The Need for a Future Millennium

[AandW_Rootbeer]

2 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Posts prove otherwise. I, for one, won't be trading posts with as long as the point being made (repeatedly now) is addressed. 

Either you do not read scripture literally and need to stop claiming you do OR you do read scripture literally and need to adjust the futurism in your eschatology to what is literally stated in scripture regardless of when Revelation was written. You cannot have it both ways. Readers of the posts recognize the inescapable disparity and inconsistency.

 

 

The Fact is Revelation 1:1 is a WARNING that goes to the 7 Churches of Asia!

 

This is why Revelation has NOTHING to do with 70 A.D.!

 

And we see that John became Bishop after Patmos, giving more proof Revelation 1:1 is about the 7 Churches and not about 70 A.D.

Edited November 10, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[AandW_Rootbeer]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

You've told me you haven't read and will not read Gentry. Has that changed?

It's easy to find his so-called proofs.   From many here posting them or even just Google will give you outlines of his timeline and viewpoints.

 

And even in those, he is clearly wrong about the Book of Revelation's connecting to 70 A.D.

Edited November 10, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[AandW_Rootbeer]

5 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

The Fact is Revelation 1:1 is a WARNING that goes to the 7 Churches of Asia!

This is why Revelation has NOTHING to do with 70 A.D.!

And we see that John became Bishop after Patmos, giving more proof Revelation 1:1 is about the 7 Churches and not about 70 A.D.

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by AandW_Rootbeer

[AandW_Rootbeer]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

Still dodging the point. If the statement of nearness is taken literally then your eschatology warrants change. If the verses are not taken literally then simply stop claiming to do so. 

I'm not going to discuss the op with you until or unless this matter is resolved because I'd have no basis to believe any further discussion would be efficacious. Prove you can stick to a point from beginning to end. Prove you have an ability to rely on literally-read scripture or prove you have the ability to post consistently with your own claims about yourself. You brought this up! I am simply working with what was posted relative to scripture and I'm trying to keep it op-relevant. 

That is not an answer to the question asked. Whether or not it is easy, have you actually read Gentry? Yes or no?

I ain't Dodging anything, because I am not TWISTING Revelation 1:1 for a False Doctrine!

 

Revelation 1:1 is about the 7 Asia Churches!

 

That is 100% Fact!!

[Alive]

7 minutes ago, AandW_Rootbeer said:

We, maybe not You, seem to Agree that Darby is a Heretic based (majorly) upon Eschatology.

I do not see how Gentry should get a pass for being as equally Wrong!!

I am not aware that Darby has been called a heretic in this OP. I believe it has been said that he constructed an eschatological position that has some problems and may/does lead to other problems.

Gentry on the other hand, did a very detailed and honest look at several positions and attempted to bring scripture to bear upon them. If you actually read his book with bible in hand, you may conclude that you disagree with some of his conclusions, but I suspect you would admire his honesty and hard work.

I did. I don't say that I know he was correct in all points, as I am still working things out--but his work is compelling. I read a lot and I must say that his work is one of two in the genre that I found worthy of admiration.

But, again---this OP is not about that. The time stamp and peoples referenced in Revelation are what needs to be dealt with squarely. We may not conclude the entirety of the implications, but nevertheless--it should be faced honestly.

[AandW_Rootbeer]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

The posts prove otherwise. 

 

I will not belabor the matter further. I appreciate the clarification of your eschatological views but I do not believe a discussion of those views would avoid more of the current problem. Thank you for your time but we're done here.

Then STOP quoting me because I disagree with YOU over Revelation 1:1 [when written and Whom it was intended for 7 Churches of Asia].

 

I will view anything else as Heretical pertaining towards Revelation 1:1

[AandW_Rootbeer]

2 minutes ago, Alive said:

I am not aware that Darby has been called a heretic in this OP. I believe it has been said that he constructed an eschatological position that has some problems and may/does lead to other problems.

Gentry on the other hand, did a very detailed and honest look at several positions and attempted to bring scripture to bear upon them. If you actually read his book with bible in hand, you may conclude that you disagree with some of his conclusions, but I suspect you would admire his honesty and hard work.

I did. I don't say that I know he was correct in all points, as I am still working things out--but his work is compelling. I read a lot and I must say that his work is one of two in the genre that I found worthy of admiration.

But, again---this OP is not about that. The time stamp and peoples referenced in Revelation are what needs to be dealt with squarely. We may not conclude the entirety of the implications, but nevertheless--it should be faced honestly.

Agreed!

[AandW_Rootbeer]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

However, Roy, AandW, Justin, Marathoner, and myself, despite our eschatological differences do all agree Darby and Darbyism is wrong. 

Amen!

[Alive]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

I may have called works-based soteriology heretical and there by inference implied Darby's eschatology held heretical views. If I said the man was a heretic then I'll amend that post to be more respectful in deference to the Dispensationalists. 

However, Roy, AandW, Justin, Marathoner, and myself, despite our eschatological differences do all agree Darby and Darbyism is wrong. 

Thanks, Josh. We are capable, with the Lord's help--to use scripture to support our respective views. It is sufficient.

:-)

[The Light]

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

Not by name, but he is mentioned. 

Isaiah 14:12-16
"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations!  But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.  'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'  Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, they will ponder over you, saying, 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms..."

 

 

Sure sounds like Satan, doesn't it.

Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

But the verses are not talking about Satan. The verses are talking about a man.

Those who see you will gaze at you, they will ponder over you, saying, 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms..."

The verses are talking about Nimrod, the king of Babylon.

Isaiah 14

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Nimrod will be the Antichrist, who was and is not and then is. He will be the eighth king, who is of the 7.