The 1000 Year Reign... I Wish It Were Literal,but....

[mistmann]

My friend Mistmann states that................

"There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why Christ MUST return before the 1,000 years. This is just an assumption certain people have made because it fits THEIR theology. Theologies that immediately fall over dead as a dodo if they have to admit the Bible actually does NOT say Christ returns BEFORE the 1,000 years."

The problem with that are the words in Revelation 19:11-21...........
"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."

Misty encourages us all to read and believe what the Bible says and I do that as well because it is the Word of Truth. Now my friend states these words..............................

"That others disagree with me is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because I will always believe what the Bible actually says over what any man TELLS me it says. I am merely encouraging others to think about these things for themselves and make up their own minds."

I agree 100 % with that statement as well which is exactly why I posted Revelation 19:11-21.
As we can all see in those verses the visible coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Second coming.

Then as we follow the chronological order we come to Revelation 20:1-5............

"Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.
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".

It can not be any clearer that that. Now you can clice it and dice to fit your thinking, but The Word of God is plain and clear.

The "Amillennialists" employ a dual hermeneutic in interpretation and find NO earthly reign of Christ here.

It is abundently obvious from the Bible account that chapter 20 of Revelation follows chapter 19. We can confirm that simply by looking at the FIRST word in chapter #20......"AND".

THAT IS A CONNECTIVE WORD WHICH EXTENDS CHAPTER #19 AND FOLLOWS THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF EVENTS FROM #19 TO #20.

Therefore the opening verses of chapter #20 describe what is to follow the Tribulation Period and it is the MILLENNIUM (1000 year rule of Christ).

WHERE does the Bible declare that the rider of the white horse IS Jesus?? THAT is just an assumption people make, the Bible does not SAY it. Remember also John is IN Heaven at this point. It says "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse". If John is in Heaven seeing these things why does Heaven have to "stand open". Perhaps it is because what he is seeing is not in heaven but on earth!!! The battle described is one of FLESH and blood and therefore takes place on Earth, not in Heaven

NOR does it say that the name on his thigh is HIS OWN name. Constantine (whose name means "faithful and true") had a name written on his robe and on his thigh. It was Jesus Christ who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (just to give it equal emphasis ) He also rode a white horse, had a red cloak, ruled by the word of God (the sharp twoedged sword) ruled over many kingdoms from which his empire was formed (many crowns), ruled with an iron rod, etc. etc.

The point is, to say that the rider on the white horse is Jesus is merely an assumption. In fact there are many reasons why it is unlikely to be Jesus.

For example:-

Ps 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

But people can judge these things for themselves.

 

[mistmann]

That is an excellant observation.

So, then Misty.....who was in fact the anti-christ ?????

I have already given Calvin a response to his post. But Major WHICH of the many, many, antichrists are you speaking about?

For the Bible does not say there is one antichrist but MANY antichrists AND they have been around since the time of the Apostles:-

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Major]

I have already given Calvin a response to his post. But Major WHICH of the many, many, antichrists are you speaking about?

For the Bible does not say there is one antichrist but MANY antichrists AND they have been around since the time of the Apostles:-

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

THE antichrist Misty. THE one who comes onm the scence before the Tribulation Period. Ypo know the one! The son of perdition in 2w Thess. 2.

Why are you acting like you do not know WHO????

 

[Major]

WHERE does the Bible declare that the rider of the white horse IS Jesus?? THAT is just an assumption people make, the Bible does not SAY it. Remember also John is IN Heaven at this point. It says "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse". If John is in Heaven seeing these things why does Heaven have to "stand open". Perhaps it is because what he is seeing is not in heaven but on earth!!! The battle described is one of FLESH and blood and therefore takes place on Earth, not in Heaven

NOR does it say that the name on his thigh is HIS OWN name. Constantine (whose name means "faithful and true") had a name written on his robe and on his thigh. It was Jesus Christ who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (just to give it equal emphasis ) He also rode a white horse, had a red cloak, ruled by the word of God (the sharp twoedged sword) ruled over many kingdoms from which his empire was formed (many crowns), ruled with an iron rod, etc. etc.

The point is, to say that the rider on the white horse is Jesus is merely an assumption. In fact there are many reasons why it is unlikely to be Jesus.

For example:-

Ps 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

But people can judge these things for themselves.

And to say it is NOT JESUS is wrong! To say it is NOT JESUS is absolute HERESY!

I have known for a long time that is what you believed, I am very relieved to see you finally tell everyone what I have known!!!!!!!

You have absolutley rejected the Word of God! The Bible even tells you who it is on the horse of Revelation 19 and you reject it!!!!!!!

JESUS IS LORD AND HE IS COMING AGAIN TO THIS EARTH JUST AS JOHN DESCRIBES IN REV. #19.

 

[calvin]

WHERE does the Bible declare that the rider of the white horse IS Jesus?? THAT is just an assumption people make, the Bible does not SAY it. Remember also John is IN Heaven at this point. It says "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse". If John is in Heaven seeing these things why does Heaven have to "stand open". Perhaps it is because what he is seeing is not in heaven but on earth!!! The battle described is one of FLESH and blood and therefore takes place on Earth, not in Heaven

This is also assumption that you are making Mistmann. John starts out being on the Ilse of Patmos where he sees things not of this earth. (Chapter 1) Was he, since he says he was "in the spirit" actually in heaven, the Bible does not say that he was.
Then in Chapter 4, he sees a door opened in heaven and he is invited up (not in) for a 'sneak peak'. The Bible does not adctually say that he entered into heaven just that he saw summonsed 'up'. Standing at the open door, he had a first class view of what ever was on view either inside or outside of that door. The Bible is just not explicit. Consider 2 Cor 12:2,3,4 There are a number of heavens, we are not told how many.

NOR does it say that the name on his thigh is HIS OWN name. Constantine (whose name means "faithful and true") had a name written on his robe and on his thigh. It was Jesus Christ who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (just to give it equal emphasis ) He also rode a white horse, had a red cloak, ruled by the word of God (the sharp twoedged sword) ruled over many kingdoms from which his empire was formed (many crowns), ruled with an iron rod, etc. etc.

The point is, to say that the rider on the white horse is Jesus is merely an assumption. In fact there are many reasons why it is unlikely to be Jesus.

You say, "Nor does it say that the name on his right thigh is HIS OWN name." this is true also of Constantine...yes?

For example:-

Ps 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

But people can judge these things for themselves.

Indeed they can.
Misty, this is getting away from Rev 20, but (sigh) oh well. I am not qualified to 'teach' Greek. I admit it, I have never claimed otherwise. I have however, done some studies. That is why I have an appreciation for the morphology of Greek words. That is why I cited the limitations of Strong's concordance, but did not berate it.

Rev19:13 ends with the same morphological structure as the second clause in John 1:1 That is to say 'the word {was belonging to}of God' It follows that the rider on the white hose had something very much in common with the person declared in John's opening of hid gospel.
But the reader can judge these things for themselves.
blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

Sorry for the delay in getting back Calvin, I am working on several projects connected with MissionaryFromHome.com at the moment and can only snatch time here and there to get back here. Just on the above while your references are interesting to note they have not changed the situation at all. But I do note that you have drawn a conclusion that is not supported by the information you have given when you said: "It dispels grammatically, the idea that those beheaded as a reward for not worshiping the Beast etc. were/are a select group as distinct from all other saints as far as the first resurrection is concerned." Grammatically nothing is changed by the references you quote as they are actually saying nothing different to what was already established.

Well Misty they are saying nothing different from what I had previously stated....true.

WE must also be very careful not to presume that we know Greek better than the language experts. I do not discount Strong's because I think I am able to recognise a better explanation of Greek when *I* see it. Rather I respect Strongs opinions EQUALLY as a highly esteemed and widely recognised and accepted authority on the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible by those who are far more knowledgeable than I.

That Mistmann is exactly why I have provided literature from THOSE who teach the Bible translators. It is no longer what I or you might like to think, it is what the Language experts are saying.
Mistmann, I believe you missed my point about Strong's I merely pointed out that it gives only the lexal of words, not there morphologic construction.

But the problem of context still remains. IF John intended to include ALL who refused to worship or receive the mark whether beheaded or not there is absolutely no logical reason or purpose in specifically mentioning those who were beheaded for this is the only group specifically singled out. Like I said in my previous example it is like saying all who died of stroke in the town and all who died or didn't die for whatever reason who are also in the town. The only logical reason for John to single out those beheaded is if those alone are being referred to.

I understand your thinking here, but you assume a oneness of mind with John that you are not entitled to do. Why John did not link those who did not worship the beast with those who were beheaded in a more natural way (if that was what he meant) can also be questioned.
The Greek language does have within it a word that translates as 'because'; and this is the meaning that you are choosing to apply. So John could have said: '....the souls of those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God and because they did not worship......' That is the understanding you have adopted, but that is not what John has said.

This means the majority of those who have died in Christ up until now do not "qualify" for inclusion in the first resurrection.

This is why I have highlighted the need to think very carefully about what has been said. The interpretation of one single relative pronoun stands between truth and heresy. On the one hand we have an interpretation that stands alone, separated from the witness of other scripture thus leading to a resurrection of a select group within the overall group of saints. Or we have an interpretation which is both supported by Greek Grammar and other supportive witness from the scriptures, that there is only one 'first resurrection and that it includes all the Saints of God.

If people wish to defend their theologies that is up to them. I am merely pointing out the things the Bible actually says in the words used, and the reality of it. People must choose for themselves what they will and will not believe. Sadly many of them choose to believe something other than what the Bible actually says but I can't do anything about that. All I can do is keep pointing to the reality of what the words the Lord has written actually say.

I am not intending this as a put down of anybody merely trying to emphasis that I am not arguing and debating these things, merely pointing out things that people might not be aware of or might want to seriously think about if they have not already done so. That others disagree with me is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because I will always believe what the Bible actually says over what any man TELLS me it says. I am merely encouraging others to think about these things for themselves and make up their own minds.

Yes that is true no matter who says it of whom.

Now, as to what the actual 'word of God' says about anything:
As I have observed before, our Bibles are only the translator's interpretation of the transliteration of the parent texts. (I'm not quoting myself BTW)
Point is they do the best they can with what they have, but they still ultimately give us their interpretation, and they all most likely seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Consider the three versions I have supplied below:

Rev20:4-6 Textus Receptus
4Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ' αὐτούς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τῷ θηριῷ, οὐτὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν, καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ Χριστοῦ τά χίλια ἔτη 5οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἀνἔζησαν ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη 6μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ἀλλ' ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετ' αὐτοῦ χίλια ἔτη

Rev20:4-6 Byzantine GreekText... MT
4και ειδον θρονους και εκαθισαν επ αυτους και κριμα εδοθη αυτοις και τας ψυχας των πεπελεκισμενων δια την μαρτυριαν ιησου και δια τον λογον του θεου και οιτινες ου προσεκυνησαν τω θηριω ουτε την εικονα αυτου και ουκ ελαβον το χαραγμα επι το μετωπον [αυτων] και επι την χειρα αυτων και εζησαν και εβασιλευσαν μετα του χριστου [τα] χιλια ετη 5και οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη 6μακαριος και αγιος ο εχων μερος εν τη αναστασει τη πρωτη επι τουτων ο δευτερος θανατος ουκ εχει εξουσιαν αλλ εσονται ιερεις του θεου και του χριστου και βασιλευσουσιν μετ αυτου χιλια ετη
Rev20:4:6 UBS Text
και ειδον θρονους και εκαθισαν επ αυτους και κριμα εδοθη αυτοις και τας ψυχας των πεπελεκισμενων δια την μαρτυριαν ιησου και δια τον λογον του θεου και οιτινες ου προσεκυνησαν το θηριον ουδε την εικονα αυτου και ουκ ελαβον το χαραγμα επι το μετωπον και επι την χειρα αυτων και εζησαν και εβασιλευσαν μετα του χριστου χιλια ετη 5 οι λοιποι των νεκρων ουκ εζησαν αχρι τελεσθη τα χιλια ετη αυτη η αναστασις η πρωτη 6 μακαριος και αγιος ο εχων μερος εν τη αναστασει τη πρωτη επι τουτων ο δευτερος θανατος ουκ εχει εξουσιαν αλλ εσονται ιερεις του θεου και του χριστου και βασιλευσουσιν μετ αυτου [τα] χιλια ετη

We do not have to be Greek scholars to see that there are differences here between the TR and the others. I have highlighted the relative pronoun 'oitiues' in red for ready identification within those texts.
Question is, which of these text versions best reflect the original text as written by John?
Why is the TR cluttered with many accents and breathings that are not in the other two?
As I have said, we need to take more care over what we want to declare is the actual word of God.
For the most part we can trust the translators, I am not trying to discredit anyone, but we also need to study and try to obtain the best understanding we can.
Mistmann, if you want to believe emphatically that the first resurrection contains only a select group of saints, based on a dubious interpretation of Greek grammar that is not held by modern Greek linguistics experts that is your choice.
blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

Just backing up a bit: Mistmann posted

The point is IF John was so worried about others feeling "left out" WHY speak of those beheaded at all?? Why not just speak of those who refused or of those who were killed without specifying the method of death? The point I was making is that John has no logical or rational reason to specify those beheaded UNLESS he is speaking ONLY of those beheaded. Your observation here actually drives home that point even more.

In asking the question, in my view you had invited speculation.
Regardless of what John's motivation might have been, those he did report seeing were the souls of those beheaded for a particular reason, thereby excluding all other who were beheaded for other reasons such as the aristocracy of France during the French revolution to name but a few.
He saw those who did not worship the beast etc. This now excludes all souls who did worship the beast etc.

Take into consideration the beginning of v4: John saw thrones and 'they' sat on them and judgment was given unto them.(Kjv grammar)
OK, so who are the 'they'? The Bible does not say does it. But 'they' are there nevertheless.
And judgment is given 'unto' them. Does this mean they were allowed to indulge in a little judgment, or were they themselves subjected to judgment? Are they the twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel? Matt 19:28
Are 'they', others about whom we are told nothing?

Is John seeing only the souls of those who take part in the first resurrection all souls, both saved and unsaved?
And is he seeing only the souls of those who either accepted or rejected Christ as distinct from those who never even heard the gospel?
The sense of v4 indicates that it is after John sees the souls of those who take part in the first resurrection, that they come to life (lived), though this might be merely became active, because souls are not dead things. And yet, v5 tells us that the rest of the dead (souls) lived not again till.....so?
There are many things to consider. There are many things we are not told. We should not rush headlong into error, but study carefully, evaluating all the evidence we have.
Blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

The Word of God states these truth which are self evident...................

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 19:11-16
11. "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is
called Faithful and True, and in
righteousness He judges and wages war.
12. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name
is called The Word of God.
14. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following
Him on white horses.
15. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will
rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
16. And on His robe
and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Notice please that in verse #1..."heaven opened and behold, a white horse and He who sat on it".
John's vision is on what is IN HEAVEN.

Now Mistmann's own word were..........(copied and pasted for reality & clarity):

"NOR does it say that the name on his thigh is HIS OWN name. Constantine (whose name means "faithful and true") had a name written on his robe and on his thigh. It was Jesus Christ who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (just to give it equal emphasis ) He also rode a white horse, had a red cloak, ruled by the word of God (the sharp twoedged sword) ruled over many kingdoms from which his empire was formed (many crowns), ruled with an iron rod, etc. etc.

The point is, to say that the rider on the white horse is Jesus is merely an assumption. In fact there are many reasons why it is unlikely to be Jesus."

So then, he has said that the rider of the horse IS NOT JESUS. Well he actually said "UNLIKELY" which will be used as his excuse or our misunderstanding of what he said.

Now I must do this because it is what the Word of God tells us to do.

Titus 3:9.........
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

The word HERESY literally means....."cloosing one's own ideas", but now refers to that which is untrue. Paul warned the Romans against identfying with those who promoted divisive, erroneous teachings.

To say that the rider of Revelation 19 is "Unlikely" to be Jesus is then to reject all the other teaching in chapter 19 as well because the context is all about that rider.
Revelation 19:1-6 are contextually about the ALLELUIAS IN HEAVEN". Would the praise and gory John sees in heaven be going to Constitine???/ NO!!!!

Three attributes of God are seen in these verses....Salvation-Glory- Honor!!!

Mistmann would have us to believe those attributes would belong to Constintine?????
I think NOT!

Then in Revelation 19:7-10 is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Now that goes out the window as well if we believe this IS NOT JESUS.

Now this is NOT about "interpretation." It is about what is literally printed in your own Bible my friends. Then to say that Jesus IS NOT the one pictured in 19:11-16 is simply heresy!!!!

I am sure Mistmann will Report ME!!!! I may even be BANNED !! But you know what, I do not care because this is just to important to leave standing un-challenged.

 

[calvin]

I certainly hope it will not come to that Major! I understand your passionate response to Misty, but I'm not convinced that he should be specifically labeled as a heretic.......just my thoughts. Either way, I hope the 'sleeping behemoth' is not awakened to padlock this thread


I have made an honest endeavour to present the latest or 'most up to date' if one prefers it, understanding of the Grammatical understanding that should be applied to v4. It is up to the reader to evaluate what I have presented and either accept it or reject it. What I have presented is not my own work, but the work of those who are experts in the field of linguistics specifically Greek linguistics. If anyone has a problem with the material I have posted, their problem is not with me, but with those experts I have quoted from.
One principle of Bible study that I believe in and try to apply as often as I can is the principle of witness.
Moses gave the Israelite a law which was to be applied to dispute resolution. see Deut 17:6 Deut 19:15 2 Cor 13:1 Paul also sees the wisdom of God in settling matters where there might be doubt involved by appeal to this principle of witness confirmation.
I have already posted some passages from the Bible that speak of only one resurrection. The one resurrection spoken of is only ever split into two divisions, never three or more. and those divisions are the resurrection to eternal life and the resurrection to eternal condemnation. see Dan 12:1,2,3, John 5:28,29
and of course by reasonable implication, Rev 20:5,6. I believe and submit that these are adequate witnesses to the truth.
From this point on, I am assuming the position that the 'first resurrection' contains all the souls that are saved and redeemed through faith in Christ Jesus, and I would like to now move on to explore the likely nature of the 1000 year reign.
Blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

I certainly hope it will not come to that Major! I understand your passionate response to Misty, but I'm not convinced that he should be specifically labeled as a heretic.......just my thoughts. Either way, I hope the 'sleeping behemoth' is not awakened to padlock this thread


I have made an honest endeavour to present the latest or 'most up to date' if one prefers it, understanding of the Grammatical understanding that should be applied to v4. It is up to the reader to evaluate what I have presented and either accept it or reject it. What I have presented is not my own work, but the work of those who are experts in the field of linguistics specifically Greek linguistics. If anyone has a problem with the material I have posted, their problem is not with me, but with those experts I have quoted from.
One principle of Bible study that I believe in and try to apply as often as I can is the principle of witness.
Moses gave the Israelite a law which was to be applied to dispute resolution. see Deut 17:6 Deut 19:15 2 Cor 13:1 Paul also sees the wisdom of God in settling matters where there might be doubt involved by appeal to this principle of witness confirmation.
I have already posted some passages from the Bible that speak of only one resurrection. The one resurrection spoken of is only ever split into two divisions, never three or more. and those divisions are the resurrection to eternal life and the resurrection to eternal condemnation. see Dan 12:1,2,3, John 5:28,29
and of course by reasonable implication, Rev 20:5,6. I believe and submit that these are adequate witnesses to the truth.
From this point on, I am assuming the position that the 'first resurrection' contains all the souls that are saved and redeemed through faith in Christ Jesus, and I would like to now move on to explore the likely nature of the 1000 year reign.
Blessings,
calvin

Calvin.........
I really had no choice this time. I am in fact a very passionate person and I struggle daily to be in controle of that part of my life. When I read Misty's claim that Rev. 19 is NOT about the 2nd Coming of The Lord and is instead Constitine....my head exploded. He has always had off the wall opinions but this one just broke the camels back.

The 2nd Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the foundational, basic truths of the Word of God. It is just as basic and foundational for salvation as is the Virgin Birth of Jesus. In fact, not only is what was said by Misty hearitical....it was blasphemy!!!

There is a common misconception regarding the meaning of blasphemy. Typically, people think of blasphemy as speaking against God or claiming the rights of God himself. While this may be true under certain circumstances, there is more to it than that. The common understanding is based on the dictionary definition, which is:

1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable.​

Salvation as described in the Bible, based in the deity, death, and resurrection of Christ—which is the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–6)—entails all these essential doctrines, including:
(1) human depravity,
(2) Christ’s virgin birth,
(3) Christ’s sinlessness,
(4) Christ’s deity,
(5) Christ’s humanity,
(6) God’s unity,
(7) God’s triunity,
(8) the necessity of God’s grace,
(9) the necessity of faith,
(10) Christ’s atoning death,
(11) Christ’s bodily resurrection,
(12) Christ’s bodily ascension,
(13) Christ’s present high priestly service,
(14) Christ’s second coming, final judgment, and reign.

Some may question how Christ’s present service, second coming, kingdom reign, and final judgment are essential doctrines of salvation. The answer lies in understanding salvation in the broad sense of all three stages: 1) justification
2) sanctification
3) glorification.

According to Scripture,
(1) we have been saved from the penalty of sin (by justification) the moment we believe (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 3:24)
(2) we presently are in the process of being saved from the power of sin (by sanctification) (John 17:17; Eph. 5:25–26; 1 Thess. 5:23),
(3) we will at death or at Christ’s coming be saved from the very presence of sin (by glorification; that is, by being made perfect) (Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 13:10–13; 1 John 3:2).

This being the case, we can see that the things listed above are essential for justification; that is, without them our justification would not be possible. Likewise, doctrines 12 and 13 (Christ’s ascension and present service) are necessary for our sanctification, and doctrine 14 (the second coming) is needed to complete salvation, namely, to achieve our glorification.

I compliment you on what you have presented on this thread and I apologize for the slide away from your original thoughts on it. You have done an excellant job. It has shown me personally that you are well read and educated in theology and your comments speak well of your faith in the Lord.
I in fact am in agreement with your work and I know how much effort there is in posting such things.

Your comment of.........
"The one resurrection spoken of is only ever split into two divisions, never three or more. and those divisions are the resurrection to eternal life and the resurrection to eternal condemnation. see Dan 12:1,2,3, John 5:28,29".
is absolutly Biblically correct.!!!!

 

[mistmann]

The Word of God states these truth which are self evident...................

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 19:11-16
11. "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is
called Faithful and True, and in
righteousness He judges and wages war.
12. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name
is called The Word of God.
14. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following
Him on white horses.
15. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will
rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
16. And on His robe
and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Notice please that in verse #1..."heaven opened and behold, a white horse and He who sat on it".
John's vision is on what is IN HEAVEN.

Now Mistmann's own word were..........(copied and pasted for reality & clarity):

"NOR does it say that the name on his thigh is HIS OWN name. Constantine (whose name means "faithful and true") had a name written on his robe and on his thigh. It was Jesus Christ who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS (just to give it equal emphasis ) He also rode a white horse, had a red cloak, ruled by the word of God (the sharp twoedged sword) ruled over many kingdoms from which his empire was formed (many crowns), ruled with an iron rod, etc. etc.

The point is, to say that the rider on the white horse is Jesus is merely an assumption. In fact there are many reasons why it is unlikely to be Jesus."

So then, he has said that the rider of the horse IS NOT JESUS. Well he actually said "UNLIKELY" which will be used as his excuse or our misunderstanding of what he said.

Now I must do this because it is what the Word of God tells us to do.

Titus 3:9.........
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

The word HERESY literally means....."cloosing one's own ideas", but now refers to that which is untrue. Paul warned the Romans against identfying with those who promoted divisive, erroneous teachings.

To say that the rider of Revelation 19 is "Unlikely" to be Jesus is then to reject all the other teaching in chapter 19 as well because the context is all about that rider.
Revelation 19:1-6 are contextually about the ALLELUIAS IN HEAVEN". Would the praise and gory John sees in heaven be going to Constitine???/ NO!!!!

Three attributes of God are seen in these verses....Salvation-Glory- Honor!!!

Mistmann would have us to believe those attributes would belong to Constintine?????
I think NOT!

Then in Revelation 19:7-10 is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Now that goes out the window as well if we believe this IS NOT JESUS.

Now this is NOT about "interpretation." It is about what is literally printed in your own Bible my friends. Then to say that Jesus IS NOT the one pictured in 19:11-16 is simply heresy!!!!

I am sure Mistmann will Report ME!!!! I may even be BANNED !! But you know what, I do not care because this is just to important to leave standing un-challenged.

Don't fret over me reporting you Major. If I reported you every time you did this to me I wouldn't have enough time in the day to do the things I need to do

Besides I am trying to keep threads and discussions OPEN so we CAN discuss these things, not provide opportunities or reasons for closing them so we can't discuss these things.

But I do note that for all your cries of "heresy" you still have not provided a single piece of BIBLICAL authority for your claim that the rider of the white horse CAN ONLY be Jesus. Remember Biblical authority is not what we BELIEVE the Bible says but what the Bible actually DOES (or does not) say in the words the LORD has written. Quoting John again does not help because John does not SAY it is Jesus. This is just something YOU (and a lot of other people also) BELIEVE.
There is NO Biblical AUTHORITY to declare it is true, even if it is what you believe is true.

But let's take the opportunity to examine a few more things about this. First is the question of where John is when he saw "Heaven opened". Remember how ALL these visions began in Rev 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. "

So when John sees these things he is ALREADY in Heaven. So it begs the question why did heaven have to open up before John could see the rider of the white horse?? One obvious possibility is because the rider was not in Heaven but on the Earth and the "door" between Heaven and Earth had to be opened up for him to see the rider. Not saying this is what happened but merely that it is evidence that is consistent with the idea the rider was on earth. The battle was definitely on earth because a battle with flesh and blood is described and flesh and blood cannot inherit (or indeed inhabit) the Kingdom.

We also know for sure that Jesus does NOT return to the earth riding a white horse. Apart from Zechariah 11 not mentioning a horse (Jesus' FEET are STANDING on the mount of Olives, not riding a horse) we KNOW from the angels who spoke to the Apostles after Jesus ascended that He will return in the same way they SAW Him leave. Jesus did NOT leave on a white horse! Indeed as far as we can tell there was not a horse in sight ANYWHERE when Jesus ascended.

Acts 1:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Now Rev 19 say that the one on the white horse is CALLED (ie named) "faithful and true". However Jesus is the Hebrew name "Jeshua/Joshua" which means "Jehovah our salvation" or "Jehovah helps Him" or "Jehovah saves" and similar variations. It does not mean "faithful and true". Emmanuel means "God with us" (
Matt 1:23), it does not mean "faithful and true".
We see the rider is also called "the Word of God". BUT if you go into the OT, everywhere you will see the phrase "the Word of God CAME to (insert name of prophet here). But in 2 Peter 1:21 ("For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.") we find that what came to the prophets was not Jesus but the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit. So throughout the OT we find that the Holy Spirit, not Jesus is called "the Word of God".
And we know that the Holy Spirit INDWELLS those who are Christ's. What I see when I read Rev 19 is a rider whose name means "faithful and true" who is perhaps the Holy Spirit, or somebody controlled by the Holy Spirit. If you ever read the writings and orations of Constantine there is no mistaking these are the words of a person filled with the Holy spirit. Borne out also by his actions.The words and fruits of Constantine at and after the Battle of Milvian Bridge are very much consistent with those of a brother in Christ full of the Holy Spirit. But His words are freely available and downloadable at http://www.ccel.org/ for anybody interested, as are all the writings of the ante-Nicene (Apostolic) church leaders as well as the early church history of Eusebius.
Again just a bit more of the considerable evidence that the one on the white horse is UNLIKELY to be Jesus Himself.
Major you are free to BELIEVE whatever you will, but you cannot declare what you believe to BE true. The authority to declare what is TRUE lies in the ACTUAL words of the Bible itself and what THEY say - ALONE - and INDEPENDENT of the interpretations of any theology.

 

[mistmann]

Well Misty they are saying nothing different from what I had previously stated....true.
That Mistmann is exactly why I have provided literature from THOSE who teach the Bible translators. It is no longer what I or you might like to think, it is what the Language experts are saying.
Mistmann, I believe you missed my point about Strong's I merely pointed out that it gives only the lexal of words, not there morphologic construction.

But that is the point I am making. How can you or I judge one language expert against another? Strong's is a widely held and long held authority on the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew used in the original writings. Strong's is not a "lesser" authority. Indeed I note even the Interlinear Bible you referred to aknowledges the dual meaning of "hostis" (or however it is represented). Indeed the language experts who translated the KJV, the NIV, and many other mainstream Bibles trnslate it as "WHO" not "WHOSOEVER".

We cannot argue that "hostis" is correctly translated as "whosoever" and not "who" WITHOUT arguing against a great many world renown Greek language experts past and present. The case for this being the "rapture" at the coming of Christ rests SOLELY and WHOLLY on the single Greek word "hostis" (because it is easier to type) being interpreted as "whosoever". Without that the whole case crumbles. That is why my point does NOT rest on the doubtful translation of a single Greek word but on a whole plethora of supporting evidence and factual observation that makes it obvious that this CANNOT be the "rapture" at the coming of Christ but a raising of specific people for a specific purpose at least 1,000 years BEFORE the "rapture" and coming of Christ as the words of John actually say.

I understand your thinking here, but you assume a oneness of mind with John that you are not entitled to do. Why John did not link those who did not worship the beast with those who were beheaded in a more natural way (if that was what he meant) can also be questioned.
The Greek language does have within it a word that translates as 'because'; and this is the meaning that you are choosing to apply. So John could have said: '....the souls of those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and the word of God and because they did not worship......' That is the understanding you have adopted, but that is not what John has said.

It is not about the words he used in this point but the fact that he made a specific reference to those beheaded at all. Your argument requires that John makes a very intentional and specific reference to a special group of people for no reason whatsoever. That John makes the effort to ensure we are aware these specific people were raised but beyond that there is nothing special about them that he should even have bothered making the effort to ensure we knew they were there. That John is careful to say that he saw those beheaded but then immediately turns around and regards them as not special in anyway at all because EVERYBODY in Christ was raised and ALL reigned with Christ whether they were beheaded or not. It makes no LOGICAL sense and I think John was a very logical guy full of a very logical Holy Spirit. ALL his words only make logical and consistent sense IF only those beheaded are raised and this IS supported by the words he has written.

This is why I have highlighted the need to think very carefully about what has been said. The interpretation of one single relative pronoun stands between truth and heresy. On the one hand we have an interpretation that stands alone, separated from the witness of other scripture thus leading to a resurrection of a select group within the overall group of saints. Or we have an interpretation which is both supported by Greek Grammar and other supportive witness from the scriptures, that there is only one 'first resurrection and that it includes all the Saints of God.

That is why, as I said before, the case you are arguing DOES rest on the doubtful interpretation of a single Greek word. HOWEVER my case does not. It rests on a whole plethora of evidence and facts of which the interpretation of "hostis" is only one single consistent plank in a whole strong platform of reasons. MOST of the arguments I have put forward do NOT rest on the translation of "hostis" at all.

Blessings to you also Calvin. Be assured I am still just discussing the issues people need to consider as they decide for THEMSELVES what they will and will not believe.

 

[mistmann]

Just backing up a bit: Mistmann posted

In asking the question, in my view you had invited speculation.
Regardless of what John's motivation might have been, those he did report seeing were the souls of those beheaded for a particular reason, thereby excluding all other who were beheaded for other reasons such as the aristocracy of France during the French revolution to name but a few.
He saw those who did not worship the beast etc. This now excludes all souls who did worship the beast etc.

Take into consideration the beginning of v4: John saw thrones and 'they' sat on them and judgment was given unto them.(Kjv grammar)
OK, so who are the 'they'? The Bible does not say does it. But 'they' are there nevertheless.
And judgment is given 'unto' them. Does this mean they were allowed to indulge in a little judgment, or were they themselves subjected to judgment? Are they the twelve apostles judging the twelve tribes of Israel? Matt 19:28
Are 'they', others about whom we are told nothing?

Is John seeing only the souls of those who take part in the first resurrection all souls, both saved and unsaved?
And is he seeing only the souls of those who either accepted or rejected Christ as distinct from those who never even heard the gospel?
The sense of v4 indicates that it is after John sees the souls of those who take part in the first resurrection, that they come to life (lived), though this might be merely became active, because souls are not dead things. And yet, v5 tells us that the rest of the dead (souls) lived not again till.....so?
There are many things to consider. There are many things we are not told. We should not rush headlong into error, but study carefully, evaluating all the evidence we have.
Blessings,
calvin

Take a very close look at your argument which is that EVERYBODY (as in "WHOSOEVER") who has not worshipped the beast or his image and has not received the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead shall be raised AND REIGN with Christ for 1,000 years as priests. THAT includes all the Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, murderers, adulterers, thieves, idol worshippers, etc. who ALSO have not worshipped the beast or received the mark before dying since the time of Revelation.

THAT is what your argument DOES declare.

The fact is that the first resurrection John speaks of is INEXTRICABLY tied to a specific series of events in a specific period of time and cannot be meaningfully applied beyond those events and time without becoming a meaningless and clearly useless distinction. The criteria for inclusion in the first resurrection cannot be applied except that those included have REJECTED/REFUSED to worship as COMMANDED or to ACCEPT the mark as COMMANDED out of complete allegience to Christ Jesus.

MILLIONS of people who do not believe in Christ have NOT worshipped the beast and his image OR received his mark. They too are caught up in the all embracing "whosoever".

So even if you try and translate "hostis" as "whosoever" and so divorce it from the first part of the sentence the argument is crushed to death by the all inclusive embrace of "whosoever" for the sentence AFTER "hostis" THEN reads:-

"and - WHOSOEVER - 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."

And as I said previously this includes ANYBODY who has not done these things. MILLIONS of people are dieing daily and have been doing so since the time of John. IF the beast, his image, and his mark are yet to come then NOBODY who has died to date whether or not they were in Christ or against Him have worshipped the beast or his image, or received his mark. IF it is a thing of the past it has LONG passed and nobody has been required to worship or receive the mark (and consequently have done neither) for a very long time already. And nobody is asking us to do it at the present time.

Therefore whichever way you look at it and I mean ANYway the criteria applied to the first resurrection cannot be the "rapture at the coming of Christ and seeing as nobody ELSE is raised until AFTER the 1,000 years have ended the Bible and John in particular is saying Christ returns to the Earth sometime AFTER the 1,000 years have ended.

As I said my case does NOT rest on the doubtful translation of a single Greek word but on an absolute ABUNDANT amount of evidence, facts and reasons.

 

[calvin]

Besides I am trying to keep threads and discussions OPEN so we CAN discuss these things, not provide opportunities or reasons for closing them so we can't discuss these things.

Good keep this in mind please.

Remember Biblical authority is not what we BELIEVE the Bible says but what the Bible actually DOES (or does not) say in the words the LORD has written. ........
But let's take the opportunity to examine a few more things about this. First is the question of where John is when he saw "Heaven opened". Remember how ALL these visions began in Rev 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. "
So when John sees these things he is ALREADY in Heaven. So it begs the question why did heaven have to open up before John could see the rider of the white horse?? One obvious possibility is because the rider was not in Heaven but on the Earth and the "door" between Heaven and Earth had to be opened up for him to see the rider.

Another possibility would be that neither the rider on the white horse nor the many that followed would fit through a door. But the Bible does not say it either way so let's keep the assumptions in the cupboard.

We also know for sure that Jesus does NOT return to the earth riding a white horse. Apart from Zechariah 11 not mentioning a horse (Jesus' FEET are STANDING on the mount of Olives, not riding a horse) we KNOW from the angels who spoke to the Apostles after Jesus ascended that He will return in the same way they SAW Him leave. Jesus did NOT leave on a white horse! Indeed as far as we can tell there was not a horse in sight ANYWHERE when Jesus ascended.

The Bible does not say that there was no horse. The Bible does not say that Jesus' feet were on the ground when the angels spoke to those disciples standing gazing up into heaven. Here is what was said, as recorded in Acts 1:9,10,11.
"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” Nkjv. So we have Jesus taken up by an undisclosed means and sometime after this has begun He is obscured from their sight by a cloud.

Now Rev 19 say that the one on the white horse is CALLED (ie named) "faithful and true". However Jesus is the Hebrew name "Jeshua/Joshua" which means "Jehovah our salvation" or "Jehovah helps Him" or "Jehovah saves" and similar variations. It does not mean "faithful and true". Emmanuel means "God with us" (
Matt 1:23), it does not mean "faithful and true".

No, it does not, however Rev 3:14 links the one named as faithful and true with Jesus. ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God" Nkjv I don't see Constantine qualifying for this title, and Misti remember these two important points. The Book of Revelation has been erroneously labeled as The revelation of St John the Divine. It is not; it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It is about Him not Constantine, nor calvin nor misti...it is a revealing of Jesus and His control of the Church age. Note well Isa 42:8. "I am the LORD, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images." Nkjv
The other point to remember is that Jesus has many names throughout scripture... probably as many as He has crowns.

The authority to declare what is TRUE lies in the ACTUAL words of the Bible itself and what THEY say - ALONE - and INDEPENDENT of the interpretations of any theology.

Very true Mistmann
Blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

But that is the point I am making. How can you or I judge one language expert against another? Strong's is a widely held and long held authority on the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew used in the original writings. Strong's is not a "lesser" authority. Indeed I note even the Interlinear Bible you referred to aknowledges the dual meaning of "hostis" (or however it is represented). Indeed the language experts who translated the KJV, the NIV, and many other mainstream Bibles trnslate it as "WHO" not "WHOSOEVER".

Misti, I'll say this once, because having to repeat things changes a discussion into an argument.
'Strong's exhaustive Concordance' is just that..............a concordance.
the "A GREEK_ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT and other EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE" is just that.................a lexicon. There is a difference and you might like to consult a dictionary.

We cannot argue that "hostis" is correctly translated as "whosoever" and not "who" WITHOUT arguing against a great many world renown Greek language experts past and present. The case for this being the "rapture" at the coming of Christ rests SOLELY and WHOLLY on the single Greek word "hostis" (because it is easier to type) being interpreted as "whosoever".

Misti I have at no point said that hOSTIS represents the rapture. You are totally wrong to suggest that hOSTIS is easier to write than 'oitines'.
I did point out that the Strong's just gives the 'lexal' of a word and that is what hOSTIS is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with ease of writing.

Blessings to you also Calvin. Be assured I am still just discussing the issues people need to consider as they decide for THEMSELVES what they will and will not believe.

No, Misti you have repeated your points so many times that discussion no longer exists........now it is just all argument. I have stated my case, you have stated your case.

Blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

Take a very close look at your argument which is that EVERYBODY (as in "WHOSOEVER") who has not worshipped the beast or his image and has not received the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead shall be raised AND REIGN with Christ for 1,000 years as priests. THAT includes all the Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, murderers, adulterers, thieves, idol worshippers, etc. who ALSO have not worshipped the beast or received the mark before dying since the time of Revelation.

THAT is what your argument DOES declare.

I'm confident that anybody reading what I said will understand the truth of what I said Misti.
I am rather disappointed in you if you have chosen to ignore the question marks that I did in deed use when posting the material you have referred to. If that was deliberate on your part, what does that have to say of your walk with the Lord? ( Please note the use of a question mark here also).
Blessings,
calvin

 

[calvin]

And now, (again) we should move on to considering the nature of the 1000 year reign of the saints with Christ.
I had hoped that it would be a literal rather than metaphorical reign....hence the name of this thread.
I was half suspecting that it would prove to be a metaphorical reign though, again hence the title of this thread.
(Notice how crafty I am so that I don't have to actually admit that I'm wrong?)
It never ceases to amaze me how many key passages we can forget about...( well me anyway ) While refreshing my mind on the exact picture Scripture paints of 'Priests' I was led to Rev 5:9,10. "And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.” Nkjv
I guess that pretty well 'sets in stone' the understanding that the 1000 year reign will indeed be on this Earth, and that all the Lord's saints will be in on the fun.
And I note that the Bible does not say that these are just those of the Church here on Earth during the Church age.

Blessings,
calvin

 

[Major]

Don't fret over me reporting you Major. If I reported you every time you did this to me I wouldn't have enough time in the day to do the things I need to do

Besides I am trying to keep threads and discussions OPEN so we CAN discuss these things, not provide opportunities or reasons for closing them so we can't discuss these things.

But I do note that for all your cries of "heresy" you still have not provided a single piece of BIBLICAL authority for your claim that the rider of the white horse CAN ONLY be Jesus. Remember Biblical authority is not what we BELIEVE the Bible says but what the Bible actually DOES (or does not) say in the words the LORD has written. Quoting John again does not help because John does not SAY it is Jesus. This is just something YOU (and a lot of other people also) BELIEVE.
There is NO Biblical AUTHORITY to declare it is true, even if it is what you believe is true.

But let's take the opportunity to examine a few more things about this. First is the question of where John is when he saw "Heaven opened". Remember how ALL these visions began in Rev 4:1 "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. "

So when John sees these things he is ALREADY in Heaven. So it begs the question why did heaven have to open up before John could see the rider of the white horse?? One obvious possibility is because the rider was not in Heaven but on the Earth and the "door" between Heaven and Earth had to be opened up for him to see the rider. Not saying this is what happened but merely that it is evidence that is consistent with the idea the rider was on earth. The battle was definitely on earth because a battle with flesh and blood is described and flesh and blood cannot inherit (or indeed inhabit) the Kingdom.

We also know for sure that Jesus does NOT return to the earth riding a white horse. Apart from Zechariah 11 not mentioning a horse (Jesus' FEET are STANDING on the mount of Olives, not riding a horse) we KNOW from the angels who spoke to the Apostles after Jesus ascended that He will return in the same way they SAW Him leave. Jesus did NOT leave on a white horse! Indeed as far as we can tell there was not a horse in sight ANYWHERE when Jesus ascended.

Acts 1:11 "Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

Now Rev 19 say that the one on the white horse is CALLED (ie named) "faithful and true". However Jesus is the Hebrew name "Jeshua/Joshua" which means "Jehovah our salvation" or "Jehovah helps Him" or "Jehovah saves" and similar variations. It does not mean "faithful and true". Emmanuel means "God with us" (
Matt 1:23), it does not mean "faithful and true".
We see the rider is also called "the Word of God". BUT if you go into the OT, everywhere you will see the phrase "the Word of God CAME to (insert name of prophet here). But in 2 Peter 1:21 ("For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.") we find that what came to the prophets was not Jesus but the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit. So throughout the OT we find that the Holy Spirit, not Jesus is called "the Word of God".
And we know that the Holy Spirit INDWELLS those who are Christ's. What I see when I read Rev 19 is a rider whose name means "faithful and true" who is perhaps the Holy Spirit, or somebody controlled by the Holy Spirit. If you ever read the writings and orations of Constantine there is no mistaking these are the words of a person filled with the Holy spirit. Borne out also by his actions.The words and fruits of Constantine at and after the Battle of Milvian Bridge are very much consistent with those of a brother in Christ full of the Holy Spirit. But His words are freely available and downloadable at http://www.ccel.org/ for anybody interested, as are all the writings of the ante-Nicene (Apostolic) church leaders as well as the early church history of Eusebius.
Again just a bit more of the considerable evidence that the one on the white horse is UNLIKELY to be Jesus Himself.
Major you are free to BELIEVE whatever you will, but you cannot declare what you believe to BE true. The authority to declare what is TRUE lies in the ACTUAL words of the Bible itself and what THEY say - ALONE - and INDEPENDENT of the interpretations of any theology.

WE, you and I have nothing more to, as you call it....."examine".

You said.................
"The authority to declare what is TRUE lies in the ACTUAL words of the Bible itself and what THEY say - ALONE - and INDEPENDENT of the interpretations of any theology.

I will say that the comment you made applies DIRECTLY TO YOU!!! Your theology is so flawed that a responce to any of your opinions is wasted on you.

 

[Major]

I'm confident that anybody reading what I said will understand the truth of what I said Misti.
I am rather disappointed in you if you have chosen to ignore the question marks that I did in deed use when posting the material you have referred to. If that was deliberate on your part, what does that have to say of your walk with the Lord? ( Please note the use of a question mark here also).
Blessings,
calvin

Calvin.......
I hope that there is not trouble brewing in paradise between you and Mistmann.

I HAVE read your material and I DO find it to be creditable and Biblical.

Good job.

 

[calvin]

Major expressed concern :

Calvin.......
I hope that there is not trouble brewing in paradise between you and Mistmann.

Thanks for the concern Major, I don't think so... I regard Misty with warm affection. I don't agree with him on every point, nor he with me, but that is the way of it. As you will have observed though...misrepresenting what I say is like trying to quietly stick a pin in a wild cat with a tooth ache.
Blessings,
calvin