Quote:
Superfundy,
Not to come across as disrespectful or overly simplistic, but there is simply no proof in the text to buttress your interpretations that you have been presenting.
I thought my assertions were quite well supported, as support goes for such things. I really can't seem to find a problem with it myself. Just as Matthew 24 is chronological and in line with Revelation 6, so too is Matthew 25, and it does seem to have a good correlation to Revelation 7.
If there is something you can show that definitely shows me to be in error, please share it. Thats why I am here.
Quote:
Your whole insistence about a third party of raptured believers, that these sheep in this text are not the church, and that serving Christ in His temple is somehow antithetical to reigning with Him are based on your personal opinions.
Why would you say that? Do not the saints who partake of the first ressurrection rule and reign with Christ for 1000 years? I don't think I am mistaken in that assertion? Surely, ruling over 10 cities is not the same as serving in the temple?
Who do you believe Jesus is referring to when addressing the sheep nations, when he says "these my brethren"? If the sheep nations are part of the raptured church, would they not also be considered "his brethren"? (Rom 8:29)
There is clearly a difference between those nations, and his brethren, therefore the is a 3rd party standing by.
The fact that the Church is also implied (as the bride) in the parable of the ten virgins, makes this assertion fit quite seemlessly IMO.
Quote:
While opinions are not necessarily bad, they cannot convince anyone if they are not buttressed by exegetical proof and good reason.
Well, ok. What kind of evidence do you require?
Is it not odd that the order of events of Mat 25 and Rev 7 are virtually identical?
Is it not also strange that the group in Rev 7 is said to come out of great tribulation and is then said to have washed their robes? Would that not have been foregone conclusion for raptured saints?
Quote:
By the way, are you pre-trib by any chance?
-Keith
I am post trib.
If you believe you can show me to be conclusively wrong (IN ANY WAY), please do. That's why I'm here. I have been shown wrong WAY too much to be too terribly dogmatic in these discussions. But please don't just discount my opinions because you simply disagree. I mean I am aware this is not a common interpretation, believe me, in fact, I am not sure I have ever seen it taught. That certainly doesn't mean its wrong. I don't get around THAT much, but maybe someone else has seen this and perhaps there is proof to the contrary somewhere in the scripture.
If so, and you see it, please post it, thats what I'm looking for.
