Are there really any parallels between Revelation 20:7-10 and Revelation 19?

[Oseas]

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

The earth as whole is infested of ENEMIES of our Lord JESUS Christ - Jewish and Gentiles - multitudes and multitudes of peoples.

Revelation 19:19 - 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together(these are not conventional armies; these armies are all kind of the current religious and satanic systems in whole Earth), to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. Then will fulfill LITERALLY Revelation 11:18: - 18 And the nations were(will be) angry, and thy wrath -GOD-s WRATH - is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be Judged, and that thou should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth. (The Word is GOD, self-executing. Hallelujah!!!)

Matthew 23:29-36
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (This prophecy will fulfill now in the time of Apocalypse, LITERALLY)

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (This prophecy will fulfill now in the time of Apocalypse, LITERALLY, according Revelation 14:14-20, combined with Isaiah 5:3-7)

The battle is against three unclean spirits like frogs: why frogs?
In fact a satanic trinity.

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS?

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS? Revelation 16:v.13 to 16 1 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the False Prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which...

purebibleforum.com

Revelation 6:15-17
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great Day of his wrath is come-the LORD's Day-; and who shall be able to stand?

Celebration of the Lamb's marriage? ONLY AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON​

Celebration of the Lamb's marriage? ONLY AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON

According to GOD's Word, what needs to happen first? Exactly what is written in Revelation 18: 1 to 5, i.e. the Judgment of the Great harlot, as follows: 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. (Note: This...

purebibleforum.com

 

[TribulationSigns]

In order to prove Amil, you have to convincingly prove with Scripture to back up your assertions, how the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4 that don't worship the beast, that they are not martyred during the era of time the little season recorded in Revelation 6 is involving, that they are martyred during an earlier era of time.

Rev 13:14-15
(14) And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
(15) And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

First, you need to understand what is the image of the beast? And how it speak? And how will it cause those who refuse to worship to be killed. How. Go ahead and explain what God talks about here.

Then there is this to deal with, the following, which obviously requires that everyone that the vials of wrath get poured out on, they are all living in the same era of time.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands(Revelation 20:4)

Do you know what the noisome and grievous sore signify? Do you honestly think this will be the literal event? A physical sore that force them to worship a physical image? The answer is no! SO you need to find out what the sore in Scripture refers to! Spiritual discerned, David!

Common sense says, if these in verse 4 above are martyred for refusing to worship the beast, neither his image, this means there were others doing what Revelation 16:2 indicates some are doing---the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image. Common sense also says, if someone had the mark of the beast, and worshipped his image, in a different era of time not involving the era of time the vials of wrath are involving, this means none of the vials can be poured out on them as well. Which then makes one wonder about some of the following.

Time out. Tell us, what do you think God means by "martyr" here? Physically killed or spiritually killed by hatred because the enemies are offended or tormented by their truthful testimony? For example:

Rev 11:8-10
(8) And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(9) And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
(10) And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

Tell me, how did the Two Witnesses torment the enemy? With what? and how will he enemy finally got Two Witnesses "killed". How? That depends on your system of interpretation and based on Scirpture.

Why is it that one can have his mark, worship his image, in one era of time and never have to face any of the vials of wrath, but in another era of time where they are doing the exact same thing, they have to face the vials of wrath? How is that an example of God being fair and just, where during one era of time He basically winks at what they are doing, thus doesn't unleash wrath upon them, but in another era of time when they are doing the exact same thing, now all of a sudden God is taking these things seriously, thus the vials of wrath on those doing these things?

Tell us, are the vials of wrath with the plagues physical? And who does God judge exactly? Look up in Scripture.

 

[DavidPT]

The earth as whole is infested of ENEMIES of our Lord JESUS Christ - Jewish and Gentiles - multitudes and multitudes of peoples.

Revelation 19:19 - 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies gathered together(these are not conventional armies; these armies are all kind of the current religious and satanic systems in whole Earth), to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. Then will fulfill LITERALLY Revelation 11:18: - 18 And the nations were(will be) angry, and thy wrath -GOD-s WRATH - is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be Judged, and that thou should give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth. (The Word is GOD, self-executing. Hallelujah!!!)

Matthew 23:29-36
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (This prophecy will fulfill now in the time of Apocalypse, LITERALLY)

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (This prophecy will fulfill now in the time of Apocalypse, LITERALLY, according Revelation 14:14-20, combined with Isaiah 5:3-7)

The battle is against three unclean spirits like frogs: why frogs?
In fact a satanic trinity.

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS?

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS? Revelation 16:v.13 to 16 1 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the False Prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which...

purebibleforum.com

Revelation 6:15-17
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great Day of his wrath is come-the LORD's Day-; and who shall be able to stand?

Celebration of the Lamb's marriage? ONLY AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON​

Celebration of the Lamb's marriage? ONLY AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF BABYLON

According to GOD's Word, what needs to happen first? Exactly what is written in Revelation 18: 1 to 5, i.e. the Judgment of the Great harlot, as follows: 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. (Note: This...

purebibleforum.com

I'm not really certain how what you submitted explains where Jesus returns to when He returns, though? Maybe I didn't read what you submitted carefully enough?

If we factor in the following it appears that He returns to pretty much where He left from. Thus my example using Dallas, Tx, then leaving, then returning, except when you return it is NYC you end up arriving at. Thus no logic to it.

Mark 11:1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,

Apparently, this verse indicates Bethany is connected with the mount of Olives.

Luke 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

This is where He departs from, keeping in mind it would be at the mount of Olives according to Mark 11:1. I haven't looked that up on a map, though. I'm basically concluding these things based on what Mark 11:1 records.

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south

This is where He apparently returns to when He returns. Except some Amils, via their hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3, have the entire planet literally engulfed in flames, therefore, making nonsense out of Zechariah 14:4 since that is meaning during/after, not before, what verse 2 is involving. Some of these interpreters would have us believe that verse 4 is meaning when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago prior to His death and resurrection. Which then ignores the fact, since it is plainly obvious from reading the text, that it is undeniably meaning during/after what verse 2 is involving.

IMO, for one to take verse 4 to be involving an era of time before that of what verse 2 is involving, demonstrates subpar reading comprehesion on their part, in regards to this. There is zero in any of Zechariah 14 having to do with an era of time between His birth and His ascension. Every single bit of it is involving an era of time during His ascension, and that some of it is even involving an era of time involving His return and what all happens after that. Once again, none of it is involving an era of time from His birth up to His ascension.

Look at one of the things it involves, meaning what is recorded in verse 1 having to do with the day of Lord. Does that sound like something that fits between His birth and ascension?


As to the enemies meant, since that is meaning while He was away, which then involves maybe 2000 years, I tend to take the enemies to mean those within the NT church not allowing Him to reign over them. Thus not once saved always saved. Which then would mean they need to be resurrected. Which could mean the great white throne judgment is meant. But also could mean the sheep and goats judgment is meant, but that the sheep and goats judgment is not the great white throne judgment.

Then if we factor in Daniel 12:2, the fact it says many awake, which isn't necessarily meaning everyone awakes at that time, and the ones that awake to everlasting shame are only meaning those within the church that did not allow Him to reign over them while He was away, and that it's not meaning all of the lost since the beginning of time. The Hebrew word for 'many' in verse 2 is 'rab'. That same Hebrew word is also used in the folowing pasages in that same chapter.

Daniel 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many(rab) to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many(rab) shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:10 Many(rab) shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Unless one is maybe a Universalist or something, I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that 'many'(rab) in these 3 passages, that it is meaning everyone on the planet. The same should be true in regards to verse 2. It is not meaning everyone sleeping in the dust of the ground, it is meaning many of them, thus not all of them, shall awake at that time.

 

[DavidPT]

Tell us, are the vials of wrath with the plagues physical? And who does God judge exactly? Look up in Scripture.

Only have time to take this on for now.

IMO, it is beyond ludicrous to not take the effects of the vials in the literal sense. Take vial 1, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


What could possibly explain this if not meaning in a literal sense---and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon them?

Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

How might those things become blood? Maybe the fact there are actually living creatures in these waters, and that something causes them all to die, you're not going to end up with these rivers and waters being crystal clear or something. You are literally going to end up with them becoming a bloody mess, would be my guess, unless the fish and whatever else inhabits these waters, they don't have any blood flowing through them or something.

 

[DavidPT]

Rev 13:14-15
(14) And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
(15) And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

First, you need to understand what is the image of the beast? And how it speak? And how will it cause those who refuse to worship to be killed. How. Go ahead and explain what God talks about here.

All I know is, unless Revelation 13 is one big lie after another, there is no image of the beast to worship or not worship, until a first beast rises out of the sea, and that one of it's heads has a deadly wound that is healed. Then a 2nd one rises out of the earth, convincing those that dwell upon the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And then cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

It doesn't matter what all that might look like when that is being fulfilled. What matters is that all of these things recorded in Revelation 13 have to come to pass before any of the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4, who did not worship his image, are martyred for the reasons they are.

Don't worship who's image? It clearly gives us the answer to that right in the text you submitted via ch 13 in your quote--that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live

The beast has 7 heads, yet it is only the head that has the deadly wound that is healed, that the image is being made of, otherwise the text would have likely said this instead---that they should make an image to the beast, having seven heads and ten horns. Except the text does not say that.

Do you know what the noisome and grievous sore signify? Do you honestly think this will be the literal event? A physical sore that force them to worship a physical image? The answer is no! SO you need to find out what the sore in Scripture refers to! Spiritual discerned, David!

Guess what, though? While I might take the sores in the literal sense, I don't necessarily take the image in a literal sense, where it is meaning a literal physical image that can literally talk. But then again, who knows, though? With AI and all, and it's continued advancements, maybe it will be a literal image that can talk?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Eric, what also needs to be factored in here, IMO, is this. Is the same also true of the 2nd beast, the false prophet? As to an image and a mark in particular, is not the false prophet behind most of that? And does not Revelation 20:4, for instance, involve not worshiping his image, not taking his mark? How would that be relevant when the beast 'was' unless the following was fulfilled when the beast 'was'?

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Answering a question with a question? Does this mean your answer to my question regarding the identity of the beast when it "once was" is "I don't know"? If so, that's okay. But, just say so.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Only have time to take this on for now.

IMO, it is beyond ludicrous to not take the effects of the vials in the literal sense.

I believe it is beyond ludicrous to make it your default to assume any given verse or passage in the book of Revelation must be taken literally.

Take the following passage, for example.

Revelation 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Should we take this literally? If so, it would mean that the earth will be completely annihilated after the sixth seal is opened since that is what would happen if a star literally fell to the earth.

Take vial 1, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

What could possibly explain this if not meaning in a literal sense---and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon them?

Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

How might those things become blood? Maybe the fact there are actually living creatures in these waters, and that something causes them all to die, you're not going to end up with these rivers and waters being crystal clear or something. You are literally going to end up with them becoming a bloody mess, would be my guess, unless the fish and whatever else inhabits these waters, they don't have any blood flowing through them or something.

Are the many waters that the harlot woman sits on literal waters? No, right (see Rev 17:15)? So, why do you assume that the rivers and fountains of waters have to be literal in that verse?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

That aside since we obviously can't come to an agreement in regards to how to interpret the the sheep and goats judgment properly, thus a big waste of time for both of us if we were to continue discussing/debating this, but since I already brought Matthew 25 up anyway, maybe we can discuss it via a different angle, such as the following.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


Anyone understanding this correctly should be able to easily see that this means Christ has bodily left heaven and is bodily coming somewhere else. Where would the logical place be that He is coming to? Would it not be the earth?

Why do you say that is logical? Maybe in your mind, but not mine. Scripture says this:

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

It clearly can't be on earth or in heaven. And it doesn't specify where it takes place.

Except Amils, such as yourself, have no habitable earth for Him to return to, thus making nonsense out of this part---then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.

How does it make nonsense of that? He can only sit upon the throne of His glory on earth? I find that to be nonsense.

Which then presents even further nonsense when taking Matthew 19:28 into account as well. So, where, though? Up in the sky? On the moon? On Mars? How about this instead?

Wherever He wants. Talk about nonsense. You are speaking as though there is no other place in the universe besides earth. Now, THAT is nonsense.

Upon the earth in Jerusalem in the middle east.

I believe that is nonsense. The earth will be burned up when He returns (2 Peter 3:10-12), so that just makes no sense whatsoever.

Are Amils, such as you, maybe going to argue that He sits upon His throne of glory on the new earth when you have this sheep and goats judgment meaning the same judgment recorded in Revelation 20:11-15 but that Amils typically have Revelation 21:1 chronologically following Revelation 20:11-15?

It records John as seeing the new heavens and new earth after writing about the judgment just before that, but that does not mean the new heavens and new earth could not have already been formed before the judgment took place. So, the judgment easily could take place on the new earth in my view.

Not to mention, Revelation 21-22 involves no more death while Matthew 25:46 clearly still involves death, the 2nd death.

You need to learn how to interpret scripture in context. That is talking about no more physical death. Notice that it also mentions no more mourning, crying or pain. That is talking about earthly, physical things including physical death.

Not to mention as well, what about the parable recorded in Luke 19? What do Amils do with some of that if they are correct that the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames once Jesus returns?

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return

Return to where???

Luke 19:15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned , having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

That He returned to where???

Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

It's a parable, David. Why are you taking it so literally? Jesus is going to return, but it does not say He will come back all the way to the earth's surface. It says we will meet Him "in the air". So, there's no basis for thinking that this parable proves that He has to return all the way to the earth's surface. No, it does not. Why would we meet Him "in the air" if He's going to come down to the earth? It would be pointless. He could just meet us on earth in that case.

Being brought before Him, where? Obviously, this is either meaning before the great white throne judgment has been fulfilled, or it is maybe meaning the great white throne judgment, but it certainly isn't meaning post the great white throne judgment. I'm pretty sure we both can at least agree with the latter if nothing else.

I think we agree with the latter if I'm understanding what you're saying (you are often hard to follow), but we may not agree on anything else.

If verse 27 is meaning the great white throne judgment, doesn't that judgment involve bringing the dead back to life, not putting the living to death instead?

The great white throne judgment involves bringing dead unbelievers back to life and casting them into the lake of fire, which is the second death (Rev 20:14-15).

Of course though, if it is involving that judgment, the 2nd death might be meant by this.

It is.

I'm not agreeing it's involving the great white throne judgment. I'm basically reasoning through this, that if it is involving that judgment, is there any logic to it. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

There is.

Still doesn't help explain where He returns to per the parable in Luke 19 if the earth is not meant.

We're not told that specifically. What we are told is that the earth and the heavens flee from His presence before the great white throne judgment occurs.

How is it reasonable to initially be on the earth, then leave, then return and when you return it is not even where you initially were before you left? lol.

How is it reasonable to leave the earth only to immediately return to it again? lol.

Yet another reason why a lot of us Premils can't make sense out of Amil sometimes.

How do you make sense of meeting the Lord in the air only to then immediately come back down to the earth? Have you never even thought about this and how senseless that is?

Keeping in mind, according to the parable in Luke 19, He returns first, then everything recorded after that is meaning after He has already returned.

Imagine initially being in Dallas, TX then leaving, then returning. Except when you return it is New York City where you end up arriving at. I don't do drugs anymore, but if I still did drugs, give me some of what this person is smoking. Talk about a wild trip.

Your analogy doesn't work because scripture says we will meet Him "in the air", not in the exact place on earth from which He left.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not really certain how what you submitted explains where Jesus returns to when He returns, though? Maybe I didn't read what you submitted carefully enough?

If we factor in the following it appears that He returns to pretty much where He left from. Thus my example using Dallas, Tx, then leaving, then returning, except when you return it is NYC you end up arriving at. Thus no logic to it.

Mark 11:1 And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,

Apparently, this verse indicates Bethany is connected with the mount of Olives.

Luke 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

This is where He departs from, keeping in mind it would be at the mount of Olives according to Mark 11:1. I haven't looked that up on a map, though. I'm basically concluding these things based on what Mark 11:1 records.

Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south

This is where He apparently returns to when He returns. Except some Amils, via their hyper literal interpretation of some of 2 Peter 3, have the entire planet literally engulfed in flames, therefore, making nonsense out of Zechariah 14:4 since that is meaning during/after, not before, what verse 2 is involving. Some of these interpreters would have us believe that verse 4 is meaning when Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago prior to His death and resurrection. Which then ignores the fact, since it is plainly obvious from reading the text, that it is undeniably meaning during/after what verse 2 is involving.


As to the enemies meant, since that is meaning while He was away, which then involves maybe 2000 years, I tend to take the enemies to mean those within the NT church not allowing Him to reign over them. Thus not once saved always saved. Which then would mean they need to be resurrected. Which could mean the great white throne judgment is meant. But also could mean the sheep and goats judgment is meant, but that the sheep and goats judgment is not the great white throne judgment.

Then if we factor in Daniel 12:2, the fact it says many awake, which isn't necessarily meaning everyone awakes at that time, and the ones that awake to everlasting shame are only meaning those within the church that did not allow Him to reign over them while He was away, and that it's not meaning all of the lost since the beginning of time. The Hebrew word for 'many' in verse 2 is 'rab'. That same Hebrew word is also used in the folowing pasages in that same chapter.

Daniel 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many(rab) to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many(rab) shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:10 Many(rab) shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

Unless one is maybe a Universalist or something, I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that 'many'(rab) in these 3 passages, that it is meaning everyone on the planet. The same should be true in regards to verse 2. It is not meaning everyone sleeping in the dust of the ground, it is meaning many of them, thus not all of them, shall awake at that time.

So, I guess you don't believe that Jesus knew what He was talking about when He said this:

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

The way you interpret Daniel 12:2 contradicts what Jesus taught here which is that a time is coming when ALL who are in the graves will be resurrected. You contradict that by saying SOME will be resurrected one time and then others will be resurrected some other time.

The Hebrew word translated as "many" in Daniel 12:2 does not have to mean "not all". It means "multitudes". A huge number. So, the number of ALL who will be resurrected at a future time is "many" or "multitudes". That is what Daniel 12:2 means. You should not interpret any verse or passage of scripture in such a way that contradicts any other verse or passage of scripture. But, that is exactly what your interpretation of Daniel 12:2 does.

 

[DavidPT]

I believe it is beyond ludicrous to make it your default to assume any given verse or passage in the book of Revelation must be taken literally.

Take the following passage, for example.

Revelation 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

Should we take this literally? If so, it would mean that the earth will be completely annihilated after the sixth seal is opened since that is what would happen if a star literally fell to the earth.

It's obvious those things can't be literal that you brought up. And speaking of those things, those events are also recorded in Matthew 24:31 where some of you are insisting Matthew 24:15-21 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem in the first century. Pretribbers also think it's involving a literal temple, but not in the first century, but in the end of this age, a rebuilt temple. Guess who doesn't think it's involving a literal temple in any era of time, besides me? Paul, of course. Meaning 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

As to plagues, how is it reasonable that every plague recorded in the OT, pretty much what the plagues involved, happened to them exactly as described, but in Revelation everything involving plagues should not be taken literally? Is there any reason why you need the plagues to not be literal? If they are literal, how would that affect Amil one way or the other? If they are literal this means Amil can't be true? If they are not literal this proves Amil is true? I'm just trying to understand why it might even matter?

Are the many waters that the harlot woman sits on literal waters? No, right (see Rev 17:15)? So, why do you assume that the rivers and fountains of waters have to be literal in that verse?

That's true, but it also mentions rivers in that particular vial in question per Revelation 16. I'm not seeing anywhere in Revelation 17 where it mentions rivers, and that rivers equal this, or that they equal that. Therefore, since it is perfectly reasonable that if something were to contaminate rivers, etc, that they would turn to blood because of all the creatures living in them, because they would be dead eventually.

This is different than what you and I used to discuss at BF years ago having to do with the 2Ws, for example. Where at the time I argued they were 2 literal ppl. But I have since changed my mind about that, which I basically give you credit for, the fact you apparently planted a seed in my mind, except it just took awhile for me to eventually conclude that you were correct after all. I think you had already left BF by the time I eventually changed my mind about the 2Ws, though.

But as to these plagues, it is not unreasonable in the least, at least in my mind, anyway, to take the effects of these in the literal sense. Then there is the 7th vial. It includes raining down fire and brimstone if I am correct that Ezekiel 38:22 is involving the 7th vial of wrath. To not take it to mean literal fire and brimstone in Ezekiel 38:22 is to not take it to mean literal fire and brimstone in Genesis 19, IMO.

Because, after all, why would it be literal in Genesis 19 but not be literal in Ezekiel 38:22? Keeping in mind that I'm pretty much convinced Ezekiel 38:20, 22, is involving the 7th vial of wrath. Therefore, the 7th vial also involves raining down fire and brimstone.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It's obvious those things can't be literal that you brought up.

So, if Revelation 6:12-17 is not meant to be taken literally, why do you insist other passages that have similar text need to be taken literally?

And speaking of those things, those events are also recorded in Matthew 24:31 where some of you are insisting Matthew 24:15-21 is involving a literal temple in Jerusalem in the first century.

The literal temple in Jerusalem has to be mentioned or alluded to in some way somewhere in the Olivet Discourse because in the Olivet Discourse Jesus answered two questions, one of which was regarding the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time, which He said would be destroyed. But, you inexplicably believe that He didn't answer that question anywhere or at least that His answer wasn't recorded in Matthew 24 or Mark 13 (for some reason).

Pretribbers also think it's involving a literal temple, but not in the first century, but in the end of this age, a rebuilt temple. Guess who doesn't think it's involving a literal temple in any era of time, besides me? Paul, of course. Meaning 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

I disagree since 2 Thess 2:4 does not have the same context as Matthew 24:15-21 as it is referring to a global event relating to the return of Christ while Matthew 24:15-21 refers to an event in Judea and Jerusalem.

Also, you have no answer for why Jesus said for those in Judea to the flee to the mountains if that isn't meant to be taken literally. And you have no answer for why He indicated that it would be particularly difficult for nursing mothers and pregnant women to flee. And you have no answer for why He said it would be particularly difficult to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath.

As to plagues, how is it reasonable that every plague recorded in the OT, pretty much what the plagues involved, happened to them exactly as described, but in Revelation everything involving plagues should not be taken literally?

Because the book of Revelation is not a book that records events exactly as they happen as is the case in the description in the OT of the plagues that occurred in Egypt and such. Why is there so much symbolism in the book of Revelation if it was intended to give a literal account of events?

Is there any reason why you need the plagues to not be literal?

In some cases, yes. As I already mentioned, if the stars falling to the earth was literal then that would result in the complete annihilation of the earth at the opening of the sixth seal and that is not what I believe will happen.

But, also, I keep in mind what Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse. He said that natural disasters and wars and such would happen, but those were only the beginning of birth pains and not an indication that the end was at hand. And He said that it would be like the days of Noah in the days before His return. Well, I'm sure they had some natural disasters here and there and some wars and such before the flood, but not complete chaos and destruction throughout many places in the world, which would be the case in the days before Christ's return if the plagues in the book of Revelation were all supposed to be taken literally.

There was nothing in Noah's day to indicate that the end of the world was at hand in terms of physical things that were going on (spiritually, there were plenty of signs of that because of the vast wickedness taking place in the world). And Jesus said it would be like the days of Noah before His return. So, a bunch of natural disasters happening all over the world literally killing a third of mankind and such would not be like the days of Noah before the flood.

If they are literal, how would that affect Amil one way or the other?

It would just affect our overall understanding of how things will play out. And, some of the more extreme things described, like stars falling to the earth, would mess up everyone's view because no one believes that the earth will be annhilated at the opening of the sixth seal.

If they are literal this means Amil can't be true?

Again, in terms of things like stars falling to the earth at the sixth seal, none of our views could be true. But, other than things like that, I suppose it doesn't necessarily mean that. Not all Amils have the same understanding of things, overall. An Amil could potentially take all that literally (other than the most extreme things like stars falling to the earth) the way you do and still be Amil. But, then, there's the issue of how the days before Christ's return could be like the days of Noah before the flood in that case. How could it be the case that people are generally just doing normal things while being oblivious to the destruction about to come down on them if a very large amount of destruction was already happening before that?

If they are not literal this proves Amil is true? I'm just trying to understand why it might even matter?

You keep basically asking the same question over and over for some reason. I tried to explain why above the best I can.

That's true, but it also mentions rivers in that particular vial in question per Revelation 16. I'm not seeing anywhere in Revelation 17 where it mentions rivers, and that rivers equal this, or that they equal that. Therefore, since it is perfectly reasonable that if something were to contaminate rivers, etc, that they would turn to blood because of all the creatures living in them, because they would be dead eventually.

Yes, in reality, that would happen. But, in a book containing descriptions of a Lamb standing amongst seven candlesticks, a dragon and a beast both with seven heads and ten horns and a harlot woman who is also described as a great city who sits on the beast with seven heads and ten horns and on many waters, why would your default approach be to assume any given verse within the book should be taken literally?

This is different than what you and I used to discuss at BF years ago having to do with the 2Ws, for example. Where at the time I argued they were 2 literal ppl. But I have since changed my mind about that, which I basically give you credit for, the fact you apparently planted a seed in my mind, except it just took awhile for me to eventually conclude that you were correct after all. I think you had already left BF by the time I eventually changed my mind about the 2Ws, though.

Yeah, that could be. I can't recall if I had left that forum already at that point or not. I know you mentioned that you changed your view on that, but maybe you mentioned that to me here and not back then.

But as to these plagues, it is not unreasonable in the least, at least in my mind, anyway, to take the effects of these in the literal sense.

But, why would you assume they should be taken literally when it's undeniable that there is a lot of symbolism in the book? I don't think we should assume any given verse is literal or not literal and our approach should be objective, but it seems like your approach is to assume that everything is literal unless it very explicitly says otherwise. I don't understand that kind of approach to interpreting a book like Revelation.

Then there is the 7th vial. It includes raining down fire and brimstone if I am correct that Ezekiel 38:22 is involving the 7th vial of wrath. To not take it to mean literal fire and brimstone in Ezekiel 38:22 is to not take it to mean literal fire and brimstone in Genesis 19, IMO.

Well, I disagree with you on your understanding of Ezekiel 38, so that's all I can say about that. But, I guess you would have a point if you were correct about Ezekiel 38.

Because, after all, why would it be literal in Genesis 19 but not be literal in Ezekiel 38:22?

Because not everything in scripture is literal and those are not describing the same events.

Keeping in mind that I'm pretty much convinced Ezekiel 38:20, 22, is involving the 7th vial of wrath. Therefore, the 7th vial also involves raining down fire and brimstone.

Yeah, I understand that your view of Revelation is influenced by your view of other scripture like Ezekiel 38 and that is why you interpret some things in Revelation literally that I believe are symbolic instead.

 

[DavidPT]

How is it reasonable to leave the earth only to immediately return to it again? lol.

There are other things I need to respond to in your post as well, but for now this here I can't seem to make sense of the point you are attempting to make.

Where are you coming up with this---to immediately return to it again? Where does it indicate anywhere in that parable that when He leaves, He immediately returns? Maybe 'immediately' means something different to you than it does me? If He left 2000 years ago then returns 2000 years later, I see nothing 'immediate' about that, meaning from our perspective and how we view time. You did say 'immediately' rather than this---How is it reasonable to leave the earth only to return to it again? Therefore, 'immediately' is obviously relevant to the point you are attempting to make, except I see zero relevance to anything in the parable having to do with immediately returning.

 

[TribulationSigns]

IMO, it is beyond ludicrous to not take the effects of the vials in the literal sense. Take vial 1, for instance.

Revelation 16:2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.


What could possibly explain this if not meaning in a literal sense---and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon them?

Revelation 16:2

• "And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image."

When the vial was poured out upon the earth, it was poured out upon the earth, and men were affected. More SPECIFICALLY those men "without" the seal of God, but who instead had the mark of the beast. The mark "symbolizes" they are branded by Satan as belonging to him. As we know, this plague upon them is because they refused to receive the truth, and instead loved unrighteousness. Therefore, this is NOT a physical plague as some professing Christians believe, it is a spiritual plague, a spiritual sickness that is a "sign" that they are serving the likeness of the adversary to God, and serving in his kingdom. Yes, the earth "represents" those who are of the world, identified by having the mark or signification of the beast. And note this plague affects men, who it precisely was intended to affect. The sores "signify" that they are unclean, unsanctified, unholy, or impure. Because they don't serve the God of the Bible, but one of their own making. So they will not be saved at this time as a judgment.

Exodus 34:14-15

• "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
• Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;"

When the plague was poured upon the earth this noisome and grievous sore of Revelation 16 fell upon the men that had the mark of the beast, and who worshipped his image. They are the earth upon whom this plague was poured out. They are men who pretend to serve God, but who actually serve the flesh. They are professed Christians within God's unfaithful congregation where the plagues are poured upon! Selah!

Revelation 16:4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.

How might those things become blood?

Again, fountains of waters "represent" the Church. The representation of the gospel of Christ from Spiritual Jerusalem!! This can be seen in such passages as:

Revelation 7:17

• "For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes."

Christ is the fountain of waters, and upon earth, the Church is THAT representation.

Revelation 21:6

• "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

When we read that the Plagues are poured out and the fountains of water became blood, this is again symbolizing the house of God, the representation of the fountains of water on earth, is plagued. The living waters once there are gone, and replaced by God's plagues like in Egypt where they are given blood to drink instead! For they are worthy. Selah! Upon those of Egypt who held God's people in captivity. In case you did not notice, the unfaithful congregation is SPIRITUAL EGYPT and her foundation of water has been polluted with false gospel where people drink but not saved. This is the judgment of the harlot!

Spiritual Discerned!

Maybe the fact there are actually living creatures in these waters, and that something causes them all to die, you're not going to end up with these rivers and waters being crystal clear or something. You are literally going to end up with them becoming a bloody mess, would be my guess, unless the fish and whatever else inhabits these waters, they don't have any blood flowing through them or something.

Again, like the living water, the waters represent Gospel. I can't believe that you do not understand what the fish in Gospel represent!? Didn't Jesus command His disciples (as well as us) to be fishers of men ring a bell? Did you notice the fish symbols often show on the back of the car meaning the driver may be Christian (or professed Christian)? Therefore, when the water is polluted, many fishes (professed Christians) in the sea died because they are being poisoned by false gospel. Selah!

So it's NOT a physical event, it's spiritual. Only those with spiritual ears and eyes can see!

 

[TribulationSigns]

All I know is, unless Revelation 13 is one big lie after another, there is no image of the beast to worship or not worship, until a first beast rises out of the sea, and that one of it's heads has a deadly wound that is healed. Then a 2nd one rises out of the earth, convincing those that dwell upon the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And then cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

It doesn't matter what all that might look like when that is being fulfilled. What matters is that all of these things recorded in Revelation 13 have to come to pass before any of the saints recorded in Revelation 20:4, who did not worship his image, are martyred for the reasons they are.

Don't worship who's image? It clearly gives us the answer to that right in the text you submitted via ch 13 in your quote--that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live

Revelation 13:3

• "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."

Christ, of course, wounded him by the cross, and also looses the beast, or heals that wound, after all Israel are sealed. Satan is loosed so that He might bring judgment upon the unfaithful (spiritual harlot) church.

Guess what, though? While I might take the sores in the literal sense, I don't necessarily take the image in a literal sense, where it is meaning a literal physical image that can literally talk. But then again, who knows, though? With AI and all, and it's continued advancements, maybe it will be a literal image that can talk?

John sees another vision of a beast coming up from the earth. The earth signifies they come up from the world, and this beast has two horns like a lamb, but speaks as a dragon. This beast represents the false prophets of the congregation. They come looking like they have the power of the messenger of light (Remember, the horns signify power, and the number two signifies the truthful witness of the church), but what gives them away is that they speak as the Dragon, which is Satan. In other words, they appear as a messenger of light, but their gospel is false and of the adversary Satan that deceive many within the congregation.

Now, the first beast, who the false prophets cause men to worship, represents the antichrist, or more to the point Satan's substitute kingdom. It is the body of false worshipers. Not a single man. Revelation is written this way because just as the true church is represented by the body of Christ, and the Old Testament congregation by the body of Moses, the false congregation is seen as the body of the anti (substitute) or false Christ. The false prophets are those who cause the unfaithful to depart from Scripture and worship Him. All Israel who are not sealed unto the day of redemption.

Revelation 13:12-14

• "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
• And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
• And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live."

The deadly wound was given the beast who is to be worshiped at the cross. Christ dealt the adversary a death wound so that he could not deceive the nations (and the church could be built), but after a thousand years (fullness of time church being built until all Israel be sealed first) Satan is loosed from his prison. This is spoken of as the "deadly wound being healed", and the reason is so that the unfaithful people of the world might again serve him (as judgment). The false prophets, the second beast, deceive the unfaithful people of the congregation and seduce them into serving this antichrist kingdom by means of false miracles, signs and wonders (ie. false gospel, false doctrine, entertainment, prosperity gospel, etc.) Remember, Christ was bound for the specific purpose of the nations not being deceived. Now that He is loosed, his false prophets again deceive the nations, in order to usher in the Lord's second coming.

Revelation 13:15-16

• " And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
• And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:"

The false prophets give life to the "likeness" (image) of the Antichrist by propagating their false teachings, which leads to them overcoming the church and causing all the faithful therein (the two witnesses) to be killed (silenced). Those remaining as a judgment of God are said to be marked on their hand (not literally as some suppose, but spiritually) signifying their will belongs to them, and in their forehead, signifying their mind is sold out to Satan. Just as a cow is branded or marked to signify ownership, so this signifies these unsealed are slaves to the antichrist.

Revelation 13:17-18

• "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
• Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Not the number of "a" man as may be written in your "translation," but the original says it is the number "of Man," signifying the lawless man (man of sin) or man of lawlessness. Everyone of them. The buying and selling signify the work of the church, and no one can work there except those who have been spiritually marked slaves of Satan. The mark God tells us is 666, the number of man (not a man).

 

[TribulationSigns]

In case you wondered how the power of the beast to give LIFE unto the IMAGE of the beast? And how could it speak? I will explain.

The power is in their tongues. A false god can only come to life through the words of men, who speak, teach, and propagate them. Keep in mind that Satan works (speaks) through men, as they are the ones with the spirit of disobedience. In this cryptic imagery, Satan has given his children his number. That's also why God says it is the number of man (unsaved man). Because like being branded, they are indicated as slaves to Satan, constrained to do his will. The beast is brought to life through the doctrines and teachings of the sinful man, or man of lawlessness (any way you want to translate it). The second beast represents the false prophets of this kingdom,. They have power to give life to the beast because words are power! It's always been!

ALso note it says their power was "that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." As we look to Revelation chapter 11, it is the false prophets and teachers (beast) who kill the two witnesses (faithful church). And they kill them with false teachings that extinguish the true witness like what is happening right now with many churches all over the world. For example, their doctrine is to allow homosexuality into the church and make them leaders of the congregation that eventually silenced the truthful (correct) of the faithful members. This is how the church has grew apostasy and fell into desolation. And it is because the Two Witnesses' Words tormented the unrighteous "because" it was an offense to them so much that they want to silence them. Just as Christ's Words tormented and made angry the rulers of Israel at the Cross!

 

[Spiritual Jew]

There are other things I need to respond to in your post as well, but for now this here I can't seem to make sense of the point you are attempting to make.

Where are you coming up with this---to immediately return to it again?

You misunderstood what I was talking about, but maybe I should have clarified that. I was talking about believers leaving the earth to be caught up to Him when He comes only to immediately come back down to the earth. I wasn't talking about Jesus leaving the earth and returning immediately, as if 2,000+ years is a case of Him returning immediately. That would obviously not make any sense.

Where does it indicate anywhere in that parable that when He leaves, He immediately returns?

It doesn't. That isn't what I was saying. So, let's start over.

You had said this:

How is it reasonable to initially be on the earth, then leave, then return and when you return it is not even where you initially were before you left? lol.

Then I said "How is it reasonable to leave the earth only to immediately return to it again?".

I was just answering your question about something that doesn't make sense to you about what I believe with a question for you regarding something you believe that doesn't make sense to me. I didn't mean to imply that I was talking specifically about Jesus leaving and returning in the same sense that you were.

What I was getting at is that you believe when He returns we are caught up to Him in the air (I agree) and then immediately brought back down to the earth (I disagree). So, my question for you is how is it reasonable to believe that we will be caught up to Him in the air only to then immediately come back to the earth? Why not just meet Him on earth instead of meeting Him in the air first?

You may think it isn't reasonable for Him to not return to the exact same place from where He left, but scripture does not teach that He will. It teaches that He will return from heaven in the same manner in which He left earth (Acts 1:9-11), but does not teach that He will return to the same location from where He left. So, what you find to be reasonable or not means nothing if it doesn't match up with what scripture teaches. We will meet Him in the air when He comes, not in Jerusalem.

Maybe 'immediately' means something different to you than it does me?

Nope, it doesn't. We've just had a misunderstanding here.

 

[Oseas]

I'm not really certain how what you submitted explains where Jesus returns to when He returns, though? Maybe I didn't read what you submitted carefully enough?

Yes, you really understood not because Mark 11:1 has nothing to do with Luke 19:27 you have quoted in your prior post I replied that says: "But those mine enemies,which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

My point and focus were about the ENEMIES of my Lord JESUS, for the whole earth is infested of them, in all Gentile nations(the sea), and also Israel(the dry land,the clay-Isaiah 64;8).The WAR is against three unclean spirits like frogs which rule the world of Devil as a whole through his devilish systems, mainly through religious and satanic systems, the body of the red Dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads,and his tail has attracted the third part of the stars of heaven (if possible even elected), and will cast them to the earth.(and they will be lost like the foolish virgins)

Revelation 21;8- But the fearful(the COWARDS), and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

2 Peter 3:7-8 and
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word -the Word is GOD, understand?- are kept in store, reserved unto FIRE against the Day of Judgment(the seventh and las Day)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.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be DISSOLVED(the world of Devil as a whole will be DISSOLVED from now on), 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(the FIRST and SECOND COVENANTS) 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 (the 3rd heaven-the next heaven-celestial environment-Luke 20:35-36 among many other biblical references)and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21;8- But the fearful(the COWARDS), and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Be careful or else get ready-Matthew 25:6-9 . By the way, it refers to the turn of a new Day, understand? Who is ready?
With only lamp-THE WORD OF GOD- will not be able to enter in the next heaven-the new celestial environment that will be established in the current time. It is necessary to have oil too, the opposite, or if not, are lost, unfortunately.

 

[DavidPT]

Yes, you really understood not because Mark 11:1 has nothing to do with Luke 19:27 you have quoted in your prior post I replied that says: "But those mine enemies,which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Why are you misrepresenting the reason why I brought up Mark 11:1? I never brought that verse up because I was proposing something preposterous, that I thought it was involving the same events same era of time that His return in the Luke 19 parable is involving, if that's what you are meaning.

What I was doing was detective work, so to speak. Others should try it sometime, some of their interpretations might make better sense. Mark 11:1 indicates the mount of Olives is connected with Bethany. We know when Jesus ascended back to heaven, it was at Bethany and the mount of Olives if the mount of Olives is connected with Bethany according to Mark 11:1.

Then according to Zechariah 14:4 which involves His bodily return in the end of this age, we see that His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives.

And then according to the parable in question in Luke 19, He returns after His ascension is over.

Putting 2 and 2 together like a good detective might, it adds up to that He returns to pretty much where He left from. Except some Amils have the entire planet literally engulfed in flames when He returns, thus nowhere for Him to return. Therefore, making total nonsense out of numerous passages in the process.

BTW, I didn't need to go back to my post in order to explain why I brought up Mark 11:1. I already know why I brought that up since I'm the one who brought it up. You obviously didn't know why I brought it up. Maybe you do now, but if you still don't, I give up since I can't explain it any plainer that I just did.

 

[Oseas]

Why are you misrepresenting the reason why I brought up Mark 11:1? I never brought that verse up because I was proposing something preposterous, that I thought it was involving the same events same era of time that His return in the Luke 19 parable is involving, if that's what you are meaning.

What I was doing was detective work, so to speak. Others should try it sometime, some of their interpretations might make better sense. Mark 11:1 indicates the mount of Olives is connected with Bethany. We know when Jesus ascended back to heaven, it was at Bethany and the mount of Olives if the mount of Olives is connected with Bethany according to Mark 11:1.

Then according to Zechariah 14:4 which involves His bodily return in the end of this age, we see that His feet shall stand upon the mount of Olives.

And then according to the parable in question in Luke 19, He returns after His ascension is over.

Putting 2 and 2 together like a good detective might, it adds up to that He returns to pretty much where He left from. Except some Amils have the entire planet literally engulfed in flames when He returns, thus nowhere for Him to return. Therefore, making total nonsense out of numerous passages in the process.

BTW, I didn't need to go back to my post in order to explain why I brought up Mark 11:1. I already know why I brought that up since I'm the one who brought it up. You obviously didn't know why I brought it up. Maybe you do now, but if you still don't, I give up since I can't explain it any plainer that I just did.

Your thinking is from a human perspective, a stumblingblock, not from GOD's perspective.