Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
7,859
1,566
113
Interesting since Preterism and Amillennialism predate dispenstionalism and futurist theology.
(prior to 1850ish most all bible teachers were not of the dispensational view)

If one follows the process of the dispensational theology it becomes evident that it was necessary for the acceptance and support of the modern state of Israel

You mean 1850'ish to mean not including the Church in 100ad right? o 200ad? they were pre-millenarianism before the point that Rome dictated the things you speak of correct?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
Wrong....
His disciples watched him go and will see him come with the clouds in great power and glory
The religious lost will see him come with clouds in power and with great glory
Every kindred, nation and eye will see him come in the clouds with great power and glory
His coming is like lightning that cracks in the east and is SEEN in the west
This is GOD coming......and his coming is SEEN and VISIBLE
Mark 14:26, Matthew 26:64, Luke 21:27, Acts 1:11, Revelation 1:7
There is no such thing as some secret, imminent return of Christ where we go POOF and everyone wonders where we went.........
All of the above speaks of His Second Coming to the earth (FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom), not our Rapture (which is revealed and explained elsewhere).

Brethen, you are not in darkness that that day should over take you as a thief!!
This context is referring to the "start" of "the Day of the Lord", which ARRIVES as an INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (like Jesus referred to in the PLURAL, same Greek word but in the plural there, the singular here). After the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" [1Th5:2-3; Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'"], many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" follow on from there.


ONE coming and ALL things must jive with ONE coming or the conclusions are wrong
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
EDIT:

dcontroversal said:
Brethen, you are not in darkness that that day should over take you as a thief!!
TDW: This context is referring to the "start" of "the Day of the Lord", which ARRIVES as an INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (like Jesus referred to in the PLURAL, same Greek word but in the plural there, the singular here). After the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" [1Th5:2-3; Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'"], many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" follow on from there.
It is "that day" (specifically, "the Day of the Lord" time period which unfolds only and ever ON THE EARTH, and its "DARKNESS" aspect, that WE/'the Church which is His body' will have NO PART in! We will be "UP THERE WITH [G4862 (denoting "UNION-with"/"IDENTIFICATION-with"] Him" for "the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ" [which, by contrast, was NOT prophesied in the OT as "the DOTL" time period WAS])
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
[got cut off... offline, in the middle of posting this]

^ EDIT (to my post):

dcontroversal said:
Brethen, you are not in darkness that that day should over take you as a thief!!
TDW: This context is referring to the "start" of "the Day of the Lord", which ARRIVES as an INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (like Jesus referred to in the PLURAL, same Greek word but in the plural there, the singular here). After the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" [1Th5:2-3; Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'"], many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" follow on from there.
It is "that day" (specifically, "the Day of the Lord" time period which unfolds only and ever ON THE EARTH, and its "DARKNESS" aspect, that WE/'the Church which is His body' will have NO PART in! We will be "UP THERE WITH [G4862, denoting "UNION-with"/"IDENTIFICATION-with"] Him" for "the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ" [which, by contrast, was NOT prophesied in the OT as "the DOTL" time period WAS]).

"The Day of the Lord" and "IN THAT DAY," when referred to IN THE SAME CONTEXTS, refer to the SAME [earthly] TIME PERIOD, and this is the case also in the CONTEXT of 2Th1and2, both chapters (for that context), which phrase "IN THAT DAY" (used here) proves it's a time period (BEFORE His "RETURN" to the earth! [SAME time period as 2Th2:10-12!])
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Hey, thanks, But with all due respect prophecy (for-telling future events) and parables (using figurative language to explain a spiritual truth) are two different types of language used in the word.

They would also contradict the purpose of each. Meaning they will NOT be used together. It would defeat the purpose of each.
Both are the same kind of literature (what the eyes see) or the letter of the word. Two destinations. One used to hide the unseen spiritual (walk by faith) and the other the literal understanding or (walk by sight)

To prophesy , is to declare the word of God (prophecy) for-telling is one of the purposes. Parables, prophecy that hides the spiritual understanding from the lost .

They don't oppose each other they work together as one.

Many of the events in the Bible are historically true and at the same time used as a parable to come alone side and offers the spiritual meaning.

A good example is the time period that God gave over the faithless Jew to have a king as a outward representation .This was because of their jealousy of the pagan nations of the world.

When the reformation came the previous time period used as a parable was no longer needed to signify search for the things not seen the eternal using the things seen the temporal to give us that understanding,. Which was a parable for the time the present . Egypt and its departure was also used as a parable for the time present . Without parables Christ spoke not

The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.Hebrews 9:8-10

To Signify ….to use the things seen to give us the unseen spiritual understanding
Figure ... the Greek word parable
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
You're right. I was once deceived for by that false doctrine, but accepted it because the Bible seemed to say mortals and immortals will dwell together. I didn't understand those passages properly because I ignored the fact that believers already have eternal life, so immortals and mortals are dwelling together now.

I began to question what I was being taught when I asked the pastor of a church I belong to how people get saved during the millennial kingdom. He said they're saved by works. I prayed long about that without searching commentaries and found how untrue that is.
See, as a pre-tribber, I disagree with this (meaning, the "saved by works" idea). I believe it is always a matter of "faith" (the just shall live by faith).

A lot of people think Matthew 25:31-34 and context (thru chpt end) is showing people being saved by "their works." As a pre-tribber, I don't see it that way... I see this passage as taking place FOLLOWING our Rapture and involving "the Gentiles/nations" (during the trib), with vv.31-34 being His "RETURN" to the earth (FOR the earthly MK, and their entrance into that MK time period [or, not entering it, depending...]); Verse 40's "the least of these My brethren" being the faithful/believing remnant of Israel (having themselves come to faith WITHIN the trib [AFTER our Rapture], and THEIR going forth with "the specific message" of Matthew 24:14[26:13][Matthew 22:8-14][Revelation19:9 (distinct from 19:7)], which is the "INVITATION" TO/FOR the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom which will commence upon His "RETURN" to the earth [aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" aka "the meal," the 'shall sit down'[G347]"').

The Gentiles (in this context) who aid [i.e. "BLESS"] these messengers (which will be at great risk to themselves, during that time of great deception) will themselves be the "ye, BLESSED of My Father" [the "SHEEP"/"the righteous"], whereas those who do not do so, will be the "ye, CURSED" [the goats]… but "the least of these My brethren" are not the ones BEING "judged/separated" in THIS context. But the thing about "the Sheep/the righteous" is (not as some suppose, that they are "saved" by their "WORKS"), I believe (instead) that their actions are simply evidence their "faith" (they just don't themselves realize that what they've done unto these, "the least of these My brethren," that they have [from our Lord's perspective] "done in unto [Him]!")
 

tanakh

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2015
4,635
1,040
113
76
Interesting since Preterism and Amillennialism predate dispenstionalism and futurist theology.
(prior to 1850ish most all bible teachers were not of the dispensational view)

If one follows the process of the dispensational theology it becomes evident that it was necessary for the acceptance and support of the modern state of Israel
Both Preterism and Futurism have their roots in the writings of two Jesuit Priests both aiming to refute the claims that their respective Popes were the Antichrist by either pushing most of Revelation into the distant past or the distant future. Preterism stems from Manuel
De Lacunza 1731-1801 writing under the pen name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. Futurism stems from Francisco Ribera 1537-1591
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
Concerning the final judgment, no.

Do you believe any person who isn't changed from a mortal body to an immortal body could survive the coming of Jesus as Peter described it?
As for 2 Peter 3:10-12, a few things (I may have mentioned some of them already, but wanted to try to answer this post more directly, if possible :) ):

[briefly]

--I believe 2Pet3:10-12 should be viewed in light of BOTH CHPTS of Isaiah 34-35, and not merely by extracting 34:4 out from its entire context (and recall, I've mentioned a number of times that the OT prophecies concerning "the Day of the Lord" always involve "'JUDGMENT(S)' followed by 'BLESSING'"--I believe [WE] "the Church which is His body" will not be present on the earth for the START of the Day of the Lord time period [the part involving "JUDGMENTS" unfolding on the earth ("DARK"/"DARKNESS"/"IN THE NIGHT")], but will RETURN with Him for the commencement of the MK age [the "BLESSING" aspect of their promised and prophesied earthly MK age, aka "the wedding FEAST/SUPPER" aka "the kingdom of the heavens [on the earth]"], whether or not we will permanently reside there I've not concluded, but am inclined to think not, but more of a travel back and forth kind of thing--I believe our bodies will be like His [Phil3:20-21]);

--I believe 2Pet3:10-12's "IN WHICH" correlates also with Acts 17:31's "IN WHICH" (pertaining to His "governance" and correlating with Daniel 7:27[25] and Dan2:35b) and that this is not referring to merely a singular 24-hr day;

--I believe 2Pet3:10-12's words of "elements [2x]" is to be viewed in the same/similar way this is used in Gal4:3,9; Col2:8[20]; Heb5:12 (see those verses and contexts)… and where it says [kjv] "shall be burned up," that the Greek word there means "its works will be laid bare" or perhaps "the works on it will be disclosed" (as is found in some translations)… so I don't see this as total obliteration of the earth (yes, I do believe Rev19:19 will take place then--as correlating with the FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words in Isaiah 24:21-22[23] [which are also separated by a further spans of time, at that point], which means that ppl will experience "death" at that time, meaning, the unbelievers--same as in Matt25:46/Matt13:41, Matt22:13, etc)
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
Both Preterism and Futurism have their roots in the writings of two Jesuit Priests both aiming to refute the claims that their respective Popes were the Antichrist by either pushing most of Revelation into the distant past or the distant future. Preterism stems from Manuel
De Lacunza 1731-1801 writing under the pen name of Rabbi Ben Ezra. Futurism stems from Francisco Ribera 1537-1591

Yes some make this argument....... however, if preterism should be discarded because of its supposed Jesuit connection/beginning, then futurism should similarly be discarded because of its Jesuit association.

However, Preterism does have a longer history going back beyond De Lacunza and Luls de Alcasar (the other Spanish Jesuit)

I would say best to regard John's clear words......

‘Write the things which thou sawest, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which are about to happen (ha mellei ginesthai [ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι]) after these things’
Rev 1:19
 
U

UnderGrace

Guest
You mean 1850'ish to mean not including the Church in 100ad right? o 200ad? they were pre-millenarianism before the point that Rome dictated the things you speak of correct?
If you are referring to "chiliasm" yes Tertullian and Iraneaus I believe did follow this doctrine....but many others rejected it, since it was considered not solely derived from the new testament.....Clement of Rome to Augustine believed that scripture proclaimed Jesus Christ's present reign over all things from heaven, where his saints were "with him" and not coming back to set up a future kingdom.

I found this very interesting......

It is the realization that the "literal," nationalistic interpretation of the prophets was the standard that Jesus, in the eyes of his opponents, did not live up to, and therefore was the basis of their rejection of him as messiah.

Now Irenaeus insisted this prophecy would be literally fulfilled in the kingdom on earth was Is. 11:6-7, which speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, etc.

Origen specifically mentions this passage as among those which the Jews misinterpret: "and having seen none of these events literally happening during the advent of him whom we believe to be Christ they did not accept our Lord Jesus, but crucified him on the ground that he had wrongly called himself Christ.

This "Jewish" approach to the Old Testament prophecies and its role in the Jewish rejection of Jesus was recognized even by Tertullian and was no doubt one of his motivations for taking a more "spiritualized" approach to those prophecies than Irenaeus had done.

Dr. Charles E. Hill is associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He is the author of Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992).




So then this makes me think about the futurist overly literal fulfillment....is this the same error that caused the Jews to reject Christ?
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
All of the above speaks of His Second Coming to the earth (FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom), not our Rapture (which is revealed and explained elsewhere).



This context is referring to the "start" of "the Day of the Lord", which ARRIVES as an INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR; 1Th5:2-3]" (like Jesus referred to in the PLURAL, same Greek word but in the plural there, the singular here). After the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" [1Th5:2-3; Matt24:4/Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'"], many more "birth PANGS [PLURAL]" follow on from there.
AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAH like I said....you have a lot of error to ditch and re-learn some truth.......go back to the drawing board.....

Both 1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 <--context is last part of chapter 4 the resurrection
2nd Thessalonians 2 The BODY PRESENCE and OUR GATHERING together UNTO Christ

You can forget it.....ONE COMING not TWO......and if it does not JIVE with ONE coming it is erroneous.....end of story....and do me a favor....don't address me....you will not change my mind after 33 years of studying it and especially after coming out of the imminent return farce.....
 

Melach

Well-known member
Mar 28, 2019
2,026
1,512
113
AHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAH like I said....you have a lot of error to ditch and re-learn some truth.......go back to the drawing board.....

Both 1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 <--context is last part of chapter 4 the resurrection
2nd Thessalonians 2 The BODY PRESENCE and OUR GATHERING together UNTO Christ

You can forget it.....ONE COMING not TWO......and if it does not JIVE with ONE coming it is erroneous.....end of story....and do me a favor....don't address me....you will not change my mind after 33 years of studying it and especially after coming out of the imminent return farce.....
yes one coming. has to jive with it. very easy. praise Jesus holy name for leading us into all truth
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
yes one coming. has to jive with it. very easy. praise Jesus holy name for leading us into all truth
It is simple as.........and another error that leads down the path of being wrong.....denying the truth that they is but ONE coming of Christ and trying to make it into two separate events.........ignorance....
 

iamsoandso

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2011
7,859
1,566
113
If you are referring to "chiliasm" yes Tertullian and Iraneaus I believe did follow this doctrine....but many others rejected it, since it was considered not solely derived from the new testament.....Clement of Rome to Augustine believed that scripture proclaimed Jesus Christ's present reign over all things from heaven, where his saints were "with him" and not coming back to set up a future kingdom.

I found this very interesting......

It is the realization that the "literal," nationalistic interpretation of the prophets was the standard that Jesus, in the eyes of his opponents, did not live up to, and therefore was the basis of their rejection of him as messiah.

Now Irenaeus insisted this prophecy would be literally fulfilled in the kingdom on earth was Is. 11:6-7, which speaks of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and the leopard with the kid, etc.

Origen specifically mentions this passage as among those which the Jews misinterpret: "and having seen none of these events literally happening during the advent of him whom we believe to be Christ they did not from them accept our Lord Jesus, but crucified him on the ground that he had wrongly called himself Christ.

This "Jewish" approach to the Old Testament prophecies and its role in the Jewish rejection of Jesus was recognized even by Tertullian and was no doubt one of his motivations for taking a more "spiritualized" approach to those prophecies than Irenaeus had done.

Dr. Charles E. Hill is associate professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. He is the author of Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christianity (Oxford, 1992).



So then this makes me think about the futurist overly literal fulfillment....is this the same error that caused the Jews to reject Christ?
It would be interesting to see a quoted source of Clement of Rome or Barnabas,Hermas ect,(men who the scripture mentions as companions of Paul) stating that there would be no millennial kingdom on earth as the 2nd or 3d century Church spoke of and although I have heard this stated many times they don't give the books they quote from or chapter with their statement.

Augustine being of the RCC formed after the east and west empires of Rome were formed are where the allegorical approach to interpretation began to be the then current Church position and there argument in it was of those eraly church fathers and apostolic fathers literal approach to the Millennial Kingdom. That said though Luke in Acts 1:6 writes that the disciples ask of the Kingdom being restored and at the beginning of his Gospel says it is what they believed to Theophilus and the Apostle John speaks of a millennial reign so I must trust them over Augustine.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
Both 1st Thessalonians 5:1-4 <--context is last part of chapter 4 the resurrection
This is that sequence issue again. It is the same sequence being shown in 2Th2 [3x there]; Our Rapture/Departure to the meeting of the Lord IN THE AIR that pertains solely to "the Church which is His body" takes place, and then... what happens following that is "SINGULAR BIRTH PANG" 1Th5:2-3 on the earth [the ARRIVAL of the DOTL time period with its 'man of sin' and ALL he will DO over the course of those YEARS], but that singular [initial] birth PANG [at its ARRIVAL] does not remain alone... many more "birth PANGS follow on from the initial one, just as labor COMES UPON a woman with child. It is not "one and done!"

This is how "birth PANGS" work.

(Jesus told of the INITIAL birth pang [singular] when He spoke of "the beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]," and much more [tribulation events] follows on even from those (those are just the "SEALS" aspect). This is not yet the moment of His "RETURN" to the earth, but is what PRECEDES it as these "beginning of birth PANGS" will unfold upon the earth, and all that follows "the BEGINNING of birth PANGS [plural]" is... more "birth pangs" that aren't only "the beginning" of them, but the further on ones. ;) )

2nd Thessalonians 2 The BODY PRESENCE and OUR GATHERING together UNTO Christ
Verse 1 is indeed speaking of our Rapture. Paul was bringing a corrective to their minds, which involved telling them WHY "the Day of the Lord" is not, in fact, "PRESENT [perfect tense indicative--meaning, a past event with present effects]". He supplies the reason, which involves the SEQUENCE.

You can forget it.....ONE COMING not TWO......and if it does not JIVE with ONE coming it is erroneous.....end of story....and do me a favor....don't address me....you will not change my mind after 33 years of studying it and especially after coming out of the imminent return farce.....
His "PAROUSIA-PRESENCE" IN THE AIR (in OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM") involves no one else. And Paul also said in 1Cor15:23 "[re: resurrection] but each IN HIS OWN ORDER" and later in vv.51-53 speaks even more specifically (regarding "the Church which is His body") where he says "THIS corruptible" ['the DEAD in Christ,' here] and "THIS mortal" [the 'we which are ALIVE and remain unto' (this part also spoken of in 2Cor5:3-4 "that MORTALITY might be swallowed up OF LIFE" [this is at our Rapture event!]); who are both [the DEAD in Christ and the WE which are ALIVE and remain unto" are together caught UP/AWAY "AS ONE" (the "ONE BODY"!)] which was something distinct from the "resurrection" that Martha [and ALL OT saints] WELL-KNEW ['resurrect' means 'to stand again ON THE EARTH']!! There was NO MYSTERY [unrevealed/undisclosed b/f His resurrection], NO MYSTERY about THAT ['resurrection'], they all [all OT saints] understood that VERY WELL. Yet here, Paul is disclosing "a mystery" (his assigned task).

The "GREAT" trumpet of Matthew 24:29-31 (AFTER/END of the trib) correlates with Isaiah 27:12-13 and it is, there said to be, "the angels HE SHALL SEND" to do so, and THEY will be gathered "ONE by ONE" (not "AS ONE")... and are gathered to one location ON THE EARTH... in every way distinct from our "epiSYNagoges UNTO HIM [IN THE AIR]" (and there is a PURPOSE to our Rapture... [actually more than one]... that is unique to "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [i.e. saints of "this present age [singular]"]). His "PAROUSIA-PRESENCE" IN THE AIR pertains SOLELY to "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (and thereafter, His "JUDGMENTS" will unfold upon the earth with the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" (=SEAL#1 / "the man of sin be revealed" / "whose coming"/"prince THAT SHALL COME"/"FOR ONE WEEK" / Matt24:4/Mk13:5 'G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'... all of that being at the START of many MORE "birth PANGS" that follow on from there, and which earthly-located events lead up TO His promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, commencing upon His "RETURN" to the earth WHERE His "PAROUSIA-PRESENCE" WILL be located ['coming'] at THAT point in the "chronology"... ALL "SON OF MAN cometh/coming/shall come/etc" passages refer to THIS [His designation regarding THIS])
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,235
1,981
113
I would say best to regard John's clear words......

‘Write the things which thou sawest, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which are about to happen (ha mellei ginesthai [ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι]) after these things’
Rev 1:19
I would just point out that the Greek word "G3195 - mello" ^ carries also the meaning of "is SURE to/ is CERTAIN to" take place [often used in passages speaking of prophecies that must be fulfilled; they are "CERTAIN/SURE" to take place... (it doesn't have to mean "any time soon" or immediately. This is the nature of "prophecies" and how they work)]
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Amen

Replacement theology a straw man.

Paul clearly defines who is a Jew in the new covenant
Romans 2:29
29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
We are not talking about the new covenant

So using it as an argument does not help


We are not even talking about the old covenant (moses)

We are talking about the covenant with Abraham.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
i looked it up and checked. what you say its true. the word translated coming there is parousia

well there we go friends.

no pre-trib rapture, no preterist spiritual return to destroy Jerusalem in ad70.

both those are unbiblical and you are arguing with bible if you believe them.

thank you dcon i want to hug you for giving me the truth, praise Jesus holy name.
Hey bro

Post trib is false

God can not come to earth, Rapture every saved person, then kill every non saved person. Then set up his kingdom. There would be no one left

In matt 24. Jesus gives those living at that time hope. Whoever endures to the end will be saved (not raptured) those people will enter the kingdom age living, and get to witness a restoration of the earth like no other. They become the new adam and eve/noah for the new age.


The rapture (latin raptura) is God comming physically in the clouds, and we meet him in the sky. It is not boots on the ground return. So the perusia arguiment is still flawed. No one ever said his return to “catch us up” in the sky is spiritual. Not sure where that come from.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
there is no use for any "debate" anymore. its just fake debates and bad doctrine

only truth is historic premillennialism. post-trib rapture, last day resurrection/rapture. those who survive rumble will survive to the kingdom.

no invisible return for rapture or 70ad jerusalem. nothing like that.

parousia = body presence. no body presence yet so Jesus returns only one time one coming then is rapture resurrection and second coming

this is absolute truth everything else is just false.

very easy. this is what we all need to believe.
If this is true, NO ONE will be left on earth for Christ to rule. To refill the earth with children. To come to jerusalem to worship the king.