Kingdoms

[Screaming Eagle]

Can somebody show me one place in the Bible where something existed ONLY in spirit and was not manifested naturally? Thanks.

[HaShaliach]

There are a lot of "things" that the prophets saw in the spirit realm that are not "manifested." So I'm a little confused by your question. More information please. What motivates your question? Why are you asking? What are you studying?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Can somebody show me one place in the Bible where something existed ONLY in spirit and was not manifested naturally? Thanks.
Could you give me an example of something that was "manifested in spirit" before being "manifested naturally?" I'm not sure what you mean.

[Screaming Eagle]

With all the talk about there being 'no more Israel' and 'no more Jews' (even if you'd also have to say there are no more women and no more men by the same scripture), how is it that there could be a 'kingdom of God' only in the Spirit and not manifested naturally.

In Acts 1, the boys were apparently visited every day for 40-50 days by Jesus Himself. It's clear that He was telling them of things to come, reassuring them in various ways and was 'in and out' from what it says in scripture. And what was their first question that's recorded? Is it NOW?...It's apparent to me that He had been talking to them (at least some) about the restoration of Israel. His response? (I'm paraphrasing) 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons BUT you will receive power... (I don't have my Bible with me so forgive me if those aren't the exact words).

How could it be that such a large section of Ezekiel is devoted to exquisite detail about a temple that even mystifies Rabbis to this day without the expectation that it will be manifested naturally? And how is it that one could believe that a 'spiritual Kingdom of God' (which is certainly true now and will become even more clear soon) could exist without a manifestation naturally? I'm not aware of one single scriptural precedent for that.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

With all the talk about there being 'no more Israel' and 'no more Jews' (even if you'd also have to say there are no more women and no more men by the same scripture), how is it that there could be a 'kingdom of God' only in the Spirit and not manifested naturally.

I already explained in another thread why the male/female distinction is different than the Jew/Gentile distinction.

The difference between Jews and Gentiles was defined by the First Covenant. That covenant ended with the death of the Testator. That's why God destroyed the Temple. The final sacrifice came in Christ. The continued sacrifice of animals would be an abomination that denies Christ.



In Acts 1, the boys were apparently visited every day for 40-50 days by Jesus Himself. It's clear that He was telling them of things to come, reassuring them in various ways and was 'in and out' from what it says in scripture. And what was their first question that's recorded? Is it NOW?...It's apparent to me that He had been talking to them (at least some) about the restoration of Israel. His response? (I'm paraphrasing) 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons BUT you will receive power... (I don't have my Bible with me so forgive me if those aren't the exact words).

The question of Acts 1: was a question posed by the disciples when they were still IGNORANT of God's plan to evangelize the world and the Gentiles. They were misguided. It is foolish in the extreme to build our eschatology upon questions asked by people who are manifestly ignorant of God's plan!

We must build our eschatology upon what the Bible really says, not upon what it does not say!



How could it be that such a large section of Ezekiel is devoted to exquisite detail about a temple that even mystifies Rabbis to this day without the expectation that it will be manifested naturally? And how is it that one could believe that a 'spiritual Kingdom of God' (which is certainly true now and will become even more clear soon) could exist without a manifestation naturally? I'm not aware of one single scriptural precedent for that.
That temple is symbolic. Or do you believe that God is going to reinstitute the Levitical Priesthood and animal sacrifices?

I don't know what "precedent" you are talking about. Could you please explain this point more clearly? You've brought it up a bunch of times now. The order is natural then spiritual. That's what happened with the Temple - first it was stone, now it is the body of Christ. This is taught explicitly in Scripture.

Richard

[Screaming Eagle]

Richard,
The precedent I'm speaking of is something existing only in spirit without having been manifested naturally. Abram's vision in Gen 15 came before the covenant which it describes manifested naturally. Moses saw a 'pattern' in Heaven (in the spirit) to build the tabernacle by in detail. And yes, I know that Christ IS the tabernacle and that we dwell IN Him and He in us. And I know that everything in that tabernacle represents something of Him. Yet, it was constructed naturally after Moses saw it while on the mountain. It was symbolic and made natural.
I will certainly say there's a lot I don't understand about Ezekiel's temple. It's not by mistake that the vision follows on the heels of 38 and 39 in which Christ Himself is apparently present to fight for Israel.
Ephesians indicates that we have been made one IN Christ with Jews. He recognizes no distinction. It does not mean that 'they don't exist' as some have said. And your desire is for this site to be a witness to Jews with that kind of attitude? Doesn't sound very welcoming to me.
In Ezekiel's temple there are references to Levites but also several other groups of priests. The Levites are relegated to a lesser role while it's the sons of Zadok (Tzadok, Righteousness) that draw near the 'Prince' who conducts the sacrifices Himself. There are other unique descriptions of that temple that seem to defy everything that was known about previous temples including the land set apart for the Prince and the distribution (equally) of land among the tribes and the size of the temple.
If Jesus wants to conduct sacrifices as a reminder of what He has done (once for all doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as no more) that's certainly His prerogative. I have every reason to believe there will indeed be another temple but if the fire is not lit by God Himself, I've got no place there.

[HaShaliach]

Slowely backing out of this thread....................:)

[Screaming Eagle]

My point is that the Bible never says there will not be a restored nation of Israel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My point is that the Bible never says there will not be a restored nation of Israel.
Your logic tells us nothing.

The fact that the Bible does not assert NOT X does not mean that it asserts X.

For example, the fact that the Bible does not assert pigs will not fly does not mean it asserts that pigs will fly.

The teachings of the Bible are clear. It says absolutely nothing about a restoration of the nation of Israel after its destruction in 70 AD.

This is why all theories based on a restored nation of Israel are not Biblical.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I will certainly say there's a lot I don't understand about Ezekiel's temple. It's not by mistake that the vision follows on the heels of 38 and 39 in which Christ Himself is apparently present to fight for Israel.

I agree the position of Ezekiel's Temple in his book is very significant. We see the same pattern with the appearance of New Jerusalem in Revelation after Rev 19-20. I think they are parallel visions and represent the same thing, which is the Church - the people of God which is why the NJ is marked with the names of the 12 Tribes, 12 Apostles, and a bunch of other twelves that God uses as a symbol of His People.



Ephesians indicates that we have been made one IN Christ with Jews. He recognizes no distinction. It does not mean that 'they don't exist' as some have said. And your desire is for this site to be a witness to Jews with that kind of attitude? Doesn't sound very welcoming to me.

Jews are absolutely welcome here! But telling them that they are still under the first covenant and that God still honors that covenant so they don't need Christ is not very "welcoming." It would be called "lying."

Do you fault Peter and Paul for telling their fellow Jews that they needed to repent and believe the Gospel?



In Ezekiel's temple there are references to Levites but also several other groups of priests. The Levites are relegated to a lesser role while it's the sons of Zadok (Tzadok, Righteousness) that draw near the 'Prince' who conducts the sacrifices Himself. There are other unique descriptions of that temple that seem to defy everything that was known about previous temples including the land set apart for the Prince and the distribution (equally) of land among the tribes and the size of the temple.
If Jesus wants to conduct sacrifices as a reminder of what He has done (once for all doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as no more) that's certainly His prerogative. I have every reason to believe there will indeed be another temple but if the fire is not lit by God Himself, I've got no place there.
Yes, Jesus certainly can do what he wants. I just don't think that he wants to hang out in a big temple cutting up animals in "remembrance" of his sacrifice!

We're all free to have our opinions about enigmatic passages ... and that's mine.

But not all verses in the Bible are enigmatic. There is a BIG PICTURE of the Biblical truth that can be established with great certainty. It is not a matter of "opinion." That's why I seek to establish the truth on the ROCK FOUNDATION of what the Bible really says rather than focusing on every enigmatic passage that can be forced to fit some futurist speculation.

This is what you will learn if you engage me in serious Bible study. All the futurist speculations will be blown away like chaff in the wind of revelation that comes from establishing our doctrine upon what the Bible really says. We do this by obeying one simple principle called THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HEREMENEUTICS (http://biblewheel.com/Theology/TheologyIntro.asp):
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

Anything taught as doctrine must be supported by at least two or three clear and unambiguous Biblical passages. The main things are the plain things. We can be certain that if God did not establish a teaching with two or three solid witnesses in Scripture then He did not intend for us to teach it as Biblical truth. We know this because God has given us this principle in a way that follows this principle, that is, He repeated it in both the Old and the New Testaments:


Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This principle is fundamental not only to Biblical Hermeneutics, but to Epistemology in general. How do we know anything? When it is confirmed and corroborated by a variety of witnesses. This is true whether studying the Bible or Biology. Application of this rule immediately clears away the debris accumulated from centuries of unfounded speculations and lays bare the bedrock of the true Biblical doctrines of Eschatology.