular reasoning and it simply isn't true. 

 

You are extremely dishonest and it makes it very hard to actually get you to prove any of your claims.  I have never met such a dishonest person on these boards

 

 

Until you are willing to provide actual proof in a succinct manner as you require from others, and provide the sources you rely on for your claims, there is no reason to give anything you claim any crediblity.

[Guest shiloh357]

Genre isn't the only determining factor in determining how a word is used.    Poetic literature which is highly figurative makes literal claims about the creation of the world and even makes literal claims about the earth itself and how it works.

 

You cannot just take an across the board approach to interpretation.   Just because 1000 years is used symbolically in on part of the Bible doesn't mean you can just apply it that way across the board every time it shows up. 

 

In Revelation 20 there are no figurative indicators in v. 4.   You have nothing in that verse that indicates symbolism is employed and that is what you NEED to prove it is symbolic.   Just harping on Revelation as symbolic isn't enough.  

 

that's why you can't explain  WHY 1,000 years is symbolic.   You can't offer up the proof because it isn't there and you are  hell bent on deflecting from addressing that issue.  

 

I have made several succinct arguments that you brushed aside and completely dismissed completely as if they wee meaningless, and then you continue to lie as if I never presented them, again highlighting your basic inherent dishonesty in this discussion.

[JohnD]

Shiloh is convinced above all else that he is right.

If God can't remedy this, no one can.

So let Shiloh be.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yeah, when you can't answer questions that challenge your weak theology, the only recourse is to claim I think I am right above everything else.  That deflects attention away from your refusal to engage tough questions you don't want to face.   It's called, "cowardice."

[thereselittleflower]

Shiloh is convinced above all else that he is right.

If God can't remedy this, no one can.

So let Shiloh be.

 

Unfortunately,  I think you are right.

[Marilyn C]

Hi shiloh357,

 

We seem to agree on much here as to the literal millennial reign of Christ through Israel on earth, as promised to them in the Old Testament & confirmed by Jesus during His manifestation while on earth. The point we part company is that I do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ will stay on earth after He has set up the kingdom rule (King, priests, & other rulers). Plus I believe that the Body of Christ NEVER came back to earth. This is all tied up in the purposes of God for the Body of Christ, Israel & the nations.

 

Now I see you have your hands full here with JohnD & littleflower, but if you would like to discuss/debate this in the soap-box area then I would be pleased to work through with you. I`m sure we can both learn from each other as we agree on so much.

 

Marilyn.