Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts


Rev 1.1. Signified, means told by signs or symbols. I have noticed that some will not discuss anything other than what they have been taught, or brainwashed so they cannot see what the scripture plainly says.

The signs, once they are given and explained in a prophecy, do not change throughout the scripture, genesis to Revelation, the signs or symbols mean the same.

Please give some e.gs.

Is the lion consistently Christ or Satan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Both! The lion signifies strength, so yes the symbolism is consistent.

WOW !!!!???!!!!

I suppose the point of your claim that signs must be consistently interpreted is that because believers are built into a living temple that the "temple of God" in 2 Thes. 2 must signify the church, taken over by Rome, with the Pope as "the man of sin."

There is no reason to see the temple of God in 2 Thes. as a symbol. The context is not symbolic. It is a straightforward prophecy of the events leading up to the AD 70 destruction - which must take place before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


WOW !!!!???!!!!

I suppose the point of your claim that signs must be consistently interpreted is that because believers are built into a living temple that the "temple of God" in 2 Thes. 2 must signify the church, taken over by Rome, with the Pope as "the man of sin."

There is no reason to see the temple of God in 2 Thes. as a symbol. The context is not symbolic. It is a straightforward prophecy of the events leading up to the AD 70 destruction - which must take place before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


From the Invisible church thread

Now, turn to 1 Tim. 3:15

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The house of God is the temple. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



In what sense can you say that the church (kingdom) has flopped? Just because many reject the truth does not mean that the truth has failed or flopped. As a matter of fact, the Word teaches us that most will reject it.

You can question my thinking if you desire but the truth is that the Bible teaches that the kingdom is the church (Matt 16:18-19). Now, this does not mean that the kingdom will not some day be delivered up to the Father; it will be but what will never happen is some 1000 year reign on earth. The Bible simply does not teach that as a matter of fact, it contradicts it.


I never said the church flopped. I said if someone holds your position you would have to say it flopped since there is no way you can say Christ's 1,000 year reign of peace and righteousness has been realized on this planet. Only a deluded fool would think that.

And nowhere in Matt. 16:18-19 does it say the church is the kingdom. Only a papist would say that. It say the keys of the kingdom of heaven would be given to Peter and it's debatable whether this has actually occured yet.

As far as the 1,000 year reign I don't know how Revelation 20:4 can't be any clearer unless you allegorized the whole book which puts you on very, very dangerous ground. Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


WOW !!!!???!!!!

I suppose the point of your claim that signs must be consistently interpreted is that because believers are built into a living temple that the "temple of God" in 2 Thes. 2 must signify the church, taken over by Rome, with the Pope as "the man of sin."

There is no reason to see the temple of God in 2 Thes. as a symbol. The context is not symbolic. It is a straightforward prophecy of the events leading up to the AD 70 destruction - which must take place before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


You are 100% correct here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Clear as day that some of the disciples would live for 2,000 years ????


No, clear as day that since the context of the passage in which Christ makes his promise is speaking of his literally, physical Second Coming then the promise that Christ made to the disciples about seeing "the Son of man coming in his kingdom" had to be fulfilled in TYPE by his transfiguration. Why? Because all the disciples would taste death before his return.

I was just refuting the claim by some that what Christ was talking about was the coming of the church and not his Second Coming. There is nothing in the context concerning the church. It's all about his literal, physical return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I never said the church flopped. I said if someone holds your position you would have to say it flopped since there is no way you can say Christ's 1,000 year reign of peace and righteousness has been realized on this planet. Only a deluded fool would think that.

And nowhere in Matt. 16:18-19 does it say the church is the kingdom. Only a papist would say that. It say the keys of the kingdom of heaven would be given to Peter and it's debatable whether this has actually occured yet.

As far as the 1,000 year reign I don't know how Revelation 20:4 can't be any clearer unless you allegorized the whole book which puts you on very, very dangerous ground.


Looks like I am not the only one on here that can be rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Preterist Wikipedia website:

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to: (1) Jesus' transfiguration; (2) his resurrection; (3) the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost; (4) the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the early church; (5) the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70; or (6) the second coming and final establishment of the kingdom.[41] View (6) is unacceptable to many preterists because it implies that Jesus was mistaken about the timing of his return.

Many preterists believe the immediate context seems to indicate the first view, the transfiguration, which immediately follows (Matthew 17:1-9; Mark 9:2–10; Luke 9:28–36). This view seems to satisfy that "some" disciples would see the glory of the son of man, but it does not satisfy that "he will repay every man for what he has done."

The same situation occurs with views (2) through (4). Only view (5) of the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 appears to satisfy both conditions (reinforced with Revelation 2:23;20:12;22:12), as a preterist would argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I change my view from (3) to (5) ?

This predicted event has been variously interpreted as referring to: (1) Jesus' transfiguration;
(2) his resurrection;
(4) the spread of the kingdom through the preaching of the early church;
Neither 1 nor 2 answer to: the kingdom of God come with power. Nor does (4) as the text indicates an event, rather than a process.

(3) the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost;
This event certain is the kingdom of God come with power. I do not think it is wrong to understand it in that way.

It does not, however, equate to: 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

(5) the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70;

This understanding requires AD 70 to be a coming in the glory of his Father with the holy angels and a specific time of judgement of this generation that rejected him.

I'll develop that in a future post.

(6) the second coming and final establishment of the kingdom.
This looks as if it could be a valid understanding of 38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. except for the condemnation of this adulterous and sinful generation which is a condemnation of those alive then who rejected him, and there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what everyone is trying to say just yet but I'm reading these posts because I've noticed this is an area many views of the end times seem to have trouble with.

Has anyone ever wondered why the things concerning the end times were presented to us as they were? I mean, without a clear, 'thus saith the Lord, this is exactly how it will be, step one...step two...step three...'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what everyone is trying to say just yet but I'm reading these posts because I've noticed this is an area many views of the end times seem to have trouble with.

Has anyone ever wondered why the things concerning the end times were presented to us as they were? I mean, without a clear, 'thus saith the Lord, this is exactly how it will be, step one...step two...step three...'.



John, Even if it was spelled out for easy understanding, there would still be many different opinions. Basically, man hates God's way, and loves his own way, he just naturally rebels against God, them does what it right in his own sight.

With the Bible laid out as it is, those that are truly interested in God, those who truly love Christ, those who want to walk in His ways will only be a few, Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Pat Boone recently wrote on his blog, we Christians must get together and vote them democrats out, the Christians, that is true Christians, have never been in the majority, and never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just believe what the Bible actually teaches: the kingdom came on the day of pentecost in Acts 2.



Exactly.

1 Cor. 4: 17 ¶ For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you believe Revelation chapter 20 is talking about?

Interesting that you bring the millennium into this discussion. Presumably the idea is that Jesus is predicting that some of his hearers would live to see the beginning of the millennium.

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Mar 9:1 ¶ And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Rev 20:4 ¶ And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [i saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

While I am confident that the millennium is the present Gospel age, I'm unsure of whether it began with Jesus' triumph over Satan in his resurrection, or with his vindication over his enemies in the generation that rejected him, when his Olivet prophecy was fulfilled AD 70.

Certainly Jesus was enthroned at his ascension, but he did speak of a 'coming' that was not his coming for resurrection & judgment, when he would bring about the NH&NE.

Luk 20:13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence [him] when they see him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard [it], they said, God forbid.
17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

Not every coming of the Lord is personal & visible, but nevertheless it is very real:

Deu 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.

Hab 3:3 ¶ God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.

Mal 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in [his] wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger [from his right], and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.

Malachi goes on to warn of the Lord coming in judgment against those who rejected the warnings of Elijah - aka John the baptist.

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Jesus came to smite the generation of those who rejected him in AD 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could this present age, Gospel Age, be the 1,000 years kingdom (millennium) spoken of when its been nearly 2,000 years since Jesus arose and since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?

Ask Peter & Moses; 1,000 years is an indefinite period.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ask Peter & Moses; 1,000 years is an indefinite period.

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.



So you take the position that 1,000 years simply means a long, but indefinite period of time and not a literal thousand years. Correct?

What others have held to this view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



So you take the position that 1,000 years simply means a long, but indefinite period of time and not a literal thousand years. Correct?

What others have held to this view?

That is the standard amil view, held by countless evangelicals. Peter's (2P3:8) allows no place for a future millennium. His 1,000 years/day is the present time of longsuffering & grace - Paul calls it now. (2 Cor. 6:2)

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 ¶ But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 [seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 ¶ Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What others have held to this view?


Most Grace Baptists would hold this view, as taught by Hendriksen. Liberal Baptists would not.

Plymouth Brethren would be dispensationists, and most liberals would follow them.

Betwen them are the Historic Millenialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...