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

[Major]

Major expressed concern :

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

Yes I have observed and that is why I said what I did. You are a better Bible person than is he, and it seems like the rub is starting to show.

 

[mistmann]

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.

Does that apply to everybody else's assumptions also even if they don't aknowledge them as assumptions?

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.

I never said that ACTS spoke about the feet of Jesus standing on the mount of Olives. I pointed out the ZECHARIAH's prophecy of the second coming of Jesus declares His FEET shall stand on the Mount of Olives. It was pretty clear so I am not sure how you came to misunderstand it, but hopefully it is clarified now.

My point about Acts was that the Angels declared we would see Jesus return in the same manner the Apostles saw Him leave. I am sure that if He left riding a white horse the Apostles would have mentioned it. After all they DO mention WATCHING Him going up UNTIL they lost sight of Him in a cloud. I am sure they would have noticed a white horse and mentioned it if they did.

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.

Jesus is indeed the True and Faithful Witness, BUT Rev19 does not say that the rider of the white horse is THE true and faithful witness. It merely says the rider is CALLED (named) faithful and true. The Hebrew name for Jesus is Jeshua/Joshua. Do you know how many people in the OT are CALLED Jeshua/Joshua (Jesus)? Do you know even today how many thousands of people are CALLED "JESUS"!!

Like it or not Constantine is CALLED "Faithful and True" THAT is the MEANING of his NAME. Jesus IS the True and Faithful witness but that is not His NAME. But ponder this also, is the Holy Spirit of God a lesser, or more, faithful and true witness than Jesus??? Listen to what the SPIRIT SAYS to the seven churches Revelation says to each church. We must be very, very careful not to be blinded by EXPECTING flowery, grand and glorious words can only be a reference to Jesus Christ.

But rest assured Calvin I DO know whose revelation it is. But I also know it is John who put pen to paper and wrote what HE heard and what HE saw as HE was instructed to do. We STILL cannot go beyond or retreat from the words John has WRITTEN. JOHN is always the ultimate authority on Revelation, not theologians.

Blessings to you also Calvin
calvin[/quote]

 

[mistmann]

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.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.
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,

So you understand, I do not repeat points for no reason. I only repeat them if it seems the other person has not understood them or their significance, if the other person has misconstrued or misrepresented them, or to ensure the other person has seen them if they respond as if nothing was said. Initially I always give them the opportunity to correct the situation if it is a genuine mistake or oversight and not a deliberate ploy to misconstrue, misrepresent or avoid and evade a point. Once it becomes obvious that it is deliberate and not accidental my purpose is to ensure those watching have sufficient information to investigate and ponder the matter for themselves and then move on.

But please understand on this point that I am not really the one who keeps coming back to this one Greek word. I have tried many times to point out why the "whosoever" translation fails on NUMEROUS other grounds other than the doubtful translation of the word itself. But I can't get you to address THOSE points. You don't respond to them, only to this singular word translation issue.

By the way the reason "hostis" is easier for me to type is because I can remember it and do not have to go and look up the other word each time because I can't remember how it goes.

 

[mistmann]

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

Sorry Calvin, I probably should have better identified the "argument" (as in case, not squabble) I was referring to. It is this one:-

"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."

The point is your last sentence may be true BUT it also means it INCLUDES all souls who did NOT worship the beast, etc. for WHATEVER REASON. Eg there was no beast or image to worship at the time, nobody was making them get a mark, nobody was forcing them to worship, etc. I do not see atheists walking around with the mark of the beast on their hand or forehead, I do not see them bowing down to any images or worshipping anybody in particular. Same for many other non-christian people. Doesn't seem to have happened for centuries. The above argument says all THESE people qualify for resurrection and reigning with Christ as priests also, and that would INCLUDE those French guys who got beheaded but did NOT receive the mark of the beast for the simple reason there was no marking going on.

This is one of those OTHER "whosoever" translation problems I was referring to.

Hopefully this has clarified the issue.

 

[HisManySongs]

Time out!