Are the Restoration Prophecies Being Fulfilled Today?

[gilgal]

Are the Restoration Prophecies Being Fulfilled Today?
http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr04.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are the Restoration Prophecies Being Fulfilled Today?
http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr04.html
Thanks Gilgal,


That's an excellent article. He states and refutes 12 false "proofs" that the Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled in the reformation of national Israel that began in 1948. Here is his first point countpoint:
1. The return itself is even now a partial reality. It will be completed in the not too distant future. Proof: “And I will bring back your captivity [or: will restore your fortune], and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, says Jehovah; and I will bring you again to the place whence I have banished you” (Jer. 29:14).

Answer to 1. The context of the Jer. 29:14 passage speaks specifically of a return “after seventy years” (Jer. 29:10), correctly interpreted by Daniel (in his book, 9:2), as applying to the time in which he was living. It cannot he proved, therefore, that such a passage has anything to do with recent or still future migrations. The same holds, of course, for similar restoration passages, such as Deut. 30:1-10; I Kings 8:46-52; Ezek. 36:17-19, 26-28; Hos. 11:10, 11.

This is typical of most, if not all, the prophesies that are applied to the modern secular state of Israel. They are ripped from their context, and their fulfillment in history is ignored. This is particularly egregious when the fulfillment that is ignored is stated plainly in Scripture, as in the case of Jeremiah 29:14. This becomes painfully obvious when it is read in context. The prophecy begins as a letter written to the elders who were part of the Babylonian exile that ended in 536 BC:
Jeremiah 29:1-14 Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon; 2 (After that Jeconiah the king, and the queen, and the eunuchs, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the carpenters, and the smiths, were departed from Jerusalem; ) 3 By the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan, and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, (whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent unto Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon) saying, 4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; 5 Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; 6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. 8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD. 10 ¶ For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. 12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. 13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. 14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

So there it is. The immediate context explicitly states that the prophecy concerned the return "after seventy years" which we know was fulfilled in 536 BC.

I see no justification for the claim that this prophecy applies to the modern secular state of Israel.

I would be interested to know what others think about this.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Yea, and what's even more interesting is this so called 1948 regathering of Israel is perhaps the worst regathering of all Biblical time! :thumb: How can this be considered "Israel" when the Jews who regathered in the ancient days were those blessed by God to return and rebuild the city and its temple? Yet these have not received permission to do anything in over 60 years! Besides, Paul clearly distinguishes the Israel of flesh and the Israel of God in Galatians:

Galatians 6
11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! 12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Translation? Jews of the flesh represent the false Israel. What matters is a new creation, and that can only be achieved in Christ. And all who think like this, Paul says, "Peace unto them AND the ISRAEL OF GOD!" In other words, the true Israel who's King is Christ.....The Christian Church. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Those who think present day geographical Israel is God's Israel, they might want to get an idea on why Paul distinguishes between Israel of Flesh and Israel of God. The 1948 Israel is not even based on flesh.....how can they verify their blood lines after 2000 years of seed mixing???? God's Israel is the Church; the city filled with circumcised hearts and not foreskins.

Joe

[gilgal]

The meaning of Israel is He shall reign with God I found a YouTube video of 2 Israeli soldiers speaking against the corruption in their politics, and I'm proud of them:


http://img.youtube.com/vi/37MFa7ZKQWo/default.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yea, and what's even more interesting is this so called 1948 regathering of Israel is perhaps the worst regathering of all Biblical time! :thumb: How can this be considered "Israel" when the Jews who regathered in the ancient days were those blessed by God to return and rebuild the city and its temple? Yet these have not received permission to do anything in over 60 years!

That's a very important point. When God used Nebuchadnezar to punish Israel with the Babyloninan Exile, he explicitly commanded the people to "build houses" and settle down for the long haul. Its in the portion of Jeremiah I quoted above:
Jer 29:4-10 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; 5 Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; 6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. 8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD. 10 ¶ For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

The exile was God's doing, and so must be any return. But I can not say that the current return of Israel to the land is not of God - it seems too significant for it not to be the part of some plan of God. But I am pretty sure that it has nothing to do with any Biblical prophecies. It seems like God has a plan, but it is nothing like modern dispensationalism that teaches God is going to go backwards to reinstitute Judaism and bloody animal sacrifices and a theocracy and all that fleshly carnal theology which denies the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.



Besides, Paul clearly distinguishes the Israel of flesh and the Israel of God in Galatians:

Galatians 6
11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! 12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Translation? Jews of the flesh represent the false Israel. What matters is a new creation, and that can only be achieved in Christ. And all who think like this, Paul says, "Peace unto them AND the ISRAEL OF GOD!" In other words, the true Israel who's King is Christ.....The Christian Church. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Those who think present day geographical Israel is God's Israel, they might want to get an idea on why Paul distinguishes between Israel of Flesh and Israel of God. The 1948 Israel is not even based on flesh.....how can they verify their blood lines after 2000 years of seed mixing???? God's Israel is the Church; the city filled with circumcised hearts and not foreskins.

Joe
Yep. I strongly agree that the entire New Testament, and Paul in particular, teaches the distinction between carnal vs. spiritual Israel. Its really what the whole Bible is all about - the carnal vs. the spiritual man. Flesh vs. Spirit. Adam vs. Christ. That's the BIG PICTURE of Biblical Theology, and any system that doesn't line up with it is fatally flawed.

Richard

[gilgal]

Come to think of it what would be the reason that an Israel should exist. It was meant to be a dwelling place where God's presence is, in other words a land of freedom, peace, divine law...you name it... somewhere the righteous long to live in.

[kathryn]

"It seems like God has a plan, but it is nothing like modern dispensationalism...." Richard

Richard, Joe and forum friends,
Amen to the above Richard!:thumb:I am posting the links to three articles (again by Dr. Stephen Jones) which I think will add an interesting and surprizing concept to the subject.(at least I found it mouth-dropping darn facinatin!) I hope you will find time to read them. I am dying to hear your comments.:D
(please read in the order given)
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2001/december2001.htm
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2002/january.htm
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2002/february.htm

[gilgal]

Just a comment on abortion related to the 2nd link:
The seed of man I believe is stated to be belonging to God. So abortion is a disrespect to God.

[Trumpet]

Hi Kathryn,

That is some very interesting stuff. Probably needs a new thread.I can't deny that the prophecies are complete in the AD 70 time, but time continues on, and the Arab - Israel conflict will eventually have to come to some conclusion. Believing the way I always had, (Jacob vs. Ishmael), I can see how the modern state of Israel could really be considered Esau, and this COULD set up a different looking scenario for the time in the immediate future.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"It seems like God has a plan, but it is nothing like modern dispensationalism...." Richard

Richard, Joe and forum friends,
Amen to the above Richard!:thumb:I am posting the links to three articles (again by Dr. Stephen Jones) which I think will add an interesting and surprizing concept to the subject.(at least I found it mouth-dropping darn facinatin!) I hope you will find time to read them. I am dying to hear your comments.:D
(please read in the order given)
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2001/december2001.htm
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2002/january.htm
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.org/FFI/2002/february.htm
Hey Kathryn,

Thanks for the links. There was a lot there that I would need to study more, but his conclusion at the end of the third page is worth repeating:


Dr. Stephen Jones: The Israeli state was founded on violence by men who had lost hope of a Messiah doing anything for them. Their dream had remained unfulfilled for 1900 years, because in the law of tribulation in Lev. 26:40, 41 God said He would end the judgment only after they had acknowledged their sin. This they refused to do, remaining hostile to Jesus Christ. So they felt that they had to fulfill their Zionist dream by the arm of flesh and by violence in the name of God. This motive is not unusual. This is how the world thinks, and Esau was a master at it. But this is not how the Kingdom of God is to be established. Jesus was not a terrorist. He will never be a terrorist, nor will Christians who follow His example.

This really magnifies the mystery of the modern state of Israel. On the one hand, I have watched the late Zola Levitt for years, and have loved the Jewish culture, and have heard many testimonies about how God miraculously fought for Israel against the Arabs when they attacked. But is all that an illusion? It seems absurd to believe that the wrath of God that obliterated Jerusalem in 70 AD has since gone soft without any repentence on the part of those who rejected Him! Dr. Jones' comments seem justified and true to Scripture.

As for another thread ... I don't think it is needed because Dr. Jones' comments are very relevent to the question of the "Restoration Prophecies" that are being applied to the modern state of Israel.

Richard

[gilgal]

Concerning Ishmael:


Genesis 16:12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

As for the unbelieving Israel:

1Thessaonians 3:14For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Conclusion:

Galatians 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

The last quote is very deep even for me that I don't understand it's entirety.

[Trumpet]

Hi Gilgal,

It's interesting that the Galatians part that you mentioned are refering to Isaac and Ishmael. And the allegory is of the woman with husband (Hagar because she married Abraham to circumvent God's promise), and the barren, (Sarai, because she was barren until God changed the situation). I looked up Gal 4:27 and found that it comes from Isaiah 54:1, and this corresponds to spoke 10 and 1 Timothy, and has a heavy shadow of covetousness, which of course the Jewish people had, and still have, as far as them thinking that they have a corner on God. But of course, the promise has come, and we now are the free! In essence, the Jews are bound by their own covetousness!

I think there is a lot more here, but I don't have time to explore at the moment.

God Bless, Don

[TheForgiven]

Gigal wrote:



Conclusion:
Quote:
Galatians 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

The last quote is very deep even for me that I don't understand it's entirety.

Paul was showing a figure, that one position represented bondage into slavery and sin, while the other represented freedom from bondage and sin. When Paul spoke to the Romans about this same situation, he tells the Roman Christians that they should consider themselves blessed (if not lucky) to share in the promise of freedom. And that the Jews [because of their unbelief in the ONLY ONE who could set them free, which is Christ] would remain in bondage to their sins because they rejected Christ.

The Old Law was delivered to show just how sinful we are. And until freedom was granted through Christ, they were bound by the works of the law until being set free. It's like being in prison. When someone is found guilty, they serve time in prison hammering rocks, clearing out fields, and doing all other types of labor. Well, the Jews had many things they had to do required by the Law which created a difficult yoke for many of them to bare. One such hardship was giving a tenth of their flock each month to be offered for sin. On top of that, once a year the High Priest was to sacrifice bulls, goats, and lambs which they also have to offer. Other such offerings was the produce of the field. Now from our perspective, that wouldn't seem like a big deal; we buy our meats and fruits at the market. But to them, who's lives centered around crops and animals, who also made their very living from raising animals and farming, it WAS a big deal. For a shepherd to give up 10% percent of his flock was a hardship, but this was done with holy intention of course; to share all things alike. However, in our day, instead of animals and crops, we share money, or even our time in service. But to them these kinds of things were a little difficult to bare, just as Christ condemned the wealthy who gave out of their wealth, yet an old woman gave all that she had into the offering. Another hardship was fasting, for days at a time. But fasting is no longer required; one may choose to fast, but it is not required as it once was.

Now the point of what I'm trying to say is that the Law was a temporary tutor or guide to show the extreme sinfulness of sin; it was our basic training. Have you ever heard the saying, "you never know how much you miss something until it's taken away..." It was sort of like that. The Israelites after being led out of Egypt were used to the Egyptian way of life, partaking of wine and eating meat. But in the wilderness, all that was stripped away from them and they began to yearn for Egypt. This is kind of what happened when the Law was provided to the children of Israel. The law was given to imprison them until the one chance for freedom would come. And that was Christ.

Now you can understand why Paul tried so hardly to convince his kinsmen according to the flesh that the works [rituals] of the Law no longer mattered, for in Christ we are all set free from those things. Does this mean to continue sinning? As Paul clearly stated, "BY NO MEANS!" Freedom in Christ does not mean to be lazy, for we still share all things alike and we still must repent of sins. The difference is we don't offer sacrifices to cover our sins, but we offer sacrifices to be fruitful, showing our love to all brethren and sisters, and giving thanks for all that the Lord has done for us. Our gifts are given from a sincere heart, and not out of command or necessity to do so.

Therefore, from your passage above, Paul was showing that those who chose to remain in the Law are still in bondage, while those who are in Christ were set free. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, which is a symbol for slavery; indeed even until this day. But the "Promise" which you ask about, has to do with the promised "SEED or SPERM", meaning Christ, and this was through the promise made to Abraham's son, Isaac. Christ was the promise delivered unto children of all generations, no matter where you are born, skin color, blood type, or race. That is true freedom. But as Paul asked the Romans, "What advantage is there to the Jews?" To them were the patriarchs, the fathers, and the covenants, so we through them have become free, for the promised seed (Christ) was brought forth through them and their generations. But many were rejected because the works they loved were done without any faith or meaning; they did not understand. They observed the works of the law much like a pagan did in the ancient days, with all the sacrificing of animals, observances of the moon cycles, feasts and holidays, all of which were destined to perish, and they have. Christ is the end of all those requirements.

In conclusion, the promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations was fulfilled in Christ, and we through Christ; Abraham is our grand father. Those who choose to remain outside of Christ represent those in slavery and bondage to sins curse and requirements of the Law. But those who never knew the Law will, as Paul stated, be judged by what law they had to themselves. But no matter how you look at it, if you are outside of Christ, you are in bondage.

I hope this helped.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

In conclusion, the promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations was fulfilled in Christ, and we through Christ; Abraham is our grand father. Those who choose to remain outside of Christ represent those in slavery and bondage to sins curse and requirements of the Law. But those who never knew the Law will, as Paul stated, be judged by what law they had to themselves. But no matter how you look at it, if you are outside of Christ, you are in bondage.

I hope this helped.

Joe
Hello brother Joe,
That was an excellent post! You stated it very well ! :congrats:


Concerning that point I colored blue, the Lord said to Abraham, "thou shalt be a father of many nations (Goyim/Gentiles)." That promise was LITERALLY fulfilled in that Abraham is the father of all who believe (Romans 4:16). The promise of the Gospel to the Gentiles has been in the Bible from the beginning, as it is written:
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (ethnos = gentiles/goyim) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
This is why Paul tells us that Abraham is the father of all who believe, Jews and Gentiles alike. Its actually contained in the words of the promise! Abraham, a father of many goyim!


Now given the magnitude of the dispensational errors, it is important to take this opportunity to note that they deny that verse when they assert that the Church was a "mystery" that was "completely unknown" to the OT prophets! Contrary to this error, we see that the Church composed of Jews and Gentiles was preached, at least implicitly, to Abraham in the Scriptures in Genesis. This was confirmed by Peter at Pentecost who declared that the newborn Church was the topic of all the prophets of God, as many as have spoken!
Acts 3:24-25 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Note the divine perfection of the Holy Word. Peter confirmed Paul by linking the birth of the Church at Pentecost to the same promise given to Abraham which Paul said contained the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Richard

[MHz]

This looks like the right thread to answer this question.



It sounds like you are talking about a return of ethnic Israel to their ancient homeland in the middle east. Do you think that was prophecied? If so, where? All of the prophecies I have reviewed either were fulfilled after the Babylonian exile, or in the first century, or in the Church. I do not know of any clear prophecies of a return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion. Do you?

Sure but it would take awhile. It there an open thread about this topic? I'm quite sure that the verses I reference for this is enough in number that 'it is not imposible'.
The idea was born from this verse,

Ro:11:26:
And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Vs:1-12 describes a resurrection from the grave, physically.
Eze:37:25:
And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant,
wherein your fathers have dwelt;
and they shall dwell therein,
even they,
and their children,
and their children's children for ever:
and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Eze:37:26:
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them;
it shall be an everlasting covenant with them:
and I will place them,
and multiply them,
and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Eze:37:27:
My tabernacle also shall be with them:
yea,
I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Eze:37:28:
And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel,
when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Vs:28 tells me that the way Israel is santified is by them being a whole house, everybody is there. This is done to show the heathen (the ones who will be left alive from all the Nations) that if you are called 'His people' you will come back from death. Comforting for those from the Nations because many of them have just died and many who were already dead will stay dead for the next 1000 years. That doesn't mean He won't ever 'correct you' if you need it. 70AD was not the 1st time Israel went into exile. Exile always had a end point before and it does this time also.

Nor has the events of Ezekiel 39 come to be past. The destruction of described is a reference to something mentioned in Re:19:21:. A great feast for the birds and the beasts of the field,

Eze:39:4:
Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel,
thou,
and all thy bands,
and the people that is with thee:
I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort,
and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.



The exile isn't over until Christ returns, with Power and Glory. One verse that pointed me towards literal over spiritual meanings for some passages is this one,
1Co:4:20:
For the kingdom of God is not in word,
but in power.

The difference being reading about an event that is described and being present to see that event unfold with your own eyes are two very different things.


The OT is rich with that very topic, The Messiah arriving that will bring , amongst other things, a resurrection from death back into a living body. That basically means that Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return.

Jer:31:8:
Behold,
I will bring them from the north country,
and gather them from the coasts of the earth,
and with them the blind and the lame,
the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together:
a great company shall return thither.
Jer:31:9:
They shall come with weeping,
and with supplications will I lead them:
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way,
wherein they shall not stumble:
for I am a father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jer:31:10:
Hear the word of the LORD,
O ye nations,
and declare it in the isles afar off,
and say,
He that scattered Israel will gather him,
and keep him,
as a shepherd doth his flock.
Jer:31:11:
For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob,
and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

One of the reasons for the resurrection of them all has nothing to do with the performance after being called His people

Eze:36:19-38

Eze:36:21:
But I had pity for mine holy name,
which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen,
whither they went.
Eze:36:22:
Therefore say unto the house of Israel,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
I do not this for your sakes,
O house of Israel,
but for mine holy name's sake,
which ye have profaned among the heathen,
whither ye went.
Eze:36:23:
And I will sanctify my great name,
which was profaned among the heathen,
which ye have profaned in the midst of them;
and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD,
saith the Lord GOD,
when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Eze:36:24:
For I will take you from among the heathen,
and gather you out of all countries,
and will bring you into your own land.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This looks like the right thread to answer this question.


It sounds like you are talking about a return of ethnic Israel to their ancient homeland in the middle east. Do you think that was prophecied? If so, where? All of the prophecies I have reviewed either were fulfilled after the Babylonian exile, or in the first century, or in the Church. I do not know of any clear prophecies of a return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion. Do you?

Sure but it would take awhile. It there an open thread about this topic?

I think this thread should be fine for now.


I'm quite sure that the verses I reference for this is enough in number that 'it is not imposible'.
Well, if those verses are not interpreted correctly, then they would not support your argument, and your conclusion may well be "impossible."


The idea was born from this verse,

Ro:11:26:
And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

That verse says nothing about a future "return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion." It is talking about the spiritual salvation that God promised through Abraham who is the spiritual father of all who believe as Paul explained earlier in the same letter (Rom 4:17).


Vs:1-12 describes a resurrection from the grave, physically.

While I agree that there could be a second application to physical resurrection, we know that the primary interpretation is figurative, because that's exactly what God told us:
Ezekiel 37:11-14 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
The "coming out of the graves" in this vision is a figure of speach that God explained to mean the return from exile, probably the Babylonian exile. And the part about the two sicks and the Spirit of God filling them speaks of Pentecost and the New Covenant. This is confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31 where God reveals the New Covenant that unites the two houses of Israel (and soon after the Gentiles).


Eze:37:25:
And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant,
wherein your fathers have dwelt;
and they shall dwell therein,
even they,
and their children,
and their children's children for ever:
and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
Eze:37:26:
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them;
it shall be an everlasting covenant with them:
and I will place them,
and multiply them,
and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Eze:37:27:
My tabernacle also shall be with them:
yea,
I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Eze:37:28:
And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel,
when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Vs:28 tells me that the way Israel is santified is by them being a whole house, everybody is there. This is done to show the heathen (the ones who will be left alive from all the Nations) that if you are called 'His people' you will come back from death. Comforting for those from the Nations because many of them have just died and many who were already dead will stay dead for the next 1000 years. That doesn't mean He won't ever 'correct you' if you need it. 70AD was not the 1st time Israel went into exile. Exile always had a end point before and it does this time also.
There are many questionable statements there. The most obvious is your introduction of the idea of "the next thousand years." There is nothing in the text that justifies that idea. This is the error of the futurist system. You need to establish these ideas from the Bible, you can't just stick them in there as if they were "obvious" because they are nothing like obvious at all.

As for the "heathen" that you mention - the "heathen" is a Biblical word for Gentitles, and believing Gentiles are now called His People just like believing Jews.


But the biggest error is your application of God's promise "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" to carnal Israel. Paul explicitly stated that promise was fulfilled in the Church - the Body of All Believers whether Jew of Gentile:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye [Christians] are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

This is confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31-33 (just like with Ezek 37 above):
Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This covenant was fulfilled in the Church! God wrote His Law on our hearts:
2 Corinthians 3:2-3 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
This is the glory of the True Biblical Doctrines. Everything confirms everything else, and all of it is centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!


Nor has the events of Ezekiel 39 come to be past. The destruction of described is a reference to something mentioned in Re:19:21:. A great feast for the birds and the beasts of the field,

Eze:39:4:
Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel,
thou,
and all thy bands,
and the people that is with thee:
I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort,
and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

The war of Gog and Magog is a problem for all interpretations. The futurist has the problem that it happens after the Millennium in Rev 20 but before the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40.

The big point is this - it is a huge error to lay your foundation for futurism on verses that are not clear, especially if your interpretation contradicts the verses that are very clear.

Here is what I am looking for Wayne - the BIBLICAL FOUNDATION of the futurist intepretation. It needs to fit with the primary proclamation of the whole Bible, and it needs to be built on verses that are not obscure or ambiguous.


The OT is rich with that very topic, The Messiah arriving that will bring , amongst other things, a resurrection from death back into a living body.
I'm not denying a future physical resurrection. But the verses you have quoted are not speaking directly of that event (though there could be some secondary applications).


That basically means that Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return.

Jer:31:8:
Behold,
I will bring them from the north country,
and gather them from the coasts of the earth,
and with them the blind and the lame,
the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together:
a great company shall return thither.
Jer:31:9:
They shall come with weeping,
and with supplications will I lead them:
I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way,
wherein they shall not stumble:
for I am a father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jer:31:10:
Hear the word of the LORD,
O ye nations,
and declare it in the isles afar off,
and say,
He that scattered Israel will gather him,
and keep him,
as a shepherd doth his flock.
Jer:31:11:
For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob,
and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

Thoses verses from Jeremiah do not say that "Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return." And for that matter, those verses do not say anything about the "Second Coming of Christ" of even if they are still future. And indeed, we know they are not still future because the verses that follow were fulfilled in the first century in the New Covenant (Jer 31.31).


One of the reasons for the resurrection of them all has nothing to do with the performance after being called His people.


Eze:36:19-38

Eze:36:21:
But I had pity for mine holy name,
which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen,
whither they went.
Eze:36:22:
Therefore say unto the house of Israel,
Thus saith the Lord GOD;
I do not this for your sakes,
O house of Israel,
but for mine holy name's sake,
which ye have profaned among the heathen,
whither ye went.
Eze:36:23:
And I will sanctify my great name,
which was profaned among the heathen,
which ye have profaned in the midst of them;
and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD,
saith the Lord GOD,
when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.
Eze:36:24:
For I will take you from among the heathen,
and gather you out of all countries,
and will bring you into your own land.
Everyone will be resurrected AFTER the "thousand years" of Rev 20. Where do you get the idea that all Israel will be resurrected before then?

One request: When citing Scripture, could you format it so it does not take up so much vertical space? It makes reading and responding to your posts more difficult than necessary.

Thanks for the good conversation!

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,


That verse says nothing about a future "return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion." It is talking about the spiritual salvation that God promised through Abraham who is the spiritual father of all who believe as Paul explained earlier in the same letter (Rom 4:17).

Although I usually prefer to post a verse to a question (in that it is God's opinion on any certain matter) sometimes a question from a carnal mid has it's place. In one post it was mentioned that (one of) the sins of Israel was that they killed Jesus, their Messiah. If the temple leaders knew all that His disciples knew would they have killed Him? Prophecy said He would die, plain and simple. It seems you are condemning them because they did just what prophecy said would happen. God does not condemn somebody if things have been hidden. That doesn't mean they weren't doing things that would have gotten them into exile (again).




While I agree that there could be a second application to physical resurrection, we know that the primary interpretation is figurative, because that's exactly what God told us:
Ezekiel 37:11-14 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.
The "coming out of the graves" in this vision is a figure of speach that God explained to mean the return from exile, probably the Babylonian exile. And the part about the two sicks and the Spirit of God filling them speaks of Pentecost and the New Covenant. This is confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31 where God reveals the New Covenant that unites the two houses of Israel (and soon after the Gentiles).
What part of coming out of the grave is escaping you? Seriously, they had a text from before that had one person come back from being dead. All of a sudden the text refers to something completely different than coming back to life from the common enemy of all men, death. What verse between these two allow for that to happen?



There are many questionable statements there. The most obvious is your introduction of the idea of "the next thousand years." There is nothing in the text that justifies that idea. This is the error of the futurist system. You need to establish these ideas from the Bible, you can't just stick them in there as if they were "obvious" because they are nothing like obvious at all.
So would you like to 'take away' the thousand years, read the last part of Re:22 before you decide. The 1000 years is mentioned, just because you can't find it in 10 or more places you reject that verse, not a good idea. If it is 'alluded to in other texts' especially the OT why not just accept that enen though they were given 'a time' you know the length of that timer because you have had privy to Revelation and they did not?



As for the "heathen" that you mention - the "heathen" is a Biblical word for Gentitles, and believing Gentiles are now called His People just like believing Jews.

Isles also refers to Gentiles, OT prophecy states that the Isles would also be gathered, one even says it is a small thing that they are include, meaning that if some will be gathered, more is not a big issue.



But the biggest error is your application of God's promise "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" to carnal Israel. Paul explicitly stated that promise was fulfilled in the Church - the Body of All Believers whether Jew of Gentile:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye [Christians] are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
This cannot be Gentiles, it is Israel.
Eze:36:28: And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Israel,
Ho:2:15: And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt.
Ho:2:16: And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Ho:2:17: For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.

Gentiles, Jews being the first mentioned.,

Ho:2:23: And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.



[QUOTE=RAM;3775]
This is confirmed in Jeremiah 31:31-33 (just like with Ezek 37 above):
Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Why would that occur right when they are losing their temple and their city? It was the beginning of the time that God turns His back to them. Like any 'good parent' that is for a set time, nor will He repent that time.



This covenant was fulfilled in the Church! God wrote His Law on our hearts:
2 Corinthians 3:2-3 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

If a Christian ever need to repent anything (and really, who would be exempt from this) then Law is not yet written in their hearts. Written in means you will not sin, and you better take that to heart (no pun intended) because if you sin after Judgment Day there is no forgiveness once you are born with the second spirit. Just as there was none available to any fallen angel.
Do you still want to elate yourself to the equality of the Apostles that they had with God. I would believe there is some sort of gap between the people who are reading and writing Scripture. I am a listener to what the prophets have already said. Many OT prophets may not have understood what they were compelled to write, the Apostles probably would have understood just about everything (but still not be entirely sure why they wrote it down the way they did) being that mystery is part of Scripture upto a certain point.



This is the glory of the True Biblical Doctrines. Everything confirms everything else, and all of it is centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
NP problem there bro. Can it be determined if Revelation was the book that was 'unsealed' when it was sealed in Daniel's time? Re could 'fill in the gaps left out in Daniel, sealed until the end (of giving anymore information)
The war of Gog and Magog is a problem for all interpretations. The futurist has the problem that it happens after the Millennium in Rev 20 but before the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel 40.



The big point is this - it is a huge error to lay your foundation for futurism on verses that are not clear, especially if your interpretation contradicts the verses that are very clear.
Clarity only comes after reading all the verses that deal with one event. All those little numbers we use are there because it is a book that does not contain all the info on any subject in one single place.




Here is what I am looking for Wayne - the BIBLICAL FOUNDATION of the futurist intepretation. It needs to fit with the primary proclamation of the whole Bible, and it needs to be built on verses that are not obscure or ambiguous.
Okay, right to the basics.
Lu:3:6: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
1Co:15:39: All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

There that wasn't so hard was it?



I'm not denying a future physical resurrection. But the verses you have quoted are not speaking directly of that event (though there could be some secondary applications).
If they are a sentence in a paragraph by the time the paragraph is finished more things are known than at the end of the fist sentence.



Thoses verses from Jeremiah do not say that "Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return." And for that matter, those verses do not say anything about the "Second Coming of Christ" of even if they are still future. And indeed, we know they are not still future because the verses that follow were fulfilled in the first century in the New Covenant (Jer 31.31).

Actually it does say that, those who are redeemed from the grave from the house of Jacob. 1/2. How far back does that house go. It can further be confirmed by Jeremiah in that the slaughter of the innocents will be undone when Israel is gathered into one house that has everybody belonging to it being alive. Less than whole is a remnant.



Everyone will be resurrected AFTER the "thousand years" of Rev 20. Where do you get the idea that all Israel will be resurrected before then?
Without them who would be 'hosting' the yearly feast?


One request: When citing Scripture, could you format it so it does not take up so much vertical space? It makes reading and responding to your posts more difficult than necessary.

Nope sorry no can do. Any idea how long it took me to that pif? :eek:

I have found it useful at times to post that way if I want to call attention to one particular stanza. Actually there is no pif, so it will save me quite some time in replies

Wayne

[gilgal]

What did Jesus say to the unbelieving Israel?

Matthew 21:43
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo there my friend! :yo:


Hi Richard,


That verse says nothing about a future "return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion." It is talking about the spiritual salvation that God promised through Abraham who is the spiritual father of all who believe as Paul explained earlier in the same letter (Rom 4:17).

Although I usually prefer to post a verse to a question (in that it is God's opinion on any certain matter) sometimes a question from a carnal mid has it's place. In one post it was mentioned that (one of) the sins of Israel was that they killed Jesus, their Messiah. If the temple leaders knew all that His disciples knew would they have killed Him? Prophecy said He would die, plain and simple. It seems you are condemning them because they did just what prophecy said would happen. God does not condemn somebody if things have been hidden. That doesn't mean they weren't doing things that would have gotten them into exile (again).

As far as I know, I have never "condemned" the Jews for any of their sins. And for that matter, the phrase "the Jews" is poorly used in most conversations dealing with the carnal children of Abraham. The Bible teaches that not all "Jews" are truly "Jews" and not all that are called "Israel" are truly "of Israel." That is the Bible teaching. It has nothing to do with any offence or sin committed. It is based on who has faith and who does not. The unbelieving carnal children of Abraham were cut off from the Olive Tree, and believing Gentiles grafted in. The Olive Tree represents the People of God, the Church. God has no other "people" - you are either in the Olive Tree through Faith in Christ, or you are "cast forth as a branch and withered." (John 15:6)

As for God judging people for sins He knew they would commit - that is a necessary conclusion if you believe that God's knows the future, correct? Unless, of course, you say that God does not judge anyone for any of their sins. But that certainly is another conversation.

You did not answer my observation that the "verse says nothing about a future "return to the land of Israel to be fulfilled after the 70 AD dispersion." It is talking about the spiritual salvation that God promised through Abraham who is the spiritual father of all who believe as Paul explained earlier in the same letter (Rom 4:17)." Do you agree with this? If not, why not?


What part of coming out of the grave is escaping you? Seriously, they had a text from before that had one person come back from being dead. All of a sudden the text refers to something completely different than coming back to life from the common enemy of all men, death. What verse between these two allow for that to happen?


I don't see anything that is "escaping" me. I addressed the issue of the literal interpretation of the resurrection as a possible secondary application of those verses. But their primary application was defined by God in the text itself when He explained that he was talking about bringing them back to the land of Israel. Here is the quote:
Ezekiel 37:11-14 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. See that bright blue? That happend at Pentecost when God gathered over a million Jews together in Jerusalem and poured His Spirit out on the Church who then preached the Gospel to their Jewish brethren. It was then that God gave us NEW LIFE which is the true resurrection. Sure, there will be a future resurrection just before the Final Judgment, but that's not what this passage is talking about. Its a prophecy of Pentecost - which is, unlike the futurist theory of the Millennium, part of the primary Gospel message of the whole Bible.


So would you like to 'take away' the thousand years, read the last part of Re:22 before you decide.
I have not "taken away" the thousand years. I just don't go around sticking them into other verses without justification.


The 1000 years is mentioned, just because you can't find it in 10 or more places you reject that verse, not a good idea.
I do not "reject that verse." I seek to understand it as God intended.


If it is 'alluded to in other texts' especially the OT why not just accept that enen though they were given 'a time' you know the length of that timer because you have had privy to Revelation and they did not?

As mentioned in my last post. The "consistent literal interpretation" will not allow me to pretend a tiny little blink of time like a thousand years could be a valid interpretation of the verses that say the kingdom will last forever.


Isles also refers to Gentiles, OT prophecy states that the Isles would also be gathered, one even says it is a small thing that they are include, meaning that if some will be gathered, more is not a big issue.



But the biggest error is your application of God's promise "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" to carnal Israel. Paul explicitly stated that promise was fulfilled in the Church - the Body of All Believers whether Jew of Gentile:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye [Christians] are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
This cannot be Gentiles, it is Israel.

Eze:36:28: And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

"This cannot be Gentiles, it is Israel." What??? :confused: Are you saying that Paul's letter to the Corinthians does not apply to Gentile Christians? I have no idea what you are talking about.





Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Why would that occur right when they are losing their temple and their city? It was the beginning of the time that God turns His back to them. Like any 'good parent' that is for a set time, nor will He repent that time.

Your ideas about Israel seem very confused to me. You seem to think that God is interested in the carnal children of Abraham. Well, we know that is false because Paul explicitly declared that the carnal children of Israel are not the children of God. (Rom 9:8). So as a "good parent" God tended His children, which includes everyone who believes in His Son Jesus Christ.

You asked - "Why would that occur right when they are losing their temple and their city?" - the answer is simple. Because God said it would! Daniel 9:26-27 and the Olivet Discourse both said the Temple would be destroyed in the first century. Christ said it was because of their sin in rejecting God. And as Christians we understand it was becasue the end of the Jewish age had come because the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled all the Law.

Again, the answers are all Christ-centered, Gospel-centered and Bible-centered. They most definitely are NOT centered on the some speculative future of carnal unbelieving children of Abraham that is not even prophesied in the Bible!


If a Christian ever need to repent anything (and really, who would be exempt from this) then Law is not yet written in their hearts. Written in means you will not sin, and you better take that to heart (no pun intended) because if you sin after Judgment Day there is no forgiveness once you are born with the second spirit. Just as there was none available to any fallen angel.


Then how do you understand this:
1 John 3:8-10 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. Are you saying that there are no Christians that are born of God?


Do you still want to elate yourself to the equality of the Apostles that they had with God. I would believe there is some sort of gap between the people who are reading and writing Scripture.

I don't know what you mean. How am I "elevating" myself to the level of the Apostles? If I've ever done anything to suggest that, I repent right now! I'm just a fallable guy like you and everyone else in this forum.


I am a listener to what the prophets have already said. Many OT prophets may not have understood what they were compelled to write, the Apostles probably would have understood just about everything (but still not be entirely sure why they wrote it down the way they did) being that mystery is part of Scripture upto a certain point.

There is much in the Bible that I do not understand either. I'm sure you knew that. :D




This is the glory of the True Biblical Doctrines. Everything confirms everything else, and all of it is centered on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

NP problem there bro. Can it be determined if Revelation was the book that was 'unsealed' when it was sealed in Daniel's time? Re could 'fill in the gaps left out in Daniel, sealed until the end (of giving anymore information)

Yeah, there are many possibilities sealed up. But who cares? We need to lay the foundation before we build the house. And my contention is that the futurist paradigm with the rebuilt temple, rapture, antichrist, etc, is all wrong, and can not be supported from a careful study of God's Word.

So before going off into "sealed" and "unsealed" books, we need to dig down deep to the rocksolid foudnation of the Biblical truth. The key is this: our Eschatology must be fully integrated with our Soteriology and our Ecclesiology.




The big point is this - it is a huge error to lay your foundation for futurism on verses that are not clear, especially if your interpretation contradicts the verses that are very clear.

Clarity only comes after reading all the verses that deal with one event. All those little numbers we use are there because it is a book that does not contain all the info on any subject in one single place.
I disagree. The main things are the plain things. We start with a proper understanding of the Gospel (Soteriology). From that, we see that the Church is the Olive Tree and the Olive Tree contains all believers, and that God never made any promises to the carnal children of Abraham. All the promises were to the seed of promise defined as those who believe in Christ. That's the proper Ecclesiology.

The Jew's God YHVH ELOHIM came to them in the flesh in Jesus Christ. All the faithful remnant of Israel believed in Him and became Christians. He called the unbelieving Jews "children of the Devil" and they killed him. The rest were hardened so they could remain until the time of judgment that came down on them in 70 AD just like it did on Pharoah in Exodus.

The whole Bible story makes perfect sense when we get our Soteriology and our Ecclesiology clear. Then we will see that our Eschatology fits perfectly with the whole Bible, and we will know God's truth.




Here is what I am looking for Wayne - the BIBLICAL FOUNDATION of the futurist intepretation. It needs to fit with the primary proclamation of the whole Bible, and it needs to be built on verses that are not obscure or ambiguous.

Okay, right to the basics.
Lu:3:6: And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
1Co:15:39: All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

There that wasn't so hard was it?

I presume that was inended as a joke, right? :hide:





Thoses verses from Jeremiah do not say that "Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return." And for that matter, those verses do not say anything about the "Second Coming of Christ" of even if they are still future. And indeed, we know they are not still future because the verses that follow were fulfilled in the first century in the New Covenant (Jer 31.31).

Actually it does say that, those who are redeemed from the grave from the house of Jacob. 1/2. How far back does that house go. It can further be confirmed by Jeremiah in that the slaughter of the innocents will be undone when Israel is gathered into one house that has everybody belonging to it being alive. Less than whole is a remnant.

I believe that kind of extreme literalism will lead to logical absurdities and I believe it would be rather easy to demonstrate, but I'm not sure its worth my time because I don't think you would accept my demonstration regardless of its validity. You are free to believe whatever you want about how to interpret the Bible.


Without them who would be 'hosting' the yearly feast?

What feast?



Nope sorry no can do. Any idea how long it took me to that pif? :eek:

I have found it useful at times to post that way if I want to call attention to one particular stanza. Actually there is no pif, so it will save me quite some time in replies

Wayne
I understand. It was just a suggestion.

Good chatting Wayne,

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,


I presume that was inended as a joke, right? :hide:


I understand. It was just a suggestion.


Yes it was a joke, so was the 2nd item, you will notice Scripture in my posts in now in long sentence format.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Yes it was a joke, so was the 2nd item, you will notice Scripture in my posts in now in long sentence format.
Very good! Thanks for lightening things up. Maybe we'll eventually get to a point where we'll actually laugh at the appropriate time and won't have to ask if it was meant as a joke! :lol:

God bless!

Richard

[MHz]

Very good! Thanks for lightening things up. Maybe we'll eventually get to a point where we'll actually laugh at the appropriate time and won't have to ask if it was meant as a joke! :lol:

God bless!

Richard

For a Christian who has the body as a temple it didn't take you long to look for protection in a house of sticks and such. LOL

As much fun as emoticons are there is a time the conversation isn't enhansed by them. So if they don't come up that doesn't mean things are way serious, just past their level in being serious. I would rather read a verse than look upon even 1 emoticon.

[basilfo]

I have enjoyed reading this thread Richard and Wayne. One thing you said Wayne jumped off the page and I would like you to explain it if you would. You said:


MHz said: The OT is rich with that very topic, The Messiah arriving that will bring , amongst other things, a resurrection from death back into a living body. That basically means that Israel will have everybody who ever lived as a member of any of those tribes being alive on the 1st day of His return.

Are you saying that every true decendent of 'any of those tribes' will be resurrected at the SC - I assume to be saved?? Is this what you interpret 'So all Israel will be saved.' as meaning? Please elaborate on your statement if you would. Thanks Wayne.

This is important IMO, because I have heard many futurists teach that Rom 11:26 means that all 'Jews' alive at the time of the SC will FINALLY accept Christ when they see Him return. That always made me wonder about the other 99.99% of the Jews who died rejecting Christ over the centuries prior to the future SC. Can salvation be a function of 'lucky' timing of what century you were born in??

Even worse, I think this means that if you die rejecting Christ and your mom's last name happened to be O'Rielly, YOU'RE BEAT!! But if you die rejecting Christ and your mom's last name happened to be Goldstein, YOU'RE SAVED!!!! Yikes!!:confused2:

That flows contrary to everything taught under the New Covenant. In the spirit of lightening it up - perhaps a bumper sticker for the NC should be (and I'm not directing this at all at you Wayne)...."It's the faith, stupid...Not the bloodline." Didn't John the Baptist hammer that home to the scribes and Pharisees when he told them:

Matt 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as [our] father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

When Paul said, "And so all Israel will be saved." his statement followed a long explanation of which branches are part of the Olive tree, and what branches are trimmed off. Being part of the Olive tree has nothing to do with whether the branch was natural or grafted in (heritage). Both kinds can stay on and both kinds can be trimmed off in the NC.

11:20 "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith." 'Unbelief/faith is the deciding factor, not Jew/Gentile according to Scripture. So any view that suggests a salvation advantage to heritage must be rejected.

Peace to you all,
Dave

[TheForgiven]

:clap2:


When Paul said, "And so all Israel will be saved." his statement followed a long explanation of which branches are part of the Olive tree, and what branches are trimmed off. Being part of the Olive tree has nothing to do with whether the branch was natural or grafted in (heritage). Both kinds can stay on and both kinds can be trimmed off in the NC.

11:20 "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith." 'Unbelief/faith is the deciding factor, not Jew/Gentile according to Scripture. So any view that suggests a salvation advantage to heritage must be rejected.

Peace to you all,
Dave

That is excellant brother Dave. As we all know, Israel was not destroyed as some people think. Israel was "delivered" or "saved" by Paul's explanation. For he says, "In this way, All Israel will be saved....." In what way? By the rebuilding of the Olive tree......bad branches broken off, good branches grafted in. Now when I say "good branches grafted in...." I'm not implying Gentiles only. For as Dave stated, whether you are a Fleshly Jew or a Gentile Jew, if you are Christ's, then you are a branch grafted in to the Tree of Life......

Oh, in case everyone wondered, I believe the "Tree of Life" if the family Tree of Christ, or the Church.

So Israel was saved in the manner Paul explains.

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Dave,


Are you saying that every true decendent of 'any of those tribes' will be resurrected at the SC - I assume to be saved?? Is this what you interpret 'So all Israel will be saved.' as meaning? Please elaborate on your statement if you would. Thanks Wayne.
Along with some other verses it would seem to mean just that.



This is important IMO, because I have heard many futurists teach that Rom 11:26 means that all 'Jews' alive at the time of the SC will FINALLY accept Christ when they see Him return. That always made me wonder about the other 99.99% of the Jews who died rejecting Christ over the centuries prior to the future SC. Can salvation be a function of 'lucky' timing of what century you were born in??

Scripture would seem to indicate that the only Jews alive at the SC will be the 144,000. That might even be the reason they are sealed at that time.

I would have to admit when God turns His back to you, your chances of surviving the trib would not be increased. That protection is not there in whole because of the way they are acting at that time but 'being blind' doesn't mean they are doing things Christ would approve of either. If Ezekiel:39 is in linear time there are a few things that happen before He turns His face towards them again, but the key verse are these,

Eze:39:23: And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so fell they all by the sword.
Eze:39:24: According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.
Eze:39:25: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Now will I bring again the captivity of Jacob, and have mercy upon the whole house of Israel, and will be jealous for my holy name;
Eze:39:26: After that they have borne their shame, and all their trespasses whereby they have trespassed against me, when they dwelt safely in their land, and none made them afraid.
Eze:39:27: When I have brought them again from the people, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations;
Eze:39:28: Then shall they know that I am the LORD their God, which cause them to be led into captivity among the heathen: but I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them any more there.
Eze:39:29: Neither will I hide my face any more from them: for I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.

Vs:27 gives them being in the 'enemies' lands' but it also says 'from the people' so you have to find out if those are one place or two. There is another passage in another book that covers them being gathered. That passage covers the slaughter of the innocents and they are said to return from the land of the enemy, for them that could only mean the grave as they died in their lands.

M't:2:16: Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
M't:2:17: Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
M't:2:18: In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

Jer:31:15: Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jer:31:16: Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
Jer:31:17: And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

The house of Jacob would seem to include people back to when that house was first established.



Even worse, I think this means that if you die rejecting Christ and your mom's last name happened to be O'Rielly, YOU'RE BEAT!! But if you die rejecting Christ and your mom's last name happened to be Goldstein, YOU'RE SAVED!!!! Yikes!!:confused2:

If a person dies without ever knowing Christ that is not rejection. If a person knows Christ (believing the Bible is a truthful book) and then they reject that before they die they could have different fates. This set of verses would indicate that the ones who were not are not punished as severly,

Lu:12:47: And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Lu:12:48: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Say you are one that is not from the 144,000 and you are dead at the SC. What do you think happens? If the whole house is standing then mercy has included everybody. If a person belongs to that big pile of bones and they go through those first 12 of Eze:37 do you think they would accrpt Christ as Lord?
Just after the 40 years in the desert Israel was taken to their promised land, many other people lost thier lives because they happened to be living there. True, they didn't believe in Israel's God, but that is not the reason they were killed, in most instances it was to show the children of Israel that their could could and would fight for them and that He would win every single time. That was to increase their faith.
There are numerous references in other books that say they end up being with God for eternity. Since they were put into exile in 70AD there has to be a regathering, the branches in Roman verses also say that even if they have been broken off they can be rejoined (through believing in Christ). This couldn't be talking about any other exile than the one in 70AD, the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles only once.

Just what kind of sign would this send to the Nations? The first one that pops into my head is that when God calls you 'His people' if you are punished there is also a time that the punishment comes to an end.
Now put yourself in the place of being a Gentile at the SC. You are part of a people that is well short of the total number of Gentiles that have ever lived. That part would not change if it was only the living at the SC (and I favoer this as being who see those bones come alive) or if it included those from the Nations that are in need of resurrection. Ephraim is said to be the 1st born, Israel as a whole people, the 144,000 are called the firstfruits. They were gathered 3 1/2 years before anybody comes out of the grave.

Anyway, there you are, a Gentile, looking at the whole house alive, and you can't help but notice you do not see some of your 'relatives' there. Would you take comfort in knowing that you will see the ones that are missing again? They are resurrected at Judgment Day.

Since Hebrews 12 covers that event, you know it is chastisement and there is an opportunity to still 'be there' after the chastisement.




That flows contrary to everything taught under the New Covenant. In the spirit of lightening it up - perhaps a bumper sticker for the NC should be (and I'm not directing this at all at you Wayne)...."It's the faith, stupid...Not the bloodline." Didn't John the Baptist hammer that home to the scribes and Pharisees when he told them:

Matt 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as [our] father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Israel being put into exile pretty much excluded them from God's promise to Abraham. Abraham's children also includes Nations,
Ge:17:5: Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.


M't:3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
M't:3:12: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Right now the wheat would be the Church and the chaff would be non-believers.
When the time of the Gentiles has passed there are two people, Israel has God facing them again and His anger towards them is past and there are believing Gentiles, the chaff would still be non-believing Gentiles. There are sent to a place of unquenchable fire, hell (the lake is an eternal fire) and Scripture only says 3 will be in the lake before Judgment Day, the False Prophet, the Beast from the Pit, and Satan.

There are only 12 verses in the OT that has the word 'chaff' in it. Most of them also refer to a time that there is a 'general house cleaning'. Does reading those passages give more info on who is the chaff? If that is the SC coming then all of Israel that is to die are already dead.



When Paul said, "And so all Israel will be saved." his statement followed a long explanation of which branches are part of the Olive tree, and what branches are trimmed off. Being part of the Olive tree has nothing to do with whether the branch was natural or grafted in (heritage). Both kinds can stay on and both kinds can be trimmed off in the NC.

11:20 "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith." 'Unbelief/faith is the deciding factor, not Jew/Gentile according to Scripture. So any view that suggests a salvation advantage to heritage must be rejected.


The would also seem do define what blindness is, not believing.

Now the OT has many verses about 'my people', Ezekiel has many verses and it certainly covers the SC in some detail. Do any of those verses point to a time around His SC that indicated that they are still called 'my people'.

Eze:14:11: That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze:39:7: So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

There is more but I hope this is enough to explain it in part.

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by basilfo
Are you saying that every true decendent of 'any of those tribes' will be resurrected at the SC - I assume to be saved?? Is this what you interpret 'So all Israel will be saved.' as meaning? Please elaborate on your statement if you would. Thanks Wayne.
Along with some other verses it would seem to mean just that.

I'll let Dave reply to your posts brother MHz. However, this one I must reject. This implies that salvation by Christ is dependant upon blood types and races. But that is not true.

For in Christ, there is neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, rich or poor, slave or free......and so forth. Also, as Paul stated:


Ephesians 2
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity

What is Paul saying? One body was built by the joining of all those who are saved. At one time, Gentiles were excluded from the promises of God. But in Christ, by His Grace, were they brouth into the body of Christ.

And salvation is by Grace, not by flesh.

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Joe,

This implies that salvation by Christ is dependant upon blood types and races. But that is not true.

Salvation isn't based on that, but promises by God to Israel are not discarded either. Jesus did bring the Gospel to the Jews first. More than once He called them 'my people'. The text in the OT that say those things would hold up if somebody wasn't trying to make those spiritual passages alone. If God wasn't going to redeem them if they fell then He would have never let them fall, but He has in the past and when a certain time was over they were regathered. One of the points that has been made to some not being gathered is that they physically die before they have accepted Him. Taking these verses at face value the grave does not mean the Gospel won't be preached to them so they can be judged the same as the living.

1Pe:4:5: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.
1Pe:4:6: For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This implies that salvation by Christ is dependant upon blood types and races. But that is not true.
Salvation isn't based on that, but promises by God to Israel are not discarded either.
I agree with Joe. It is an error to assume that God made promises to the carnal children of Abraham. God gave promises only to the "children of Promise" - the others are explicitly declared to be children of the flesh and "not the children of God" (Rom 9.8). Scipture identifies the children of promise as Christians, whether Jew or Gentile.


Jesus did bring the Gospel to the Jews first. More than once He called them 'my people'.

The Jews have no special claim as "God's people." Even before Jesus went to the Cross, he made it clear what it meant to be one of His people:
Mark 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

And what did John say about the carnal children of Abraham?
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And what did Jesus say to some of the direct blood descendents of Abraham's flesh?
John 8:39-45 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
The "Jews" have no special claim to being "God's people."


The text in the OT that say those things would hold up if somebody wasn't trying to make those spiritual passages alone. If God wasn't going to redeem them if they fell then He would have never let them fall, but He has in the past and when a certain time was over they were regathered.

God said he would destroy the unbelieving Jews just as He destroyed their unbelieiving forefathers in the wildreness. Only TWO came out alive! That was not much of remnant. He is to be praised for saving a much larger remnant of Israel in the first century.

Richard

[MHz]

Hi Richard,

I agree with Joe. It is an error to assume that God made promises to the carnal children of Abraham. God gave promises only to the "children of Promise" - the others are explicitly declared to be children of the flesh and "not the children of God" (Rom 9.8). Scipture identifies the children of promise as Christians, whether Jew or Gentile.
Abraham is father to not just the 12 tribes, some of his children went out and became Nations. Now if you talk about the house of Jacob, that is not the whole house of Abraham, it is just descendants of Jacob, promises made to Jacob are just for them. Is the whole house of Jacob just those mentioned by name in Scripture or does it include all the un-named children as well?
Ge:17:5 & Ge:46:27:
Jacob would be included with Joseph in Eze:37. The land given to Jacob is where all those people will live, for ever more,
Eze:28:25: Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.



The Jews have no special claim as "God's people." Even before Jesus went to the Cross, he made it clear what it meant to be one of His people:
Mark 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
It isn't a matter of them claiming it, it becomes a matter when God says they are.
Was that 'from that day forward'?



And what did John say about the carnal children of Abraham?
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Israel experienced exile (like with Neb) because of errors the 'ones in control' were making. It wasn't just them that put into exile, they were treated as 'as group of people' When the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles that 'tree was cut to the ground' and we are now judged as individuals.

Who is Grace and Mercy intended for if not the carnal?



And what did Jesus say to some of the direct blood descendents of Abraham's flesh?
John 8:39-45 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
The "Jews" have no special claim to being "God's people."
I'm not going to defend them as being other than what Jesus said they were. The way OT prophecy was given (looking just at the ones fulfilled in Jesus) how could it have been any different? If you say these actual people are cursed forever then how is the verses that say all men will have an opportunity to join with Christ. It would seem that some are not given a chance, just because of what is written.
Here is an event that seems to include a large number of people,
Zec:13:8: And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

2/3 are without hope because it has already been determined (when this prophecy was given) that they will not be brought through the fire. What defines (beheaded)for the word of God (Re:20:4). Does it include those lives that God determined that would be taken when Israel first came into their promised land? More than once people died in large numbers that was, for the most part, a sign to Israel that God will win every time. The heathen are the lost sheep of God, still His but not yet gathered.

The 2/3 above would belong to 'the rest',



God said he would destroy the unbelieving Jews just as He destroyed their unbelieiving forefathers in the wildreness. Only TWO came out alive! That was not much of remnant. He is to be praised for saving a much larger remnant of Israel in the first century.

And think how they will praise Him when all the children of Joseph and Israel are all together in one place at one time.

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Salvation isn't based on that, but promises by God to Israel are not discarded either.

I think what you mean to say is that the children of the flesh are not exempt from the promises of God. Paul explains the truth about Israel, that it is not a matter of fleshly descent, but of spiritual adoption as sons....the children of promise. Jesus Christ is the promise to those who believe.

Flesh has absolutely little to do with receiving the promise. Furthermore, you are still defining Israel in accordance to the flesh. Israel is not based on flesh, but on promise.


Galatians 6:
6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
Glory Only in the Cross

11 See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand! 12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom[a] the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Case in point. Live and define yourself by the flesh, then from the flesh shall reap corruption. This is context with thinking Jewish (of the flesh of course, not the Spirit). Certain Jews (of the flesh) were in the Church of Galatia trying to stir up trouble, saying that the Gentiles had to be circumcised, according to Jewish Law. Paul rebukes them for this belief, and He rebuked Peter to his face for imposing a yoke they didn't like. Salvation in Christ is by grace, and not by works of the flesh.

He then says that those who think and believe as we do are blessed upon the Israel of God. See the difference? There's Israel of the flesh, and there's Israel of God.....two MASSIVE differences.

Therefore, Israel of the flesh are not discarded from accepting the promises, but it must be done with the understanding of grace. The Israel of the flesh was destroyed in the first century, giving way to the Israel of God. The Israel you search for, MHz, no longer exists. The blood lines have been tainted and blended with that of the Gentiles. The 12 Tribes no longer exist, but through the foundation of their history, as indicated by the New Jerusalem gates and walls; in short, the 12 Tribes are the historical foundation of the New Jerusalem. All others are the wonderful stones and Jewels built on to the fathers. What you seek no longer exists, and cannot exists, and lastly, has no purpose.

The Israel of God is the Israel of promise.....flesh only reaps flesh, but Spirit gives birth to the spirit.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Abraham is father to not just the 12 tribes, some of his children went out and became Nations. Now if you talk about the house of Jacob, that is not the whole house of Abraham, it is just descendants of Jacob, promises made to Jacob are just for them. Is the whole house of Jacob just those mentioned by name in Scripture or does it include all the un-named children as well?
Ge:17:5 & Ge:46:27:
Jacob would be included with Joseph in Eze:37. The land given to Jacob is where all those people will live, for ever more,
Eze:28:25: Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.

Hey Wayne,

I don't see how any of that is relevent, since God defined the ultimate meaning of the Chilren of Promise as all who beleive in Jesus Christ. There are no promises outside of Christ. He is the purpose and fulfillment of all Scripture. This is why it is such a grave error to run after fleshly Israel as if they were the "people of God" - it leads to a denial of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ, and ultimatey a denial of the Gospel itself.




The Jews have no special claim as "God's people." Even before Jesus went to the Cross, he made it clear what it meant to be one of His people:
Mark 3:31-35 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
It isn't a matter of them claiming it, it becomes a matter when God says they are.
And God says they are not. He is emphatic that they are not. He explicitly declares that they are not: "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" ( Romans 9:8).




And what did John say about the carnal children of Abraham?
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Israel experienced exile (like with Neb) because of errors the 'ones in control' were making. It wasn't just them that put into exile, they were treated as 'as group of people' When the Gospel was taken to the Gentiles that 'tree was cut to the ground' and we are now judged as individuals.
Yes, the "tree" of national Israel was cut down. And individual Jews who did not believe were cut off branches. The believers were the founding members of the Christian Church, the True Israel, which continues to this day.


Who is Grace and Mercy intended for if not the carnal?

You seem to have missed the point. The Bible contrasts the children of the Promise with the children of the flesh. The former gets the mercy and grace.



God said he would destroy the unbelieving Jews just as He destroyed their unbelieiving forefathers in the wildreness. Only TWO came out alive! That was not much of remnant. He is to be praised for saving a much larger remnant of Israel in the first century.
And think how they will praise Him when all the children of Joseph and Israel are all together in one place at one time.

Wayne
Are you saying that the rebellious unbelievers that God slew in the wildreness are going to be resurrected and that they then will believe? That seems to be a somewhat tenuous extrapolation from the biblical data, if you know what I mean.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

And think how they will praise Him when all the children of Joseph and Israel are all together in one place at one time.

Wayne

Wow! Then who are we?

[MHz]

Wow! Then who are we?
We are still called the Nations. It is we that will be coming to Israel once a year for the feast of the tabernacles.(Does that seem to be a let-down?)
It is the missing children of the Gentiles who will be offered a drink by God himself in Re:21.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We are still called the Nations. It is we that will be coming to Israel once a year for the feast of the tabernacles.(Does that seem to be a let-down?)
It is the missing children of the Gentiles who will be offered a drink by God himself in Re:21.
Still called "the Nations?" Nah. I think God has given us a new name, we are ....

Children of the Living God
The Body of Christ
The General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn
A New Creation
Children of Light
Children of the Day
A Holy Nation
A Chosen Generation
A Royal Priesthood
A Peculiar People
Living Stones
The Temple of the Living God
The New JerusalemI could go on and on, of course! I made a new thread for this purpose.

So are we still "The Nations?" - Nah. And besides, what about the Jews who started the Church? Did they suddenly become "the Nations" when they believed in their Jewish Messiah? I think not!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

We are still called the Nations. It is we that will be coming to Israel once a year for the feast of the tabernacles.(Does that seem to be a let-down?)
It is the missing children of the Gentiles who will be offered a drink by God himself in Re:21.

We are??? Are you sure about that my beloved friend? :nono:


John 4:
19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Now do you understand the real reason why Jerusalem was destroyed? It wasn't just because of its sinful acts, nor was it merely to be cruel. God was taking away the "Shadow" which was set-up in times past to teach us the basic understanding and aspects of God's Kingdom. God's Kingdom is spiritual, and not physical, though in the heavens, it is all things. The heavenly Jerusalem is from above, full of Spirit and Power, and we who have been saved by the Living Waters of grace, Jesus Christ, are numbered among the stars of heaven, and the children of Abraham.

To expect to travel to a geographical Israel in order to worship God (Christ) is not the truth. God is Spirit, and He seeks for those to worship Him in accordance with the Spirit, and not our flesh. John chapter 4 explains the entire truth about the temple and kingdom of God. From the Jerusalem above (Not below), living water is poured out to all who understand and believe. Just as Christ said, "You worship what you do not know, but we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews....." Notice He says, "Jews". Was He referring to all Jews of the flesh, or those of His followers? Not of the flesh, but of His followers AND of the flesh. Salvation did come from the Jews; the true circumcision of the flesh. The others were children of the dark one, and it was they who condemned the Son of God.

God was showing through Christ the truth about His Kingdom, that people of all races worship the King, in Spirit and in Truth. And we do not have to travel abroad or any nation to seek God, for He lives and dwells within us, and such are those whom God seeks.

Believe brother MHz.....believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, listen to Him, concentrate on your joining with God, and worship Him in your spirit, singing songs, and making music in your heart.....God forever praised! Amen!

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Joe,

The whole chapter is 1 passage,
Psalms:37:5: Commit thy way unto the LORD; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.
Psalms:37:6: And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.
Psalms:37:7: Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him: fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.
Psalms:37:8: Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.
Psalms:37:9: For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
Psalms:37:10: For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
Psalms:37:11: But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

And yes, I am more than quite sure about that.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Now do you understand the real reason why Jerusalem was destroyed? It wasn't just because of its sinful acts, nor was it merely to be cruel. God was taking away the "Shadow" which was set-up in times past to teach us the basic understanding and aspects of God's Kingdom. God's Kingdom is spiritual, and not physical, though in the heavens, it is all things. The heavenly Jerusalem is from above, full of Spirit and Power, and we who have been saved by the Living Waters of grace, Jesus Christ, are numbered among the stars of heaven, and the children of Abraham.

To expect to travel to a geographical Israel in order to worship God (Christ) is not the truth. God is Spirit, and He seeks for those to worship Him in accordance with the Spirit, and not our flesh. John chapter 4 explains the entire truth about the temple and kingdom of God. From the Jerusalem above (Not below), living water is poured out to all who understand and believe. Just as Christ said, "You worship what you do not know, but we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews....." Notice He says, "Jews". Was He referring to all Jews of the flesh, or those of His followers? Not of the flesh, but of His followers AND of the flesh. Salvation did come from the Jews; the true circumcision of the flesh. The others were children of the dark one, and it was they who condemned the Son of God.

God was showing through Christ the truth about His Kingdom, that people of all races worship the King, in Spirit and in Truth. And we do not have to travel abroad or any nation to seek God, for He lives and dwells within us, and such are those whom God seeks.

Joe
Triple Amen! :pray::pray::pray:

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Futurist will insist that the re-gathering of Israel in 1948 identifies the "Fig Tree" as a figure applied solely to Israel's return. This couldn't be more further from the truth. The Fig Tree was an indication of a new birth, not a re-gathering. When Spring comes, all plants and vegetation begin their new birth cycle. And Jesus said, "When you see all these things (i.e. armies surrounding Jerusalem, persecutions of the Saints, wars and rumors of wars, false Messiah's, etc.) that their redemption was at the door. This is applicable to the events which were to befall Jerusalem, as discussed during the Mt. Olivet discourse.

What I'm about to present will in fact, close the doors shut forever, on the false assumption of the Futurist. I believe you will find this to be a very powerful connection which will not be explainable by any Futurist WITHOUT changing the meaning or intensions of the word.


Mark 13:
24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven.

28 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! 30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

We Preterist have tried explaining time and time again to the Futurist how the gospels all speak of the same event regarding the fate of Israel and the temple's destruction in 70AD. Jesus explains to them all the things which were to take place before Jerusalem and its temple is destroyed. These events taking place were applied to the parable of the Fig Tree. However, Futurist will insist that the events themselves were not the signs, but merely the Fig Tree itself, which they interpret (out of context I might add) as a figure solely for Israel.

Okay, let's play their silly game. According to the Futurist eschatology, the re-gathering of Israel in 1948 marked the rebirth of the Fig Tree. If this is so, then the Messiah should be at the door! But can this be correct? Was the 1948 regathering of Israel an indication that Christ was at the door?

NO WAY! If so, then St. James was certainly a huge liar for lying to the 12 Tribes scattered abroad when he wrote to them in the 60's AD.

You guys are going to love this!


James 5:
1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. 4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned [and] you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

7 Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. 8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

Oh sure, we've seen this before right? :lol: Well keep reading because guess what he says in the next verse!


9 Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!

Bam! Now how can you futurists argue against this! Those of you who claim that Jesus was at the door in 1948 had better pay attention. Because James mentioned this more than 2006 years ago! Man, Jesus has been standing at the door for a very long time, right? :nono:

James shows that the Lord was AT HAND, meaning his return was just around the corner. He condemns and warns the rich Jews scattered abroad of how the end was upon them. Jesus says the very same thing in the gospels during the OD discussion. When they (the Apostles) saw the things that were taking place, they were witnessing the parable of the Fig Tree, that a new birth was about to take place, and Jesus was right at the door.

Well, I give St. James two thumbs up! :thumb::thumb: for correctly noting the times. Oh, and for additional information, what was it that the Jews did to him after he warned them of their coming destruction? They threw him off the pinnacle of the temple! And because he didn't die on the impact, they took clubs and beat him to death! Thus fulfilling the very words of the Lord Jesus:


9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. 10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.


I consider this case closed, unless any Futurist want to claim St. James to be in error, or we can always look at God's undefined time clock. :pop2:

Joe

[MHz]

Futurist will insist that the re-gathering of Israel in 1948 identifies the "Fig Tree" as a figure applied solely to Israel's return. This couldn't be more further from the truth. The Fig Tree was an indication of a new birth, not a re-gathering. When Spring comes, all plants and vegetation begin their new birth cycle. And Jesus said, "When you see all these things (i.e. armies surrounding Jerusalem, persecutions of the Saints, wars and rumors of wars, false Messiah's, etc.) that their redemption was at the door. This is applicable to the events which were to befall Jerusalem, as discussed during the Mt. Olivet discourse.
Jesus summed it up in the temple just before the OD, spoken who did see just that,
M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The problem with putting people into different 'camps' is that it lumps them together as being one in agreement. If Israel in 1948 was brought up in a 'futurist camp' and some opposed that it had any 'real significance' to the Bible's sequence of events are still from the camp of the enemy of your doctrine. It isn't like I couldn't find a topic to discuss



What I'm about to present will in fact, close the doors shut forever, on the false assumption of the Futurist. I believe you will find this to be a very powerful connection which will not be explainable by any Futurist WITHOUT changing the meaning or intensions of the word.


1948 identifies the "Fig Tree" as a figure applied solely to Israel's return. This couldn't be more further from the truth. The Fig Tree was an indication of a new birth, not a re-gathering. When Spring comes, all plants and vegetation begin their new birth cycle. And Jesus said, "When you see all these things (i.e. armies surrounding Jerusalem, persecutions of the Saints, wars and rumors of wars, false Messiah's, etc.) that their redemption was at the door. This is applicable to the events which were to befall Jerusalem, as discussed during the Mt. Olivet discourse.[/QUOTE]
Jesus summed it up in the temple just before the OD, spoken who did see just that,
M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The problem with putting people into different 'camps' is that it lumps them together as being one in agreement. If Israel in 1948 was brought up in a 'futurist camp' and some opposed that it had any 'real significance' to the Bible's sequence of events are still from the camp of the enemy of your doctrine. It isn't like I couldn't find a topic to discuss



We Preterist have tried explaining time and time again to the Futurist how the gospels all speak of the same event regarding the fate of Israel and the temple's destruction in 70AD. Jesus explains to them all the things which were to take place before Jerusalem and its temple is destroyed. These events taking place were applied to the parable of the Fig Tree. However, Futurist will insist that the events themselves were not the signs, but merely the Fig Tree itself, which they interpret (out of context I might add) as a figure solely for Israel.
If was over that quickly why write anything at all, it would be over before 'everybody' read the documents, thsi would now be in effect,
Heb:8:11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Yet her we are, and everybody who is in some sort of camp doing just that, teaching others, or at least trying too.
That verse is fulfilled in whole? Really, what is it all about then, going to church, for those that do, reading Scripture, for those that do, visiting web-sites, for those that do. Nobody is sure of anything, even to this very day, nobody.



Okay, let's play their silly game. According to the Futurist eschatology, the re-gathering of Israel in 1948 marked the rebirth of the Fig Tree. If this is so, then the Messiah should be at the door! But can this be correct? Was the 1948 regathering of Israel an indication that Christ was at the door?
You might not be aware of it but when you demean your brothers you only demean yourself, if you know that, why do you do it!



Bam! Now how can you futurists argue against this! Those of you who claim that Jesus was at the door in 1948 had better pay attention. Because James mentioned this more than 2006 years ago! Man, Jesus has been standing at the door for a very long time, right? :nono:

Are you sure it was 2006 years ago that James wrote that?

[TheForgiven]

Jesus summed it up in the temple just before the OD, spoken who did see just that,M't:23:38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

The problem with putting people into different 'camps' is that it lumps them together as being one in agreement. If Israel in 1948 was brought up in a 'futurist camp' and some opposed that it had any 'real significance' to the Bible's sequence of events are still from the camp of the enemy of your doctrine. It isn't like I couldn't find a topic to discuss


Well that depends on what position you hold. I've never heard of a futurist who didn't think the 1948 regathering WAS NOT significant to their eschatology. Hal Lidnsey, John Hagaee, Rob Parsley, Jack Vanimpie, Benny Hen, and many other Futurists all insist that Israel was regathering in 1948, so that must be the rebirth of the Fig Tree where Christ is said to be "At the Door". But James stated clearly that He was "At the door" back in the 60's AD, when ever he wrote the letter. And since the letter was written to the "12 Tribes Scattered Abroad", it must have been written sometime in the 60's AD. Or he may have been referring to the Jews abiding in Jerusalem. One thing we know from a historical account is that an early Church Father of the mid 2nd century documented that James was tossed off the temple pinnacle and beat to death with a club by the Jews, so this must have been before the Jewish rebellion began. So my speculation is that James wrote his final Epistle in the 60's, and then he died. But no matter how you look at it, Christ was "At the Door" in the 60's AD. So the 1948 regathering of Israel means absolutely nothing in conjunction with Him being "At the Door".


The problem with putting people into different 'camps' is that it lumps them together as being one in agreement. If Israel in 1948 was brought up in a 'futurist camp' and some opposed that it had any 'real significance' to the Bible's sequence of events are still from the camp of the enemy of your doctrine. It isn't like I couldn't find a topic to discuss

Again, it depends on the Futurist eschatology, and I thought I was pretty familiar with them all, unless of course I missed something. What is your belief, and please be direct and specific.


If was over that quickly why write anything at all, it would be over before 'everybody' read the documents, thsi would now be in effect,

Heb:8:11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Yet her we are, and everybody who is in some sort of camp doing just that, teaching others, or at least trying too.
That verse is fulfilled in whole? Really, what is it all about then, going to church, for those that do, reading Scripture, for those that do, visiting web-sites, for those that do. Nobody is sure of anything, even to this very day, nobody.

40 years is not quick. I'm 39 years old and I feel as though I've lived a long time, with a long way to go before I get home. :o) The passage you speak of has to do with His Holy Spirit. We do not need anyone to teach us about righteousness, for that is within you. It's the Holy Spirit which teaches us to know the Lord, and to discern right from wrong, sin and holiness. Even those who are not saved have to hide their feelings when they commit iniquity because their inner conscious testifies this to them, but they purposely and willfully block it out; this I know from experience. At any rate, that is what the passage you quotes is talking about. Additionally, to "Know the Lord" also means to join with him. When a husband and wife have sexual intercourse, they "Know" each other. That is why the KJV's often say "Come to know" when they actually mean "Joining". When the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah said, "Let us know them...." in speaking of the angels sent to destroy them, they were saying, "Let us have intercourse with them that we may become joined..." and that is what's meant by "Come to know", at least in many cases, though not always.


You might not be aware of it but when you demean your brothers you only demean yourself, if you know that, why do you do it!

Because I've debated with folks in other Forums who usurp that we Preterist are to be pitied and avoided like the plague. They insist we are heretics. They resort to banning any form of Preterism, especially the "Full" preterist believers. I've been kicked out of two forums, both dominated by the Futurist eschatology, and I'm a quite disappointed at their "Pharisee" tactics of trap and discharge. They try trapping you, as the Pharisees did the Lord, so that they can cause you to violate their forum agreements, and then they have your account locked out. Then they heap up believers of their eschatology and beat-up any remaining posts you might have had. What makes this even worse is the forum Moderator's will edit your post instead of deleting it, hoping that others will see just how much of a mistake you made, and how you were unable to answer their posts...this makes it seem as though you lost and left out of fear. Such dark and sinful tactics.


Are you sure it was 2006 years ago that James wrote that?

Okay, I was estimating, but if you want exact numbers, that is impossible to give without knowing the exact date of the letter. SO lets assume it was written in 62 AD. This would mean that the letter was written about 1,945 years ago, give or take a few years. And since Christ stated that only by the signs surrounding Jerusalem, would they know that Christ was at the door, as indicated by his, Peter's, John's, and Paul's letters, who all stated that Christ was "at hand", "nearer than what we thought", "the end of all things is at hand", and so forth, it's quite clear that Christ was at the Door during their day, just as He promised.

Sorry I can't give you exact numbers brother, and you know that I love you.

Joe

[MHz]

Sorry I can't give you exact numbers brother, and you know that I love you.

Joe

Yes Joe, I know that

Wayne

PS that doesn't mean I have to take everything you say as being gospel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Okay, let's play their silly game. According to the Futurist eschatology, the re-gathering of Israel in 1948 marked the rebirth of the Fig Tree. If this is so, then the Messiah should be at the door! But can this be correct? Was the 1948 regathering of Israel an indication that Christ was at the door?

You might not be aware of it but when you demean your brothers you only demean yourself, if you know that, why do you do it!

Hey Joe and Wayne,

I agree with Wayne that we only demean ourselves if we demean others, and we bring dishonor to Christ our Lord and discord in His body if we are not careful with our language.

So words like "silly" are not helpful. I'm speaking as one who knows because I have made poor word choices myself and I am very sad to see any of our conversations degenterate into name calling, mistrust, anger, frustration, and all that.

This issue is hot enough without adding any emotionally charged terms. So let us do our best to keep these things in mind as we search to conform our minds to God's Word.

I thank God for both of you on this forum, because you both have really contributed a lot to the general edification of our community.

God bless - and please carry on.

Richard <in the role of moderator>

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe and Wayne,

I agree with Wayne that we only demean ourselves if we demean others, and we bring dishonor to Christ our Lord and discord in His body if we are not careful with our language.

So words like "silly" are not helpful. I'm speaking as one who knows because I have made poor word choices myself and I am very sad to see any of our conversations degenterate into name calling, mistrust, anger, frustration, and all that.

This issue is hot enough without adding any emotionally charged terms. So let us do our best to keep these things in mind as we search to conform our minds to God's Word.

I thank God for both of you on this forum, because you both have really contributed a lot to the general edification of our community.

God bless - and please carry on.

:hug: I apologize brothers. I wasn't directing that at Wayne, but at the other forums. I know Wayne has aspects of Futurism, but I have yet to define his actual belief, therefore to date I haven't quite figured out his position; I only know he has spoken many aspects of Futurism, but none that I'm familiar with. But my "silly" word was not directed at you brother Wayne, but at the other two forums who booted me because of my Preterism. So if I had any difficult feelings, it's from them, who accused me of heresy and compared me to that of the Gnostics. I tend to get emotional when I think of those discussions, as you can probably gather from my discussion on the resurrection.

But you brother Wayne, I see a great deal of peace in you, so I do not apply that word towards you. Although I do consider much of the Futurist eschatology to be what most people would consider "a bit hazy", if that's a lessor choice of words. However, I must admit that my first eschatology was Futurism, having been raised Southern Baptist. I'm currently a member of the New Testament Christian Church, but slowly leaning towards the Greek Orthodox Church.

At any rate, please forgive brother's Wayne and Richard (and to anyone else). I have some old habits to break. :(

I love you all.

Joe

[White]

Hey Joe,

Start a new thread on Greek Orthodox Church - I went to one in Minneapolis and found it quite fascinating. The services are beautiful, long and with much reverence for the Holy Eucharist - Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ representing the KINGDOM of GOD on Earth and truly present in form of Bread and Wine (1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor : 11:25-32 - "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (v.29) with the Priests, Deacons and Altarservers prostrate for much of the Eucharistic Celebration. It was very moving. An emotional and uplifting experience. Keep up your search for the Truth, Joe. GLY.
Carry on.
Shalom and Happy Hanukkah tomorrow night!
Monique

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:hug: I apologize brothers. I wasn't directing that at Wayne, but at the other forums. I know Wayne has aspects of Futurism, but I have yet to define his actual belief, therefore to date I haven't quite figured out his position; I only know he has spoken many aspects of Futurism, but none that I'm familiar with. But my "silly" word was not directed at you brother Wayne, but at the other two forums who booted me because of my Preterism. So if I had any difficult feelings, it's from them, who accused me of heresy and compared me to that of the Gnostics. I tend to get emotional when I think of those discussions, as you can probably gather from my discussion on the resurrection.

But you brother Wayne, I see a great deal of peace in you, so I do not apply that word towards you. Although I do consider much of the Futurist eschatology to be what most people would consider "a bit hazy", if that's a lessor choice of words. However, I must admit that my first eschatology was Futurism, having been raised Southern Baptist. I'm currently a member of the New Testament Christian Church, but slowly leaning towards the Greek Orthodox Church.

At any rate, please forgive brother's Wayne and Richard (and to anyone else). I have some old habits to break. :(

I love you all.

Joe
Thanks Joe, that's well stated. And I noticed that you and Wayne had already cleared the air about the same time I commented, so all is good.

And I agree, Wayne has exhibited an admirable peacefulness about him. Let us emulate!

In the Brotherly Love of Christ,

Richard

PS - A thread on what's drawing you toward the Greek Orthodox Church would be interesting when you find time. ... of course, there are a lot of conversations going on at once right now, we might be too busy to start another.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Joe,

Start a new thread on Greek Orthodox Church - I went to one in Minneapolis and found it quite fascinating. The services are beautiful, long and with much reverence for the Holy Eucharist - Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ representing the KINGDOM of GOD on Earth and truly present in form of Bread and Wine (1 Cor. 10:16 and 1 Cor : 11:25-32 - "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (v.29) with the Priests, Deacons and Altarservers prostrate for much of the Eucharistic Celebration. It was very moving. An emotional and uplifting experience. Keep up your search for the Truth, Joe. GLY.
Carry on.
Shalom and Happy Hanukkah tomorrow night!
Monique

JINX! You posted that at 6:31 while I was writing mine that was posted at 6:33 where I said "PS - A thread on what's drawing you toward the Greek Orthodox Church would be interesting." I love it when we all think alike, and at the same time even.

I visited a Greek Orthodox after learning Greek and the service was very beautiful. They sing their liturgy in Greek, it was wonderful to hear it in the original language. I've always kinda felt that the Eastern branch is like the artistic hemisphere of Christ's brain, and the Western branch is more like the Logical hemisphere. It would be nice to get the corpus collusum (http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/callosum.html) reconnnected.....

Richard

[MHz]

Hey Joe and Wayne,

I agree with Wayne that we only demean ourselves if we demean others, and we bring dishonor to Christ our Lord and discord in His body if we are not careful with our language.

So words like "silly" are not helpful. I'm speaking as one who knows because I have made poor word choices myself and I am very sad to see any of our conversations degenterate into name calling, mistrust, anger, frustration, and all that.

This issue is hot enough without adding any emotionally charged terms. So let us do our best to keep these things in mind as we search to conform our minds to God's Word.

I thank God for both of you on this forum, because you both have really contributed a lot to the general edification of our community.

God bless - and please carry on.

Richard <in the role of moderator>

Way to distract from the thread Richard :applause:

Usually when that happens in the red world (material like Ge:1:1-*) it means something deemed secret is about to be changed .
On this site it is probably nothing more than a birth pang. Oh, oh, my house of verses is getting wobbly.
Ge:1 would seem to be more about the 'dusty things' in life, ie how we got to where we are in one page.
Ch:2 is about the breath of life, the spiritual relationship between the dust and the breath,
Ge:2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Read further and it even gives you how long the two will be together, after that is a verses that tells what happens after that and 100 verses about the ending. Goddidit, that is how I explain man being after the trees and such and in the very, very next chapter He says man was before any plant life. If you stop there and are determined to 'get an answer' before moving on, well it takes longer to get a glimpse of the whole picture. Get the picture? ROLF

[TheForgiven]

JINX! You posted that at 6:31 while I was writing mine that was posted at 6:33 where I said "PS - A thread on what's drawing you toward the Greek Orthodox Church would be interesting." I love it when we all think alike, and at the same time even.

I visited a Greek Orthodox after learning Greek and the service was very beautiful. They sing their liturgy in Greek, it was wonderful to hear it in the original language. I've always kinda felt that the Eastern branch is like the artistic hemisphere of Christ's brain, and the Western branch is more like the Logical hemisphere. It would be nice to get the corpus collusum reconnnected.....

Richard

I nearly missed this post. :eek: So are you also thinking of merging to the Greek Orthodox Church?

I've been twice and I fell in love. I haven't been back in about a year, but the Church father assigned to this Church still sends me email. Sometimes his articles are good, but other times their alright.

I'm very attracted to the beauty of its service, as well as its history. And historically speaking, the Greek Orthodox Church stems back to the original Churches of Asia Minor. There are some differences based on what I can gather from history.

Some question their use of Icons within the Church. These serve as reminders of the faith of our fallen fathers. Outsiders confuse these an items of worship, but they are not; they function the same as our family pictures on home walls; to remind us of the heroes of Christ who have preached the faith, or perhaps suffered Martyrdom.

Pews? Better get used to not sitting. You stand the entire time, if not bowing down. And the service I went too had a pre-service at 9:30AM and didn't end until about 12:30 that afternoon; that's 3 1/2 hours of standing, bowing down, singing, smelling the incense, listening to the chanting behind one of the walls, and other breath taking devotions to the Lord. Having been raised Protestant, we're accustomed to singing a few Hymns, giving money to the offering plate, partaking of communion (if practiced), and listening to a 45 minute to 1 1/2 hour sermon. But as soon as we walk out the door, it's our normal worldly selves. :confused:

That's not to say that members within the Greek Orthodox Church don't walk out any differently than many Protestants. However, I was surprised to see the high attendance of Jews at the Church I visited in Columbia. Some were in wheel chairs, some barely spoke English, and they were sooooo friendly. On my first visit, the Church father anointed my head with oil, blessed me and welcomed me to a service I still to this day have a hard time forgetting. [I'll explain that in a minute]. With the chanting [singing], the incense, the prayers, and beautiful archaic like atmosphere, I actually felt as though I was in a service dedicated to Christ, as though He were really in the room. I have yet to find a Protestant service than can match her beauty.....

What alarmed me was thinking of the Jews in the first century. They loved the temple worship, the incense, the long prayers, and all the other works of service, so much that they committed suicide while watching the temple burn. I wondered if perhaps I was making the same mistake; loving the service more than serving. :( And I do miss going back there, but it's 45 miles away; to far for me to drive, especially knowing that Christ does not exist in buildings, but within us. I do wish there was one here in my local area.

I even thought of joining the Roman Catholic Church, for their service is similar to the Greeks, though not as archaic and beautiful. Some have the incense, but there's no chanting, and seems very repetitious....I mean no offensive comment towards them for I have friends who are Catholic and I have a great love for the RCC and some of their history. I do not like their Inquisitional history, though that wasn't entire their fault. The Spaniards and the English were the ones causing trouble during that time frame. But the French took no part in it, yet they were Catholic.

But you mentioned the communion....it was beautiful, though I was not permitted to take part until I became a member, which can take up to six months or a year. :confused: You have to go through their catachism, but they explained to me that this was to ensure that a member isn't quick to join and leave.

Lastly, they also practice full baptism, and not mere sprinkling. Oh how I miss going back there.

So tell me brother Richard. What attracted you to go there?

Oh, and to be honest, their eschatology is not Preterism. They are someone Futurist, though they believe the Kingdom of God is the Church. They appear to believe in a future anti-Christ. They also consider Iranaeus to be one of their great fathers of history. I didn't have the heart to tell them of the errors he made with the age of Christ, and His reason for living at the age of each person (according to Iranaeus). He said that I merely misunderstood him.

Other than that, I do love the service, especially how poor the members are, yet giving all that they could to provide money for humanitarian missions; taking care of the orphans, widows, and so forth....not building tall Churches, like you see in Texas, who's minister is I believe the largest false prophet of our day....John Hagaee.

Joe
__________________

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I nearly missed this post. :eek: So are you also thinking of merging to the Greek Orthodox Church?
No, but I appreaciate their liturgy and history. And I think they are a bit more level headed than the RCC since they let their priests get married.


I've been twice and I fell in love. I haven't been back in about a year, but the Church father assigned to this Church still sends me email. Sometimes his articles are good, but other times their alright.

I've read a few books on their theology, and it has alot of merit. They have a more "incarnational" view of the atonement, as opposed to the Western forensic view (which makes me think of lawyers, and of God is anything like a lawyer we are all doomed! Doomed I tell you! :mad: .... :lol: just kidding... sort of.)


I'm very attracted to the beauty of its service, as well as its history. And historically speaking, the Greek Orthodox Church stems back to the original Churches of Asia Minor. There are some differences based on what I can gather from history.

Some question their use of Icons within the Church. These serve as reminders of the faith of our fallen fathers. Outsiders confuse these an items of worship, but they are not; they function the same as our family pictures on home walls; to remind us of the heroes of Christ who have preached the faith, or perhaps suffered Martyrdom.

Yes, I've had folks get worried over my interest in icons. But I think they are inspired of God as teaching tools, and prophetically in the triradiant halo with its correspondence to the structure of the Bible. But that actually is the irony of it all. The Greek Orthodox don't even have a bound book of the Bible. The have separate bound books for the Gospels, and the LXX, and the Epistles. They are not really "logocentric" like the west, especially the Protestants. So it looks to me that each branch of the Body of Christ has specialized fucntions. East = Art Music (right hemisphere) and West = Logic/Law (left hemisphere), with the Protestants the clearest expression of the WORD alone.


Pews? Better get used to not sitting. You stand the entire time, if not bowing down. And the service I went too had a pre-service at 9:30AM and didn't end until about 12:30 that afternoon; that's 3 1/2 hours of standing, bowing down, singing, smelling the incense, listening to the chanting behind one of the walls, and other breath taking devotions to the Lord. Having been raised Protestant, we're accustomed to singing a few Hymns, giving money to the offering plate, partaking of communion (if practiced), and listening to a 45 minute to 1 1/2 hour sermon. But as soon as we walk out the door, it's our normal worldly selves. :confused:

That's not to say that members within the Greek Orthodox Church don't walk out any differently than many Protestants. However, I was surprised to see the high attendance of Jews at the Church I visited in Columbia. Some were in wheel chairs, some barely spoke English, and they were sooooo friendly. On my first visit, the Church father anointed my head with oil, blessed me and welcomed me to a service I still to this day have a hard time forgetting. [I'll explain that in a minute]. With the chanting [singing], the incense, the prayers, and beautiful archaic like atmosphere, I actually felt as though I was in a service dedicated to Christ, as though He were really in the room. I have yet to find a Protestant service than can match her beauty.....

That is something that attracts me to the "old" churchs like the RCC and GO - they seem to take the faith seriously, like grown ups. Non-denominational Protestant churches can seem kinda like adolescents in comparison.


What alarmed me was thinking of the Jews in the first century. They loved the temple worship, the incense, the long prayers, and all the other works of service, so much that they committed suicide while watching the temple burn. I wondered if perhaps I was making the same mistake; loving the service more than serving. :( And I do miss going back there, but it's 45 miles away; to far for me to drive, especially knowing that Christ does not exist in buildings, but within us. I do wish there was one here in my local area.

Sounds like a genuine concern. That's one of the reasons I'm not a member of either RCC or GO. Another reason is because I believe that the Reformation was correct, and that the RCC is defnitely DOES NOT have authority over all Christians, and most super definitely is NOT infallible in their teachings. They have greivously erred. Indeed, perhaps there greatest error is their hubris of delcaring they can not err!


I even thought of joining the Roman Catholic Church, for their service is similar to the Greeks, though not as archaic and beautiful. Some have the incense, but there's no chanting, and seems very repetitious....I mean no offensive comment towards them for I have friends who are Catholic and I have a great love for the RCC and some of their history. I do not like their Inquisitional history, though that wasn't entire their fault. The Spaniards and the English were the ones causing trouble during that time frame. But the French took no part in it, yet they were Catholic.

But you mentioned the communion....it was beautiful, though I was not permitted to take part until I became a member, which can take up to six months or a year. :confused: You have to go through their catachism, but they explained to me that this was to ensure that a member isn't quick to join and leave.

Lastly, they also practice full baptism, and not mere sprinkling. Oh how I miss going back there.

So tell me brother Richard. What attracted you to go there?

I had learned Greek, and I wanted to see how it all sounded. And I believe that the Body of Christ should be one. So I wanted to see what those brothers and sisters were up to.

I'm glad I went. Maybe I'll do it again. We have some GO here in Yakima.


Oh, and to be honest, their eschatology is not Preterism. They are someone Futurist, though they believe the Kingdom of God is the Church. They appear to believe in a future anti-Christ. They also consider Iranaeus to be one of their great fathers of history. I didn't have the heart to tell them of the errors he made with the age of Christ, and His reason for living at the age of each person (according to Iranaeus). He said that I merely misunderstood him.

That's very interesting. Do you know of any good online resource for GO eschatology? It might really help to get a non-western view for a change.


Other than that, I do love the service, especially how poor the members are, yet giving all that they could to provide money for humanitarian missions; taking care of the orphans, widows, and so forth....not building tall Churches, like you see in Texas, who's minister is I believe the largest false prophet of our day....John Hagaee.

Joe
__________________
yep.

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for sharing.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I agree about the RCC, that they do tend to "Lord" their authority over man. I also agree about them forbidding marriage. In the past, I kind of wondered if that's who Paul was talking about, but I've since ignored that thought.

Paul, in one of his letters states:


1 Timothy 4:
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

I don't know of any other time frame this practice was enforced, accept by the Roman Catholic Church. Now he may have been talking about certain Roman Emperors who tried to change the marriage laws. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a Roman Emperor who attempted to abolish marriage because of the high amounts of infidelity, thereby reducing divorce rates. Or was it the other way around? I don't remember...this would probably be a good topic to discuss on another thread.

But I too love the Greek Orthodox Church. As for them talking eschatology, good luck with that. :lol: They are pretty tight lipped about it. Some fathers will offer their opinions on websites, but they are not all the same. I'm pretty sure that I did find one church father who was a Preterist, but I don't remember what Church or country he was in. He spoke of Nero Caesar, and the Roman Empire. But like the RCC, he believed it would happen again. But most Orthodox Churches (Greek) tend to lean towards Futurism, though I have yet to find one that teaches of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, animal sacrificing, :blah: For one thing, they reject any teaching of the Millennium, which was abolished by them in the 4rth century. This teaching was known as Chilliasm, based on my research.

I'm so happy to have found another brother who shares the same interests as I do. I think I will go this weekend. Father Thomas (Columbia SC) is a little disappointed in me because I thought the reunion of the RCC and the GOC would be a good thing; for they split in 1054 AD, during the schism of the Papacy.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts brother Richard.

Joe

[eliyahu]

I believe that the state of israel existing today is signifigant to the end of the age and the dawn of the next. But this state is by no means in any sense the prophesied "kingdom of God." Do not the prophets state that there will be a final cataclysmic judgment on the people of Israel and that the city of Jerusalem will be in the center of all of this? "I will make Jerusalem a burdonsome stone?" That would make this current state a sort of prelimanary necessity for the final stage of judgment and mercy for the jewish people and the nations.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe that the state of israel existing today is signifigant to the end of the age and the dawn of the next. But this state is by no means in any sense the prophesied "kingdom of God."

I agree it could be significant - it certainly feels that way - but I don't see it as the fuflillment of any biblical prophecies. Do you? I understand you don't think its the prophesied kingdom, but do you think the current events are fulfilling any biblical prophecies? I don't.


Do not the prophets state that there will be a final cataclysmic judgment on the people of Israel and that the city of Jerusalem will be in the center of all of this? "I will make Jerusalem a burdonsome stone?" That would make this current state a sort of prelimanary necessity for the final stage of judgment and mercy for the jewish people and the nations.
There was a "final cataclysmic judgment on the people of Israel and that the city of Jerusalem" - it happened in 70 AD. It utterly destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple, it ended the whole sacrificial system, and it drove all Jews out of the Holy Land (Diaspora). Every word of prophecy was fulfilled.

And one other thing about the "Jerusalem" that currently exists in Israel. It is not the Jerusalem of the Bible. That Jerusalem died in the first century and is now gone forever.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I believe that the state of israel existing today is signifigant to the end of the age and the dawn of the next. But this state is by no means in any sense the prophesied "kingdom of God." Do not the prophets state that there will be a final cataclysmic judgment on the people of Israel and that the city of Jerusalem will be in the center of all of this? "I will make Jerusalem a burdonsome stone?" That would make this current state a sort of prelimanary necessity for the final stage of judgment and mercy for the jewish people and the nations.

Well it was much more applicable to that of the first century. Israel was in so much turmoil that the Roman Empire had to send end the military about three times before finally ending the rebellion. More than 1,100,000 million were either killed, crucified on every single ounce of wood able to hold nails, taken as slaves, or tortured in the newly built Roman Arena. Then it happened again in 132 AD and the Jews were eventually banned from ever returning, no doubt to signify the end of that Kingdom.

As for today? I'm comfortable with thinking that something significant is happening, but I see no Biblical support for it, just like there's no Biblical support for the United States, Japan, or Russia.

Joe

[eliyahu]

First of all, I must apologize because I do not have regular access to the internet enough to stay current in any conversation here. I will remedy that situation in a few months or less. I do not want to do injustice to all of your thoughtful and lengthy interations which I simply am unable to stay abreast with at this point.
Anyhow, as to your some of the statements made above in re to my own... I see the current state of Isreal as "prophetic fulfillment" in that that state as well as much if not most of Jewish hiostory (yes) after AD 132 as fulfilling the curses in the law. A careful reading of them freshly should bring understanding to my point. As for Jerusalem, it has and is increasingly becoming a burdonsome stone once again in history. I will have to come back later...

[eliyahu]

I have another moment here. As to the resurrection being in the first century, I do not believe that is posible. A few reasons for that are firstly, there was no antichrist figure connected with an "abomination of desolation" of sorts. There was no wholesale resurrection of the righteous followed by a time of earthly reign of Messiah. There was no "glorious return" of Jesus coming in the sky in the same way that he left in plain sight of many. There was also no regathering of the elect in the sky or elsewhere. And also there are yet unfulfilled promises to Israel. Promises like the entirety of the promised land being inhabited in peace and blessing by Jewish (then faithful) owners and ruled by "David" (cryptic for Messiah the son of David). Romans 11 talkes about how the now cut off branches of unbelieving Israel are yet to be fully reconcilled back to God is God's faithfulness to the promises. This advocates a central eschatological future for the People of Israel. Any other idea would in some way effectually replace Israel's covenant relationship with God in exchange for the church in God's economy.
Those are my initial thoughts on these things. Again, I do not yet have the ability to stay abreast with much conversation at this point. Bless you.

[TheForgiven]

I have another moment here. As to the resurrection being in the first century, I do not believe that is posible. A few reasons for that are firstly, there was no antichrist figure connected with an "abomination of desolation" of sorts. There was no wholesale resurrection of the righteous followed by a time of earthly reign of Messiah. There was no "glorious return" of Jesus coming in the sky in the same way that he left in plain sight of many. There was also no regathering of the elect in the sky or elsewhere.

You might want to read the writings of Josephus, who spoke of the signs in the heavens. And before you might claim his writings to be a fraud, we also have the testimony of the Roman Historian who documented the wars of the Roman Empire, who explains in more detail, the events which befell Jerusalem in 70AD. He speaks of chariots and angelic beings flying in the skies over Jerusalem, and also a great white light that shined through the clouds and lit up the entire temple. What about the comet that lasted for one year, or the huge earth quake similar to Matthew's account of the first resurrection which happened when Jesus was raised? Is there any room to doubt these things, especially when Jesus said it was going to happen to their generation?

Also, where in scripture does it say an Anti-Christ would sit in the temple? Paul mentions the man of sin, but he does not mention the AC. Furthermore, John speaks of "many Anti-Christ's" who were coming into the world, and these were those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. These were the Gnostics who taught this, and it was they the Apostle John was referring to.


And also there are yet unfulfilled promises to Israel. Promises like the entirety of the promised land being inhabited in peace and blessing by Jewish (then faithful) owners and ruled by "David" (cryptic for Messiah the son of David). Romans 11 talkes about how the now cut off branches of unbelieving Israel are yet to be fully reconcilled back to God is God's faithfulness to the promises.

I do not agree. Paul did not say THEY WOULD be grafted back in, but that they CAN be grafted back in ONLY IF they discontinued there disbelief. This was his way of proving that the Jews were not rejected; only those who refused to accept Him. So any Jews denying Jesus were hardened and rejected.



This advocates a central eschatological future for the People of Israel. Any other idea would in some way effectually replace Israel's covenant relationship with God in exchange for the church in God's economy.
Those are my initial thoughts on these things. Again, I do not yet have the ability to stay abreast with much conversation at this point. Bless you.

Wow, so the Church and Israel are two separate kingdoms / peoples? How about Galatians 6, which says that the "Israel of God" is apart from the Israel of flesh? Flesh has nothing to do with salvation and grace, as the scripture clearly states, that there is no confidence is the flesh. Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrew's, regarded not his fleshly birth as anything worth merit, having sacrificed his Hebrew Status so that he could be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of his own, but only that which is found in Christ Jesus.

Furthermore, a Jew is not a Jew who is born one according to the flesh, but the spirit. That which is flesh is of the flesh, but that which is of the spirit is Spiritual.

The Church is the Israel of God, and this is not a replacement, but a rebuilding. The temple of God was rebuilt in accordance with the desire and pattern of heaven. The former temple was a "shadow" of what was to come. And what was to come has in fact, come and existed for more than 2000 years.

There is only "ONE" covenant and that is with Jesus. And Jesus accepts all who come to Him, whether you are a German, Russian, Greek, Roman, Spanish, Italian, and yes, even a jew.

Joe

[gilgal]

Also, where in scripture does it say an Anti-Christ would sit in the temple? Paul mentions the man of sin, but he does not mention the AC. Furthermore, John speaks of "many Anti-Christ's" who were coming into the world, and these were those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. These were the Gnostics who taught this, and it was they the Apostle John was referring to.

One thing I disagree ( the rest I agree with you ) is that there won't be an Anti-Christ.

If you can't accept the literal mentioning of apostles John and Paul then what about concept of a seed? Let's look at Christ being the seed of Abraham Paul mentions in Galatians not seeds as of many but seed as of one, which is Christ. If you are in Christ then are you of Abraham's seed and Heir to the promise ( it seems to me that the entire book of Galatians is a contradiction to the promise of a future restoration of Israel. We are heirs to the promise. We are the Israel of God as Paul mentions at the end of his epistle. )

So take the seed and apply it to the seed of the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3. There has been many anti-christs. But there hasn't been a man of sin. We are all sinners but not any of us are sinners 100%. But the man of sin will be a sinner 100% which is why I think he's called the man of sin. The seed of the serpent. Like Paul's application to Christ, it doesn't say seeds as of many but seed as of one. So there will be an anti-christ.

[joel]

do not agree. Paul did not say THEY WOULD be grafted back in, but that they CAN be grafted back in ONLY IF they discontinued there disbelief. This was his way of proving that the Jews were not rejected; only those who refused to accept Him. So any Jews denying Jesus were hardened and rejected.



Is this what it says? Or, to add an alternate point of view;
Paul teaches in this section of his Romans letter that the Jews were first hardened (calloused), then they disbelieved, and were set aside.

There is a distinct reason why they were set aside; so that the truth could come to the Gentiles. And, in the long run, the Jewish would be provoked to jealousy......this being their way back.

You stated that they refused to believe, and then were hardened, and then were rejected.

Didn't their rejection arise from their hardening, which was the result of God's decision?

If so, then, their repentance will also be the direct work of God.

Joel

[MHz]

Could it also be that their hardening that led to rejection was a result of prophecy saying something would happen a certain way, like God determining that there would be a 70 week period.
If they had accepted Him they would not have killed Him, if He had not died, Satan could not have bruised His heel (leaving only the bruise to the head as being needed to fulfill that verse). Remember all the times Jesus called them vipers, robbers, children of Satan, that is whose behalf they 'working for' at that time.

[TheForgiven]

One thing I disagree ( the rest I agree with you ) is that there won't be an Anti-Christ.

If you can't accept the literal mentioning of apostles John and Paul then what about concept of a seed? Let's look at Christ being the seed of Abraham Paul mentions in Galatians not seeds as of many but seed as of one, which is Christ. If you are in Christ then are you of Abraham's seed and Heir to the promise ( it seems to me that the entire book of Galatians is a contradiction to the promise of a future restoration of Israel. We are heirs to the promise. We are the Israel of God as Paul mentions at the end of his epistle. )

Correct, the Church is the Israel of God. Israel of the flesh no longer exists. It was not Israel of the flesh which was regarded as the children of promise, but only through Christ to you become children of the promise, and the promise is Christ; flesh has nothing to do with it.


So take the seed and apply it to the seed of the serpent mentioned in Genesis 3. There has been many anti-christs. But there hasn't been a man of sin. We are all sinners but not any of us are sinners 100%. But the man of sin will be a sinner 100% which is why I think he's called the man of sin. The seed of the serpent. Like Paul's application to Christ, it doesn't say seeds as of many but seed as of one. So there will be an anti-christ.

The AC existed in the first century, and most called him Nero Caesar. However, I go a step further and say this was probably Simon Magus, who declared himself to be the Son of God, and was so thought by many of the Pharisee's. The same thing happened with Shimeon Barkaphba, when the Jews thought he was the Messiah. Shimeon Bar Kaphba was responsible for murdering many Christians who refused to take part in his rebellion against the Romans in 132 AD. All Jews who were loyal to Shimeon were commanded by him to cut off their index finger. This led to the another slaughter of the Jews, only this time their nation and way of life came to complete end.

There is no future AC.....he's come and gone.

Joe

[kathryn]

Just a quick comment as I don't want to interupt you Joel...Gilgal, you've brought up, I believe, one of the most important concepts in Scripture...the "seed" principal. We should be able to demonstrate it in every hermeneutic. While I believe everything was legally fulfilled in the 1st century...everything was accomplished to bring us back to and thrive in, The Garden...at what stage was that "garden" in the 1st century? There's been a whole lot of "ripening" taking place since, me thinks.

[TheForgiven]

Is this what it says? Or, to add an alternate point of view;
Paul teaches in this section of his Romans letter that the Jews were first hardened (calloused), then they disbelieved, and were set aside.

There is a distinct reason why they were set aside; so that the truth could come to the Gentiles. And, in the long run, the Jewish would be provoked to jealousy......this being their way back.

You stated that they refused to believe, and then were hardened, and then were rejected.

Didn't their rejection arise from their hardening, which was the result of God's decision?

If so, then, their repentance will also be the direct work of God.

Joel

That is a common teaching from many that the Jews were disobedient because they were hardened. That is not true. Their hardening was a result of their rejection and disobedience. Let us review the passage:


Romans 9:
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Case in point. God did not harden them in order for them to become disobedient, but they were hardened BECAUSE of their disobedience, through which God waited Patiently, but they apparently crossed the line. This shows that God set aside those who would become objects of wrath, in order to show is mercy to those whom he accepted. And was this for Gentiles only? Not so according to Paul, for he says, "Not of the Jews ONLY, but ALSO of the Gentiles" indicating this divine mercy was from both, but only a remnant would be selected from Israel of the flesh.

The question then, is how long was this hardening to take place. Is this hardening still in effect?

Not so according to scripture!

Isaiah prophesied concerning this:


Isaiah 6:
9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:


‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “ Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

And He answered:


“ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The LORD has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”

How clearer does this need to be? This "hearing and not hearing" or "Seeing but not seeing", which the New Testament refers to as the hardening, only lasts until the cities are laid Desolate and without inhabitant. What cities? Jerusalem! When was Jerusalem destroyed and without inhabitant? In 70AD!

And what was the result? The tree was chopped down leaving only a "stump", and the stump is the Holy Seed of Israel, that is to say, Jesus.

Jesus is the Tree of Life, where as the old tree became unfruitful. Only a remnant from the original tree would be spared (10 percent). This is a figure applied to the tithes and offerings.

The tree that exists now provides more than enough covering for the birds of all nations to find rest for their wings......let those who understand hear.

There is no future hardening because the scripture I just quoted proves this to be a solid fact which cannot be disputed. The mystery of hardening ended in 70AD. And it was the remnant who spread forth the seeds of the gospel into the hearts of men in all nations, and it was the remnant which were chosen to rebuilt the temple, and glorious is the temple of God.

Flesh has nothing to do with any of this anymore to all those who are in Christ. And if anyone rejects him, whether American, Chinese, Russian, Arab, or geographical Jew, it is by their own choice, and not Gods.

In conclusion, to think that Israel is still hardened is to believe this apart from scripture. And God's grace is made known to all, through the Israel of God. Those who reject this gospel are left outside the gates of the city. They are not "hardened" in order to prevent entrance, but they are given choice.

Scripture says, "Let Him who is sinful, continue to be sinful; let Him who is Holy, continue to be Holy...."

John is showing that there is no hardening. He created the Kingdom, and it's up to all men of every nation and tongue to accept or reject...it's your choice.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Just a quick comment as I don't want to interupt you Joel...Gilgal, you've brought up, I believe, one of the most important concepts in Scripture...the "seed" principal. We should be able to demonstrate it in every hermeneutic. While I believe everything was legally fulfilled in the 1st century...everything was accomplished to bring us back to and thrive in, The Garden...at what stage was that "garden" in the 1st century? There's been a whole lot of "ripening" taking place since, me thinks.
Hi Kathryn,

I think that's a really important point. The Kingdom of God certainly did "arrive on the scene" in the first century when Christ came to earth, but it's still in development and growth. It's an Already/Not Yet kinda thing.

I think that's why Jesus taught those parables about how the kingdom of God grows from a mustard seed, blade of grass, like leaven in bread, etc.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That is a common teaching from many that the Jews were disobedient because they were hardened. That is not true. Their hardening was a result of their rejection and disobedience. Let us review the passage:

AMEN! Its about time someone cleared that up! Its just another part of the great Hagee Heresy. Indeed, I interacted with folks defending him who said "You can't blame the Jews! God blinded them, they couldn't see if they wanted to!" Sigh ...


The question then, is how long was this hardening to take place. Is this hardening still in effect?

Not so according to scripture!

Another excellent explanation, straight from Scripture with perfect lucidity. Thanks Joe! :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

do not agree. Paul did not say THEY WOULD be grafted back in, but that they CAN be grafted back in ONLY IF they discontinued there disbelief. This was his way of proving that the Jews were not rejected; only those who refused to accept Him. So any Jews denying Jesus were hardened and rejected.Is this what it says? Or, to add an alternate point of view;
Hey Joel,

Other points of view are always welcomed and helpful. Thanks! :yo:

Paul teaches in this section of his Romans letter that the Jews were first hardened (calloused), then they disbelieved, and were set aside.

OK - you say there was a time sequence: first they were hardened, then they disbelieved. Could you share with us the passage from which you derive this idea? I can't find it, and it seems fundamental to the point you are trying to make.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Some seem to interpret the hardening of Israel in this fashion.

Hardened led to Disobedience resulting in rejection.

That's not correct. It's actually:

Disobedience led to hardening resulting in rejection.

The author of Hebrews states:


7 Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says:


' Today, if you will hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion,
In the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me,
And saw My works forty years.
10 Therefore I was angry with that generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they have not known My ways.’
11 So I swore in My wrath,

‘ They shall not enter My rest.’'


12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called 'Today,' lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end

See brethren? Those who hear the voice of God, and turn their hearts away, will eventually be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. It's not the other way around. Sin is what hardens someone, and God bore with great patience the objects of His wrath, resulting in their rejection and destruction.

The end resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and the rest were "delivered".

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Some seem to interpret the hardening of Israel in this fashion.

Hardened led to Disobedience resulting in rejection.

That's not correct. It's actually:

Disobedience led to hardening resulting in rejection.

The author of Hebrews states:

See brethren? Those who hear the voice of God, and turn their hearts away, will eventually be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. It's not the other way around. Sin is what hardens someone, and God bore with great patience the objects of His wrath, resulting in their rejection and destruction.

The end resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and the rest were "delivered".

Joe
I think that is the Biblical teaching. Especially in Hebrews:

Hebrews 3:8-15 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. 10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. 11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest. ) 12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.
Note the repeated plea - do not harden your heart through sin and rebellion and unbelief.

It seems pretty clear in Hebrews that unbelieve leads to hardening. But then we need to compare Romans, since Joel said there was a passage there that teaches the hardening came before the unbelief.

Richard

[joel]

Quote:
Romans 9:
19 You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


Joe,
The verse immediately preceding that above is;
Romans 9:
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

There is a vast difference between an action of God upon certain vessels who have been chosen beforehand according to His purpose, and,
the hardening of the hearts that occurs to believers by the deceitfulness of sin through unbelief as were the children of Israel in the wilderness subsequent to their delivery from Egypt.

In Romans 9, 10 and 11 Paul is discussing the status of Israel primarily.

He says, in the concluding section in Romans 11:
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The verse is saying that God locks up all in unpersuadeableness (apeitheia, Strong's #543). To conclude is to shut up completely (sugkleio, Strong's #4788). Unpersuadeableness (apeitheia) is obstanancy or a hardness.

God chooses the vessels, and then equips the vessels.

All people, without exception, are unpersuadeable until God moves upon them.
In the case of Israel, they are all unpersuadeable as well. It is the election who are given sight (the door is unlocked), and the remainder are blinded (Romans 11:7). This is God's doing.

After anyone is given mercy, when their eyes are opened, (when the door of unpersuadeableness is unlocked) and they turn away from the living God because of the deceitfulness of sin, then, they will be instrumental in their own hearts becoming hardened as those who are described in the letter to the Hebrews.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Joe,
The verse immediately preceding that above is;
Romans 9:
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

There is a vast difference between an action of God upon certain vessels who have been chosen beforehand according to His purpose, and,
the hardening of the hearts that occurs to believers by the deceitfulness of sin through unbelief as were the children of Israel in the wilderness subsequent to their delivery from Egypt.

I think you misunderstood the passage. He says, "I will have mercy on whom I desire...." Paul then explains that God waited patiently for their repentance, and it's His choice on when to draw the line. Their hardened hearts were a result of sinning, so their eyes were not lifted, so to speak. Nobody's eyes are lifted until they are saved, and so salvation is based on God who has mercy; at His choice of course.

What you're supposing is that God randomly chose some to be hardened and blind in order to declare his wonders to the world. That is false! God chooses whom he desires and hardens whom he desires, based on their repentance. And obviously, those who continued to reject the Messiah were hardened, and suffered the wrath of God in 70AD. He did not merely "Throw the Dice" and declared who would be delivered and who were to be destroyed. Otherwise you're claiming that God is evil, which He is not; He is perfect and Holy, and knows who are His and who are NOT His. Those marked for destruction were hardened because they wore out the patients of God.



In Romans 9, 10 and 11 Paul is discussing the status of Israel primarily.

He says, in the concluding section in Romans 11:
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The verse is saying that God locks up all in unpersuadeableness (apeitheia, Strong's #543). To conclude is to shut up completely (sugkleio, Strong's #4788). Unpersuadeableness (apeitheia) is obstanancy or a hardness.

God chooses the vessels, and then equips the vessels.

Again, you're misinterpreting the passage. All are blinded until they are moved by God unto salvation. But this is still based on His Patients. Why else do you think Paul stated, "What if God, although wanting to declare his righteousness, BORE WITH GREAT PATIENTS the objects of His wrath?"

Seems pretty clear to me that His selection for Mercy has to do with His Patients, not random selection. He then uses a "bad" thing to turn it into something "good". By destroying the rebellion and condemning those to destruction, this turned out to be His glorification. But He did not purposely cause these to fail or be blinded; they were chosen for destruction because of their hardened hearts caused by sinning.


All people, without exception, are unpersuadeable until God moves upon them.
In the case of Israel, they are all unpersuadeable as well. It is the election who are given sight (the door is unlocked), and the remainder are blinded (Romans 11:7). This is God's doing.

After anyone is given mercy, when their eyes are opened, (when the door of unpersuadeableness is unlocked) and they turn away from the living God because of the deceitfulness of sin, then, they will be instrumental in their own hearts becoming hardened as those who are described in the letter to the Hebrews.

You just proved my point. All are blinded and the only way to gain vision is through the Mercy of Jesus. And His selection is based on a persons conduct. Could the Jews who nailed Christ to the cross be saved? They certainly could, if they stopped rebelling and rejecting Him. So their refusal to accept Him resulted in their hardened condition, and thus were marked for destruction.

It appears you're appealing to the Cavlinist Doctrine of salvation by selection and not by grace. I object to that teaching for it has no historical Church support. I think Calvin did more damage to the Church than good with all of his false teachings.

Joe

[joel]

First Richard attempts to indirectly put in the Hagee camp,
and, now, you put me in the Calvinists camp.

I am attempting to appeal to the meanings of words that are used in the scripture. I don't care what Hagee says, nor do I care what Calvinists say. I am neither. What does the scripture say?

This, to me, that is the only meaningful way to arrive at what verses say. You say that the hardening of the heart comes only through disobedience. I am saying that the scriptures, in certain cases, attribute to the hardening of hearts through God's intermediate action.

Is that not possible? Does that not occur?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

First Richard attempts to indirectly put in the Hagee camp,
and, now, you put me in the Calvinists camp.

I am attempting to appeal to the meanings of words that are used in the scripture. I don't care what Hagee says, nor do I care what Calvinists say. I am neither. What does the scripture say?

This, to me, that is the only meaningful way to arrive at what verses say. You say that the hardening of the heart comes only through disobedience. I am saying that the scriptures, in certain cases, attribute to the hardening of hearts through God's intermediate action.

Is that not possible? Does that not occur?

Joel

No insult intended friend. I was merely stating that the idea of salvation by election / selection was created by John Calvin. This was not an attack on you, and I apologize for making you believe that. John Calvin used this as his reason to prove that those who have been called/elected to salvation cannot fall, and it's impossible to make them fall from their steadfast position, namely because they were called. That is the reason why I object this teaching.

Yes it's possible for God to harden someone to prevent them from obtaining or seeing salvation, but this is not just mere chance of God's part, nor is it a forced condemnation because He wills it. It's a matter of the heart [which only He knows] and His grace.

Jesus preached to many Jews in the wilderness. With huge followers, eventually they turned away from Him because they didn't understand what He was saying. Why not? Because He spoke to them in parables and they were not able to "hear" what Jesus was saying, primarily because they were blinded.

Were they hardened? Yes because God knew their hearts. The great multitude who followed Jesus were rejected because they were not there to learn from Christ, but to be fed by the miracle He performed in feeding the multitude on the mountain. So Jesus said, "I tell you in truth, it is for bread that you come to me....do not seek this bread, but the manna which is from God...." And of course, they stated, "Our forefathers were fed manna from heaven, can you give us also manna from heaven?" He then stated that His body was the good food, and His blood was good drink.....of which they rejected what He was trying to say. Why were these left blinded? Because their heart was not towards Him, but towards the food they wanted.

In the same way, the Jews were hardened because they refused to accept the Messiah and His purpose. It wasn't a "King" they were looking for, but freedom from Roman control. Additionally, it wasn't the Messiah they wanted, but a military ruler who would turn their kingdom into the strongest military nation on earth. Now can you imagine the reaction the world would have had on this? Would man serve God because they were "FORCED" into doing so? No! Therefore, it was by choice, under the basis of grace. God's Kingdom does not Lord itself unto man, but through love is man drawn closer to Him. What you seem to suggest is that man loves God simply because they were selected to do so. I call that robotic salvation.

In conclusion, the Jews were not purposesly hardened for the sake of God declaring His awesome mercies. But they were "left" hardened because their hearts were not for Him. The scripture says, "Seek, and you shall find! Ask, and you will receive! Knock, and the doors shall be opened unto you.." But the hardened Jews were not seeking, so they did not find, resulting in the closed door. Unfortunately, this turned out to be a testimony to all the world because these that were rejected were destroyed in the Great Tribulation which happened in 70AD; those otherwise accepted were delivered from the Great Day of the Lord. THIS is the hardening you speak of, which ended in the first century, according to Isaiah.

Today there is no hardening, and men of all races are able to choose. When the gospel is preached, they either receive or reject, or the seed that was implanted in them might grow into salvation. Those who's hearts that God does not favor might as well remain in their current state. But God is patient, loving, and slow to anger. Who knows the heart of man but He alone?

I hope this clears things up brother Joel.

Joe

[joel]

Joe,

I appreciate that you did not purposely attempt to label me.

I am someone, just as are you, that only wants to see the truth more clearly.

Grace and peace to you.

As we move forward in the realm of God's grace, if we are attuned to the teachings of Paul, we are to seek to be adjusted in our faith, so that we may adjust others. This is a noble calling, but one that is often met with resistance which I am sure you have experienced as well.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First Richard attempts to indirectly put in the Hagee camp,
and, now, you put me in the Calvinists camp.

Hey Joel,

I don't know what I said that made you think that ... but I can assure you that I didn't mean it the way you took it!

Please accept my apology for not speaking clearly about whatever it was.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Hi folks. I couldn't work today due to a light ice "storm" here in Kansas City. It is so beautiful. God is great.
Anyhow, someone a few pages back responded to a post of mine and made a case that there will be no future antichrist figure. While this is not a central foundational issue to me, I believe that that premise is quite off track. 1 John 2:18 does say that antichrists were coming, as Jesus said in Mat 24:5. But like Jesus supported when citing Daniel in Mat 24:15, John also claimed that there was a personal antichrist figure to come. "just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared..." 1 John 2:18.
Jesus was referencing Daniel's prophecies of an evil person stopping worship at the temple. Jesus knew about Antiochus's personal fulfillment of these things in the past. Jesus, knowing history, still applied these things yet again to the future. The plain sense of Daniel calls for a literal person doing a literal and obvious thing, just like Antiochus. There was no individual comparable to antiochus in the first century. There was no one person defiling the temple then either, though it was defile by the blood of innocent priests at the hands of the zealots and then finally the blood of many fighters. This defilement was sealed by the erection of the pagan temple to Jupiter/Zeus and the pagan worship there on the temple mount in in time of desolation later. This, combined with numerous other unfulfilled prophecies like the resurrection of all the righteous, the return of Jesus in the sky, the gathering together of the living and resurrected elect, and the physical and spiritual salvation of the people of Israel are yet to come.

[eliyahu]

Hi theforgiven. Nice to meet you.
Well, about Romans 11. Ro 11:11 "...salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them jealous... vs12 how much more will their fulfillment be? vs 15what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? vs 24 How much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? vs 25 a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all (as opposed to the current remnant of some) Israel will be saved..."
Israel will completely fulfill their calling to be a light to the Gentiles/nations. That is not the situation with the predominantly Gentile church (and not Israel) preaching Jesus.
Nowhere are Gentile Christians called Jews or Israel in the whole Bible. The New Testament consistantly distinguishes the two. Never are the words "Jew" or "Israel" applied to any Gentile.
Galations 5:16, the "Israel of God" is the one foundational verse for so many teachings. However, it is not a doctrinal foundational statement in its context. It also is, in context, referring to the Jews who are of new covenant faith worshiping God in unity with Gentiles of the same faith. Those Jews are the "Israel" which are "of God" in their Spiritual relationship with Jesus. That in no way annuls God's covenant relationship with all other Jews as well.
The unfaithful Jews' unfaithfulness does no annul God's faithfulness. Were not almost all prophets sent to Israel in times of her apostacy? God renounced their ways but promised restoration and salvation in the future. He has not changed.
The main issue is that Israel is still forever "Israel," Biblically speaking in plain sense. The new covenant was made with Israel, Jer 31:31. It was not made with Gentile or only the faithful people in Israel but all Israel and Judah (all Jews). That blood of the covenant was poured out for "the many" Mat 26:58 in reference to God's people and their iniquities in Isaiah 51:11b. This inclues unbelieving Jews with iniqity the same as believing ones. God is requiring new covenant faith from all Israel today and not old covenant faith any longer.
The Jews are one nation or ethnic group of people. Abraham is the father of many nations. We believers are all one in Christ to be sure. But that does not eliminate our individual identities as to our sex or ethnicity. We are not somehow now androgenous, ethnically equal people. Our Gender and nationality is different with different roles assigned for the glory of our creatively diverse God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks. I couldn't work today due to a light ice "storm" here in Kansas City. It is so beautiful. God is great.
And you have power? That's nice - it's no fun to have a day off without power. The drudge report says there are 600,000 without power in the midwest.


Anyhow, someone a few pages back responded to a post of mine and made a case that there will be no future antichrist figure. While this is not a central foundational issue to me, I believe that that premise is quite off track. 1 John 2:18 does say that antichrists were coming, as Jesus said in Mat 24:5. But like Jesus supported when citing Daniel in Mat 24:15, John also claimed that there was a personal antichrist figure to come. "just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared..." 1 John 2:18.

But note that those verses prove the "antichrists" were appearing in the first century. Indeed, John says that was proof that they were in the "last hour" back then.


Jesus was referencing Daniel's prophecies of an evil person stopping worship at the temple. Jesus knew about Antiochus's personal fulfillment of these things in the past. Jesus, knowing history, still applied these things yet again to the future. The plain sense of Daniel calls for a literal person doing a literal and obvious thing, just like Antiochus. There was no individual comparable to antiochus in the first century. There was no one person defiling the temple then either, though it was defile by the blood of innocent priests at the hands of the zealots and then finally the blood of many fighters. This defilement was sealed by the erection of the pagan temple to Jupiter/Zeus and the pagan worship there on the temple mount in in time of desolation later. This, combined with numerous other unfulfilled prophecies like the resurrection of all the righteous, the return of Jesus in the sky, the gathering together of the living and resurrected elect, and the physical and spiritual salvation of the people of Israel are yet to come.
That is an interesting inference ... but there are three problems as I see it. The first is by far the most significant. The scenario you suggest can never happen because there can never again be a real sanctified Temple in Jerusalem. The Jewish law with its bloody sacrifcies was totally fulfilled in Christ. God will never sanctify a Torah-keeping Temple in Jerusalem again, and if the Jews pile up a bunch of rocks and call it a Temple, it would mean NOTHING and so it can never again be "desolated" in the sense that Christ meant.

Second, there is no reference to any single man as "The Antichrist" in the Bible. On the contrary, there are "many antichrists."

Third, the definition of an antichrist has nothing to do with a wanna be world dictator or even a person with any political powers at all. The definition is entirely doctrinal. A person is "antichrist" if 1) he denies that Jesus is Messiah, or 2) he denies that Jesus came in the flesh.

So I consider the use of the term "The Antichrist" for "The Man of Sin" to be a rather easily avoided error. Your suggestion that Christ's reference to the historical Abomination of Desolation demands a ruling pagan figure like Antiochus seems debatable. Why would not a Jewish man of sin (such as the murderous and apostate high priest parading himself aroud God's Temple as if he owned it, using it for his own purposes) be a possible fulfillment of Christs warning? Indeed, would Christ refer to pagan Gentiles as "false Christs" and "false prophets?" It seems He was, of necessity, speaking of first century Jews.

I'm glad you focused on this question. It's very important in my estimation, because the whole world has become filled with the erroneous idea that the Bible teaches something about The Antichrist whose number is 666 and who will be a World Dictator.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Now about Josephus. I have read it quite thoroughly and I do believe that most it should be taken as likely to be "true." All of the supernatural events he described probably happenned in the first century following the crucifixion, if not most. They do seem to line up with Jesus' prophecies. I do not deny that.
But, Mat 24:30-31 were obviously not fulfilled. All of the preceding prophecies were fulfilled (on one level or another) in the following 40+ years. But just as those prophecies were literally fulfilled, vs 30-31 must be also. Apparently, "immediately after the tribulation..." has come. But the next event, the "sign of the Son of Man" appearing in the sky, has clearly not come. God has also not yet destroyed all Israel's enemy nations nor has the "house of David" (Jewish leadership) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem looked upon the crucified one and mourned in repentance for their sins and the sins of their fathers according to Zech 12:9-10. We cannot make something symbolic when it seems convenient to us.
The prophets frequently lumped chronological events together into what was apparently immediate and successive intervals when their fulfillments turned out to be drawn out into very long intervals.

[eliyahu]

Now about Josephus. I have read it quite thoroughly and I do believe that most it should be taken as likely to be "true." All of the supernatural events he described probably happenned in the first century following the crucifixion, if not most. They do seem to line up with Jesus' prophecies. I do not deny that.
But, Mat 24:30-31 were obviously not fulfilled. All of the preceding prophecies were fulfilled (on one level or another) in the following 40+ years. But just as those prophecies were literally fulfilled, vs 30-31 must be also. Apparently, "immediately after the tribulation..." has come. But the next event, the "sign of the Son of Man" appearing in the sky, has clearly not come. God has also not yet destroyed all Israel's enemy nations nor has the "house of David" (Jewish leadership) and the inhabitants of Jerusalem looked upon the crucified one and mourned in repentance for their sins and the sins of their fathers according to Zech 12:9-10. We cannot make something symbolic when it seems convenient to us.
The prophets frequently lumped chronological events together into what was apparently immediate and successive intervals when their fulfillments turned out to be drawn out into very long intervals.

[eliyahu]

I rewite this after losing my connection... I take a deep breath. Hi RAM!
As for a temple inthe future. While God will not accept temple worship from unbelieving Jews ever, this does not restrict them from building a "torah compliant" temple and sacrificing there. In fact, Paul never condemned temple worship or sacrifices. He actually participated in them in Acts 21:26. Many of the priests came to faith as well with no record that they left the priesthood. That would have cause major disturbances in Judaism anyhow.

[eliyahu]

As for the church now being the temple. While we are collectively being built into a holy temple, that does not negate a physical one in the past or future. Jesus called the temple "the holy place" in Mat 24:15. This was to be fulfilled in the future after his resurrection and the church's time had begun. Paul and Luke also called it "the temple" in Acts and the epistles. No one called the church "the temple" as opposed to a physical one.

[eliyahu]

I am also not looking for a 666 mark. Imagine the rebellion against such a thing! I see that as symbolic imagery borrowed from Deut 11:18-21. But I do expect a temple of sorts and a defilement to be accomplished in the future.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi theforgiven. Nice to meet you.
Well, about Romans 11. Ro 11:11 "...salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them jealous... vs12 how much more will their fulfillment be? vs 15what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? vs 24 How much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? vs 25 a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all (as opposed to the current remnant of some) Israel will be saved..."
Hey there Eliyahu,

I'm really glad you brought up those points. They are the standard-issue "Anti-Replacement Theology" verses. It would be great to test them in light of Scripture with you.



Israel will completely fulfill their calling to be a light to the Gentiles/nations.

Israel has "completely fulilled their calling" by bringing forth Jesus Christ, who is the Light of the World. How could a reinstituted earthly kingdom of enthnic Israel add to that? What is a candle compared to the Sun?


That is not the situation with the predominantly Gentile church (and not Israel) preaching Jesus.
There is no such thing as a "Gentile church." There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. And rather than furthering the Gospel, experience (both recent and ancient) has shown that a specifically "Jewish" focus tends to cause people to fall back into the law. Even the Apostle Peter erred in this and had to be corrected by Paul. And there is no reason to think that the physical descendents of Abraham's flesh would "preach Jesus" better than anyone else.


Nowhere are Gentile Christians called Jews or Israel in the whole Bible. The New Testament consistantly distinguishes the two. Never are the words "Jew" or "Israel" applied to any Gentile.
I see that as a wrong way to frame the issue. The truth is simple and plain for all to see. God declares that Christians are "the seed of Abraham and heirs according to promise." It has nothing to do with carnal definitions of who descended physically from whom. God has made it perfectly clear that He defines His People by faith in Christ. It has nothing to do with who you momma or your papa was.


Galations 5:16, the "Israel of God" is the one foundational verse for so many teachings.

I don't think that is correct. Its not a "foundational verse" at all. It is an illustrative verse. The foundational verses are those that clearly and unambiguously teach that God never gave any promises to anyone except the Children of Promise. The flesh profits nothing.


However, it is not a doctrinal foundational statement in its context. It also is, in context, referring to the Jews who are of new covenant faith worshiping God in unity with Gentiles of the same faith. Those Jews are the "Israel" which are "of God" in their Spiritual relationship with Jesus. That in no way annuls God's covenant relationship with all other Jews as well.

It seems to me that your interpretation directly contradicts both the spirit and the letter of Galatians. The purpose of Galatians is to prove that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ. And now you want us to believe that Paul contradicts his own teaching in his closing passage? If Paul meant to distinguish "the Jews who are of new covenant faith" from the Gentiles then he is perpetrating the very thing he has set out to destroy, namely, the wall of division between Jew and Gentile.


The unfaithful Jews' unfaithfulness does no annul God's faithfulness. Were not almost all prophets sent to Israel in times of her apostacy? God renounced their ways but promised restoration and salvation in the future. He has not changed.

Indeed, God has not changed. He fulfilled His Word and saved all Israel that believed in Him. The rest He destroyed just as He destroyed all the entire generation of unbelievers in the wilderness. Indeed, God has not changed. He saved those He promised to save, and destroyed the rest.


The main issue is that Israel is still forever "Israel," Biblically speaking in plain sense.


Biblically speaking? Absolutely correct:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. Fleshly, carnal, ethnic "Israel" has absolutely no claim to any of the promises of God. God never gave them any promises. The promises were always to the children of promise through faith, for indeed, God does not change! :thumb:


The new covenant was made with Israel, Jer 31:31. It was not made with Gentile or only the faithful people in Israel but all Israel and Judah (all Jews).

Exactly correct! First God joined the two sticks (Ezek 37) of Judah and Israel together as one in Christ at Pentecost, and then He grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish Church, which now is known as the Body of Christ.


That blood of the covenant was poured out for "the many" Mat 26:58 in reference to God's people and their iniquities in Isaiah 51:11b. This inclues unbelieving Jews with iniqity the same as believing ones. God is requiring new covenant faith from all Israel today and not old covenant faith any longer.
Amen! God has not cast off His people! They can join the Church of Christ just like Paul and all the other first century Christians.


The Jews are one nation or ethnic group of people. Abraham is the father of many nations. We believers are all one in Christ to be sure. But that does not eliminate our individual identities as to our sex or ethnicity. We are not somehow now androgenous, ethnically equal people. Our Gender and nationality is different with different roles assigned for the glory of our creatively diverse God.
Yes, God could have some future purpose for ethnic Israel. But I don't think its anything like what you described.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

As for the church now being the temple. While we are collectively being built into a holy temple, that does not negate a physical one in the past or future. Jesus called the temple "the holy place" in Mat 24:15. This was to be fulfilled in the future after his resurrection and the church's time had begun. Paul and Luke also called it "the temple" in Acts and the epistles. No one called the church "the temple" as opposed to a physical one.

You accept that the Church is the temple of the Lord. Why then do you expect a future physical temple made of brick and stone. I could list dozens of scripture to show you that it's our temples (Our bodies) that he desires. Isaiah chapter 1 speaks of this.

But please, if you will, allow me to quote a passage taken from an early father of the late first early second century, who spoke also of these things. His name is Barnabus: 80 - 130 AD

http://www.forerunner.com/churchfathers/images/barnabas.jpg


Barnabus 4:
11 For the Scripture says: "Woe to them who are prudent for themselves and understanding in their own sight." Let us be spiritual, let us be a temple consecrated to God, so far as in us lies let us "exercise ourselves in the fear" of God, and let us strive to keep his commandments in order that we may rejoice in his ordinances.

And regarding the "Rebuilt Temple"


CHAPTER 16

The Temple

1 I will also speak with you concerning the Temple, and show how the wretched men erred by putting their hope on the building, and not on the God who made them, and is the true house of God.

2 For they consecrated him in the Temple almost like the heathen. But learn how the Lord speaks, in bringing it to naught, "Who has measured the heaven with a span, or the earth with his outstretched hand? Have not I? saith the Lord. Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool, what house will ye build for me, or what is the place of my rest?" You know that their hope was vain.[Isaiah 1]

3 Furthermore he says again, "Lo, they who destroyed this temple shall themselves build it."

4 That is happening now. For owing to the war it was destroyed by the enemy; at present even the servants of the enemy will build it up again.

5 Again, it was made manifest that the city and the temple and the people of Israel were to be delivered up. For the Scripture says, "And it shall come to pass in the last days that the Lord shall deliver the sheep of his pasture, and the sheep-fold, and their tower to destruction." And it took place according to what the Lord said.

6 But let us inquire if a temple of God exists. Yes, it exists, where he himself said that he makes and perfects it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass when the week is ended that a temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord."[Writings of Enoch]

7 I find then that a temple exists. Learn then how it will be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, like a temple really built with hands, because it was full of idolatry, and was the house of demons through doing things which were contrary to God.

8 "But it shall be built in the name of the Lord." Now give heed, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously. Learn in what way. When we received the remission of sins, and put our hope on the Name, we became new, being created again from the beginning; wherefore God truly dwells in us, in the habitation which we are.

9 How? His word of faith, the calling of his promise, the wisdom of the ordinances, the commands of the teaching, himself prophesying in us, himself dwelling in us, by opening the door of the temple (that is the mouth) to us, giving repentance to us, and thus he leads us, who have been enslaved to death into the incorruptible temple.

10 For he who desires to be saved looks not at the man, but at him who dwells and speaks in him, and is amazed at him, for he has never either heard him speak such words with his mouth, nor has he himself ever desired to hear them. This is a spiritual temple being built for the Lord.

We do not know for certain how Barnabus died, but his wisdom was certainly from God. Although I do not agree with his eschatology regarding the six days of creation, I agree with everything else. The Temple of the Lord is the Church of believers. The very ones who destroyed the temple [the Romans] took part in its rebuilding [The Roman Church; not the RCC which wouldn't exist for another 200 years].

Barnabus clearly shows that the temple God dwells within is the hearts and minds of His children, and it's these which make up His Kingdom / Temple.

Therefore, it's extremely futile to expect a physical temple, for God does not dwell in bricks or stone....please believe bother. Let go and believe, and let go of the carnal things. I say this with a true heart and purity of love.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I rewite this after losing my connection... I take a deep breath. Hi RAM!
As for a temple inthe future. While God will not accept temple worship from unbelieving Jews ever, this does not restrict them from building a "torah compliant" temple and sacrificing there. In fact, Paul never condemned temple worship or sacrifices. He actually participated in them in Acts 21:26. Many of the priests came to faith as well with no record that they left the priesthood. That would have cause major disturbances in Judaism anyhow.
Hey there Elihayu!

How's the weather? It's all frozen here in Yakima.

It took Peter a long time to get over his ingrained Jewish habits too. Remember, Paul called him a hypocrite when he went back to the kosher food laws.

As everyone knows, the is a progression over time in the biblical revelation. God didn't immediately reveal that Gentiles would be included on the day of Pentecost. He waited for something like three years before revealing His Will concerning the inclusion of the Gentiles. Then another twenty years or so passed before He gave His complete written revelation about the relation between Jews and Gentiles in the Church (Romans 9-11).

So whatever Paul the man did or did not do does not teach us if God would still honor a "torah compliant Temple." I am convinced by the overall message of Scripture that He most certainly would not, because it would contradict His entire NT revelation concerning the end of the Levitical priesthood and its law of animal sacrifices, and the finality of the sacrifice of Christ.


As for the sacrifice that Paul almost offered, it is interesting that Paul did participate in a Temple ritual that would have involved an animal sacrifice at the end of seven days, but just before he was able to to that there was an uprising
Acts 21:26-27 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
So whether it was God or "circumstance" that stopped Paul from completing his intended sacrifice, we do not know. But agiain, I am convinced that the whole idea of animal sacrifices is an abomination in the sight of God now that He has offered up His Only Son for our sins.

And finally, the idea of a "torah compliant Temple" is not the issue. The issue is that a pile of rocks built by unbelieving Jews will never be a true "House of the Lord." It is therefore impossible for there to be any future fulfillment of the prophecies concernign the Abomination of Desolation. You see, the problem is that those prophecies were part of a huge prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse, The "players" were the literal Jews and the literal Romans of the first century. So to make a future scenario work, folks have to reinvent the first century with a re-vived Roman Empire, a re-built Temple with re-instituted sacrifices that can be re-stopped after which the re-built Temple would be re-desolated and then re-destroyed. In other words, the entire first century needs to be re-played!

So if you are holding to all this futurism, I'm guessing you must believe that Christ gave two or three different Olivet Discourses, is that correct? Matt 24 is ALL FUTURE? and Luke is ALL PAST up to the "Fig tree?"

Well, this post is getting too long .. sorry!

Richard

[eliyahu]

The weather here is ... ICE! I have to work outside on ladders today. Fun.
Well, as to the temple issue. While I do not believe that Paul had a change of heart about the sacrifices he was about to make in Acts (which were not atonement sacrifices anyway), I believe that the temple was still legitamate (though unnecessary) in non-atonement worship. Most Jews did not understand, nor had it been tauight yet, the work of the cross at that point anyhow. A future temple would not be what God is requiring of Israel. That does not mean that Jews in spiritual darkness will not attempt to build one. The worship at a temple is not necessary. But one is prophecied to be defiled. It does not matter wehat one thinks about the worship at a future temple at all. It is a symbol of Jewish attempts at reaching and worshiping God. This final desecration will be the sign of God's wrath pouring out in the judgment of an antichrist figure being unleashed upon Israel, the church, and the nations.

[eliyahu]

I will have to get back about the other Qs later. bye RAM.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The weather here is ... ICE! I have to work outside on ladders today. Fun.
Well, as to the temple issue. While I do not believe that Paul had a change of heart about the sacrifices he was about to make in Acts (which were not atonement sacrifices anyway), I believe that the temple was still legitamate (though unnecessary) in non-atonement worship. Most Jews did not understand, nor had it been tauight yet, the work of the cross at that point anyhow. A future temple would not be what God is requiring of Israel. That does not mean that Jews in spiritual darkness will not attempt to build one. The worship at a temple is not necessary. But one is prophecied to be defiled. It does not matter wehat one thinks about the worship at a future temple at all. It is a symbol of Jewish attempts at reaching and worshiping God. This final desecration will be the sign of God's wrath pouring out in the judgment of an antichrist figure being unleashed upon Israel, the church, and the nations.
What passage do you interpret as a prophecy of a future destruction of a yet to be built temple? I do not know of a single NT verse that gives any prophecy of a Temple being rebuilt. Do you? And it seems incontrovertible that Christ was speaking of the first century temple in all three versions of the Olivet Discourse. The only hint of a future Temple is found in 2 Thess 2 but there's no "prophecy" of a rebuilt Temple there. And you only get the hint if you begin by assuming a futurist interpretation. So that one passage is entirely insufficient as a foundation for the doctrine of a "rebuilt Temple."

Please take no offence, but this is why I feel that futurism is a fantasy built out of air floating in nothingness. There is no foundation for a fundamental doctrine like a "rebuilt temple" and indeed, the idea of a rebuilt temple contradicts the fundamental historico-redemptive flow of the Bible in which we witnessed the TOTAL END of the old covenant with its old bloody sacrificial system after the advent of Christ our final sacrifice.

The same problem exists for the Millennium. There is no verse that says Christ is going to reign on earth for a thousand years, and most if not all the "Millennial" passages of OT are really prophecies of the Church as is super-obvious because they use symbolic language like "David my shepherd shall rule over them forever."

Well, gotta run. There's some doors that need painting! :lol:

Richard.

[TheForgiven]

I was reading some information online about someone named Ed Stevens, who was a prior Futurist, converted over to Preterism. He left the Southern Baptist Church in Texas and joined the Church of Christ. Based on what I know of their eschatology, nearly all CoC are Full Preterist. I've never been a member of the Coc, but I was a prior member of their sister twin, the Christian Church. The name of the Church is called Autumn Woods Christian Church. I left there because of their eschatology change. One day, the minister (new one I might add) who's friends came from the Assemblies of God Churches, influenced the eschatology within that Church. I went to service and wouldn't you know it. They played the Internet video of a British minister preaching about the rapture, and while he was speaking, all of a sudden, most of the members were gone, except a few left sitting alone in the pews, right after a loud flash of lightening. Then the words appear on the screen, "For as the lightening flashes in the east, is visible even in the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be...." :pop2: I know pretty exciting right? I tried to correct them on that, and one of the oldest Elders, who apparently retained this belief within himself, began to teach this to the congregation after the former minister left for Virginia...who was a Partial Preterist. Now, the Church I once loved, has become filled with members advocating the Futurist doctrine. I therefore left them and tried to show them the reasons why I don't believe in that eschatology. I mean I do believe in it, namely that it happened to the Apostles generation (my own opinion), but I don't believe it's relevant today. But I also left them for other reasons, namely that their assembly was not fruitful. They were too concerned with building expansion and the ministers pay check. To me, those are not the priorities of the Church. I also objected to the minister wanting to waste Church funds and travel to Israel and study at one of their schools. I failed to see the reason for even doing that, especially with all the danger there from the Arabs. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with him wanting to go there, but I felt there was something more personal for him, and not for the Church.....eek, I changed the subject....sorry folks.

Anyways, Ed Stevens debated with a Partial Preterist, and apparently he believes that a Partial Preterist does not deserve to be considered a Preterist. He wasn't insulting about it, but I fail to see his reasoning behind it.

Does anyone else have additional information on him?

Joe

[eliyahu]

Well, the evidence for a future temple is not as solid as many people put it. I will admit that it is not an airtight case in my opinioon. The evidence is for a temple is when Paul said that the man of sin would sit himself in the temple... That did not happen in ad 70 or after. That is the piece of evidence. But again, it does not matter about this particular point. I need to go now, later Rich.:)

[TheForgiven]

Well, the evidence for a future temple is not as solid as many people put it. I will admit that it is not an airtight case in my opinioon. The evidence is for a temple is when Paul said that the man of sin would sit himself in the temple... That did not happen in ad 70 or after. That is the piece of evidence. But again, it does not matter about this particular point. I need to go now, later Rich.

Hello friend. You might be right, but we don't know for certain if someone sat in the temple or not. Richard brings up a great point about the robbers (as Josephus calls them) who basically entered the temple and did what ever they wanted. So perhaps one of them did do this, but was not documented. Perhaps Simon Magus did so, with the approval of Nero Caesar, who also declared himself to be the Son of God. We just don't know because of the writing-lack which exists after 70 AD.

Now if you refer to the exaltant one who sits in the temple as the AC, Paul did not declare him to be the AC, but a man of sin. John, however, refers to many AC existing. Keep also in mind that Futurist believe John wrote 1,2 and 3 AFTER 70 AD. So if John wrote his three Epistles after 70 AD, and also spoke of many AC gone out into the world, how then do you reconsile this with Paul?

Does anyone else not find it very curious as to why Christian writings were almost non-existant after 70 AD, and not again until the late 90's AD? If Christians still exists by the hundreds of thousands even after 70 AD, where are their writings? Why is it that the earliest Church Father writings is from Ignatius and Clement of Rome, which dates to about 120 - 180 AD?

Why is there a gap between 70 AD and 90 AD without inspired or un-inspired writings? That's almost 20 years.

Joe

[MHz]

Why is there a gap between 70 AD and 90 AD without inspired or un-inspired writings? That's almost 20 years.

Hi Joe,
Maybe it was an interlude in which the 'Churches' had time to read all the works written before the last book started to be circulated. By that time the Thessalonians had read all the letters not given directly to them and vice-versa.

Wayne

[basilfo]

......
Anyways, Ed Stevens debated with a Partial Preterist, and apparently he believes that a Partial Preterist does not deserve to be considered a Preterist. He wasn't insulting about it, but I fail to see his reasoning behind it.

Does anyone else have additional information on him?

Joe

Hi Joe,
He's apparently one of the main dudes on the pret landscape. Here is his website:

http://www.preterist.org/whoarewe.asp

I have bought some excellent study books from them. People can read the Q/A's on the site and 'see if these things are so'. (Acts 17:11)

[basilfo]

Well, the evidence for a future temple is not as solid as many people put it. I will admit that it is not an airtight case in my opinioon. The evidence is for a temple is when Paul said that the man of sin would sit himself in the temple... That did not happen in ad 70 or after. That is the piece of evidence. But again, it does not matter about this particular point. I need to go now, later Rich.:)

Richard and Joseph covered some of this, but I will toss in my 2 cents.
When Paul says 'the temple of God' with no explanation to the already confused Thess's, one can hardly conclude any other temple is in view than THE temple in Jerusalem at the time.

How do you know 'that did not happen in 70AD'?

The other point is that 'the temple of God' implies a legitimate temple, which the temple in Jerusalem prior to it's destruction was. Yes, Christ's sacrifice negated the purpose of the temple rituals and the OC was transitioning to the NC prior to 70AD, but nevertheless, it was still THE temple. And the apostles still went to it to worship and teach. So the Thess's would only think of that building when Paul said the MOS must sit in 'the temple of God'.

Any temple rebuilt today would be completely unsactioned by God and unholy and would never be called a 'temple of God' by any true believer, let alone Paul. So this notion of a future 'temple' would be built by Christ-rejecting people under a our New Covanant that has moved completely away from that form of local/insufficient/fleshly worship. Nothinig in Scripture speaks of a bogus/phony temple. That is your rock solid evidence.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well, the evidence for a future temple is not as solid as many people put it. I will admit that it is not an airtight case in my opinioon. The evidence is for a temple is when Paul said that the man of sin would sit himself in the temple... That did not happen in ad 70 or after. That is the piece of evidence. But again, it does not matter about this particular point. I need to go now, later Rich.:)
Hey Eliyahu,

Thanks for the straight answer. I love it when folks demonstrate their love of truth by admitting things they may not desire to be true. That makes you a real brother. :tea:

As you know, I disagree that it "did not happen in ad 70." I think there is good evidence (much better than any evidence for a future temple) that the "man of sin" was the second beast/false prophet of Revelation, because they have the same powers to do lying signs and wonders and it all fits together with the warnings in the OD. You see, the number and quality of the mutually confirming verses is like 1000 to 1 in favor of the preterist over the futurist vision. And the reason? The futurist vision is almost entirely speculative with nothing to confirm it - neither in the Bible or in History (since the history hasn't happened yet! So its all speculation).

Think about the endless cloud of speculation that is woven together to form the gossamer fabric of futurism. It starts with a manufactured gap pf 1937+ years in Dan 9:26. It invents a wanna-be world dictator called "The Antichrist" which appears nowhere as such in the entire Bible. It invents a earthly Millennial reign of Christ that is never mentioned in Scripture. It invents a rebuilt temple that is never prophecied in Scripture. It ignores the primary intergrated first century time statements that strongly link Daniel, Rev, and the OD. Need I go on? The futurist paradigm could well inspire a Ph.D. thesis entitled "Advanced Studies in the Theoretical Interaction between Holes and the Nothingness that fills them."

But don't let my strong opinions deter you from trying to correct the erorrs of my ways. I would like nothing better than to have my eschatology vigorously, rigorously, and exhaustively tested in light of the God's most excellent Word!

Thanks for your help bro!

Richard

[MHz]

The futurist vision is almost entirely speculative with nothing to confirm it - neither in the Bible or in History (since the history hasn't happened yet! So its all speculation).
Does that mean you only believe the words in the Bible because some history book 'confirms some event'. Too bad there won't be any books written about what will yet be.
Joh:20:29: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.



Think about the endless cloud of speculation that is woven together to form the gossamer fabric of futurism.
Yes, when you want to slow down your own progress you should focus on the perceived short-comings of another that believes different than you. That way you don't have to look at the defects in your own particular slant to understanding Scripture.



It starts with a manufactured gap pf 1937+ years in Dan 9:26. It invents a wanna-be world dictator called "The Antichrist" which appears nowhere as such in the entire Bible.
I already covered that you have a 40 year gap between the cutting-off and the destruction of the city, how did you manufacture that? Since that gap is there (as per our history books), how can you possibly justify that is the only gap there? If there is a gap there then who are you to say there are not gaps all the way through? How could a time be given between when He left and when His return is, that would kind of take away any mystery about what only God knows at this time. BTW the first gap after the destruction of the city is the time until His return, the gap after that includes the 1000 years.

The False Prophet doesn't have to be invented, 3 verses from 3 different chapters say he will be there and something is going to happen to him.
Re:16:13
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.
Re:19:20:
And the beast was taken,
and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him,
with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast,
and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Re:20:10:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



It invents a earthly Millennial reign of Christ that is never mentioned in Scripture.
Yes it is, you use it yourself except now 1000 can be any number except 1000.



It invents a rebuilt temple that is never prophecied in Scripture.
I've already posted the verses that say Christ alone will build a house of prayer that will be standing when the first of the 'elect' are called to come home. There will be some decorating to do but the house of prayer will be standing and there will be a throne there also, as is needed for a king in His own kingdom.



It ignores the primary intergrated first century time statements that strongly link Daniel, Rev, and the OD.
Which way does God tell us things? A vision with an explanation or a prophecy (which requires no explanation because it is already talking in a literal sense)followed by an actual event is pretty much my view.
Revelation was given to the oldest and the last living of those who heard Jesus said 'some of you will not die until you see the kingdom of God'. John was the only one shown what Heaven looks like, the rest of us will see it all at the same time.



Need I go on? The futurist paradigm could well inspire a Ph.D. thesis entitled "Advanced Studies in the Theoretical Interaction between Holes and the Nothingness that fills them."
While I'm doing that, please feel free to keep tossing those verses that have no meaning into the void. Be interesting what you finally end up with, not.



But don't let my strong opinions deter you from trying to correct the erorrs of my ways. I would like nothing better than to have my eschatology vigorously, rigorously, and exhaustively tested in light of the God's most excellent Word!

Why aren't you and Scripture correcting the errors of your ways.
It's a waste of time trying to bring some Jews to believe in Christ if God has already determined they will be blinded to that because God put that blindness there for a reason and it won't be lifted until a certain time for a reason.
Try converting the ones that are doing wrong in this verse,
Re:22:10:
And he saith unto me,
Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book:
for the time is at hand.
Re:22:11:
He that is unjust,
let him be unjust still:
and he which is filthy,
let him be filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him be righteous still:
and he that is holy,
let him be holy still.
Re:22:12:
And,
behold,
I come quickly;
and my reward is with me,
to give every man according as his work shall be.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good moring Wayne! :yo:





The futurist vision is almost entirely speculative with nothing to confirm it - neither in the Bible or in History (since the history hasn't happened yet! So its all speculation).

Does that mean you only believe the words in the Bible because some history book 'confirms some event'.

Of course not Wayne! You know me better than that, or at least you should after talking with me so long. You KNOW that I have NEVER rejected the truth of any words in the Bible! How could you ask such a question? We are talking about how to interpret those words, not whether they are "true" or not.

Obvously, we need to discuss the meaning of "literal" vs. "figurative" language in the Bible. Both are just as "true" - the only difference is how God chose to express the truth. You seem to be very disturbed by this fact. I wish there was a way we could talk about it that wouldn't make you upset.


Too bad there won't be any books written about what will yet be.
Joh:20:29: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Unfortunately, there have been all too many books written about some folks' fantasies about the future.

That verse you quoted was talking about the spiritual perception of the reality of the resurrected Jesus Christ - it was not talking about knowing the future.



Yes, when you want to slow down your own progress you should focus on the perceived short-comings of another that believes different than you. That way you don't have to look at the defects in your own particular slant to understanding Scripture.
Yes, when you want to slow down your own progress you should focus on the perceived short-comings of another that believes different than you. That way you don't have to look at the defects in your own particular slant to understanding Scripture.

Come on Wayne - your accusation is entirely unfounded. You know that I have not avoided any challenge to anything I believe on this forum. Indeed, I practically BEG you to challenge my beliefs. So don't accuse me of things I'm not doing, ok? Thanks buddy!




It starts with a manufactured gap pf 1937+ years in Dan 9:26. It invents a wanna-be world dictator called "The Antichrist" which appears nowhere as such in the entire Bible.

I already covered that you have a 40 year gap between the cutting-off and the destruction of the city, how did you manufacture that?

If you "covered" it then you covered it erroneously, because I was perfectly clear that I have not settled on an interpretation of how the 40 year historical gap between Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of the Jerusalem relates to the prophecy. I have already explained that there is not necessarily a gap in the prophecy because the prophecy does not say that the destruction of the temple happens in the 70th week.

The futurists assert that there is a 1937+ year gap in the prophecy. That directly contradicts the meaning of 70 x 7 = 490 years because it transforms it into 483+1937+ = 2420+ years.

The futurist view invents a gap in the prophecy itself to fit their theory. This is altogether different than the preterist view with is confronted with the historical fact of a gap of 40 years which does not necessarily mean that there is any gap in the prophecy at all, since the destruction is not specifically stated to have occurred in the 70th week.


Since that gap is there (as per our history books), how can you possibly justify that is the only gap there?

Because the gap is in the history that follows after the 70th week. So there is not necessarily a gap in the prophecy.


If there is a gap there then who are you to say there are not gaps all the way through? How could a time be given between when He left and when His return is, that would kind of take away any mystery about what only God knows at this time.

Not so, because no body new the time of His coming in judgment on Jerusalem


BTW the first gap after the destruction of the city is the time until His return, the gap after that includes the 1000 years.

Gaps are holes - that's one reason I called the futurist ideology of "theology of holes." Once you accept that basic premise, you have left behind the Bible and entered into the wild and wonderful world of speculation.


The False Prophet doesn't have to be invented, 3 verses from 3 different chapters say he will be there and something is going to happen to him.
Re:16:13
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.
Re:19:20:
And the beast was taken,
and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him,
with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast,
and them that worshipped his image.
These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Re:20:10:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

You REALLY need to start reading my words with a little more care, my friend! I never said that the "false prophet" was invented! I never said any such thing. The "invention" I was talking about was the idea of a wanna be world dictator called "The Antichrist." And as you know, that character is not mentioned "as such" anywhere in Scrpture.




It invents a earthly Millennial reign of Christ that is never mentioned in Scripture.

Yes it is, you use it yourself except now 1000 can be any number except 1000.

As I said, you really need to read and respond to the words that I actually write, or we won't understand each other at all. You see that word I used? I said the Bible never mention an earthly Millennial reign. It has nothing to do with our interpretation of the expression "thousand years." I simply stated an incontrovertible Biblical FACT because Biblical FACTS are the foundation of my eshcatology. The Bible nowhere states that Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. I've explained this before, I thought you understood it. Please ackowledge now that you understand it, so the conversation can progress to the promised land of Truth.

As for the meaning of the 1000 years: I never said or suggested anything like "1000 can be any number except 1000." Such comments grossly mischaracterize the differences in our points of view, and greatly diminishes the quality of our converstation.




It invents a rebuilt temple that is never prophecied in Scripture.

I've already posted the verses that say Christ alone will build a house of prayer that will be standing when the first of the 'elect' are called to come home. There will be some decorating to do but the house of prayer will be standing and there will be a throne there also, as is needed for a king in His own kingdom.

My comments were not directed at you or your personal interperetations that differ from mainstream futurism. I was talking about the futurist idea that there must be a rebuilt temple so it can be redesolated.




Need I go on? The futurist paradigm could well inspire a Ph.D. thesis entitled "Advanced Studies in the Theoretical Interaction between Holes and the Nothingness that fills them."

While I'm doing that, please feel free to keep tossing those verses that have no meaning into the void. Be interesting what you finally end up with, not.
That is a pretty serious accusation Wayne. You have now obligated yourself to either recanting or posting at least three examples of verses that I have declared to "have no meaning."




But don't let my strong opinions deter you from trying to correct the erorrs of my ways. I would like nothing better than to have my eschatology vigorously, rigorously, and exhaustively tested in light of the God's most excellent Word!

Why aren't you and Scripture correcting the errors of your ways.

God has been using Scipture and the folks on this forum (including you Wayne!) to correct many of the "errors in my ways." Let us pray that He continue in His wonderful work.

We are not enemies Wayne. You know my fundamental motivation. I want my eschatology founded on Biblical facts and reality. I hate false doctrines made up by people who change their beliefs as often as their clothes. First its the Russians are coming! Rosh and Magog! The mark is your Social Secturity number - no, I mean a bar code imprinted on your forehead- no, I mean a biochip - and the scorpions are helicopters - :blah: :blah: :blah: - I have very good reasons to oppose personal invention in the field of eschatology, wouldn't you agree Wayne?

Indeed, since this means so much to you, I really would think you would DELIGHT in my demand that all our doctrines be founded on Biblical FACTS.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm still trying to discern what it is that Futurist feel is so prophetic in today's geographical Israel. It's apparent that after more 60 years of the supposed Jewish rebirth, how come nothings happened yet? When we compare the prophet Daniel, it took them about 49 years to rebuild the temple. Here it is 60 years later after the supposed rebirth of Israel, yet there hasn't been one single stone laid.

Oh and consider this. The Jews were able to rebuilt the temple twice Once during Ezra and Nehemiah, and again after Antiochus damaged the temple, yet both refurbishing took less than 40 years to do, and this was during the captivity of two mighty Kingdoms; Greece and Rome.

Yet these Jews today are surrounded by weak Arabs who use TNT strapped to their chests to fight their wars, yet the Jews can't even lay one single stone to rebuild their temple AFTER 60 years! :confused2: Am I missing something here that's supposed to be so prophetic? Because I don't think I missed a thing.

How is it that the Jews prior to the first century, were able to rebuild a temple DURING CAPTIVITY twice! Yet these Jews today are scared of a tribe that basically has no power nor a military. I don't get it!

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Richard, (finally finished this one)
If I seem peeved, it is because I keep reading references to how 'out-of-touch' with Scripture anybody who believes in a future fulfillment of some prophecy is. Besides that link I PM'd you I was at a futurist site that was pre-trib . They had one 'section' just for non pre trib. After talking there for a few years I was banned and I came away from that place

Rather than point by point on this post I retrace my steps a bit.
I'm afraid it starts with how I approach God's word. I think it is meant to explain a lot of things in the fewest words as possible. I think He is consistent
in the way He has explained things, right from Ge:1. The format is that God says something and then it becomes a reality (usually within a specific time-line). Look for the verses starting with 'God said'.
Some verses are based on a certain topic that may span a very long time-line, in verses like the one we have been talking about. This verse is also written the same way,
Ge:3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.

That one verse pretty much covers the whole of the text.
I think we are somewhere after the bruise to the heel but still waiting for Christ to bruise Satan's head. You take the stance that both are past.




Unfortunately, there have been all too many books written about some folks' fantasies about the future.
Actually I was trying to reference the need for history books written after His SC.




Come on Wayne - your accusation is entirely unfounded. You know that I have not avoided any challenge to anything I believe on this forum. Indeed, I practically BEG you to challenge my beliefs. So don't accuse me of things I'm not doing, ok? Thanks buddy!
So why was the topic of deluded futurists brought up. It certainly had nothing to do with why you believe what you do, nor with anything I believe in that I don't adhere to those teachings mentioned, I oppose them. Just as strongly as I oppose some things being said here.



If you "covered" it then you covered it erroneously, because I was perfectly clear that I have not settled on an interpretation of how the 40 year historical gap between Christ's crucifixion and the destruction of the Jerusalem relates to the prophecy. I have already explained that there is not necessarily a gap in the prophecy because the prophecy does not say that the destruction of the temple happens in the 70th week.

Is that verse at all similar to the one I posted from Ge:3. One subject that covers more than one point in time. Several things that occur in a sequence. I didn't introduce a 40 year period, this site did (even though I had heard about it before). I hate that I keep reposting it but it really assists me in trying to explain why it fits. Without any time given it still lists a sequence that will all eventually be on a time-line.

The sequence, the cross then destruction



The futurists assert that there is a 1937+ year gap in the prophecy. That directly contradicts the meaning of 70 x 7 = 490 years because it transforms it into 483+1937+ = 2420+ years.

The futurist view invents a gap in the prophecy itself to fit their theory. This is altogether different than the preterist view with is confronted with the historical fact of a gap of 40 years which does not necessarily mean that there is any gap in the prophecy at all, since the destruction is not specifically stated to have occurred in the 70th week.

The only gap I need is one between the visions of Revelation and when they start to become real.



Because the gap is in the history that follows after the 70th week. So there is not necessarily a gap in the prophecy.

Not so, because no body new the time of His coming in judgment on Jerusalem
The OD is pretty specific, then you have Revelation's time-line (circulated before 70AD)



Gaps are holes - that's one reason I called the futurist ideology of "theology of holes." Once you accept that basic premise, you have left behind the Bible and entered into the wild and wonderful world of speculation.
The neat thing about having an unanswered question (hole) is that another verse or three might act as a plug. You have to hear my version before you can determine what holes I have, being a futurist is a whole in itself, errors in doctrine about the future is not a new thing.



You REALLY need to start reading my words with a little more care, my friend! I never said that the "false prophet" was invented! I never said any such thing. The "invention" I was talking about was the idea of a wanna be world dictator called "The Antichrist." And as you know, that character is not mentioned "as such" anywhere in Scrpture.
So we agree that there will be a man who goes to the lake with the beast. Can you find the false prophet in both the OD and Daniel?



As I said, you really need to read and respond to the words that I actually write, or we won't understand each other at all. You see that word I used? I said the Bible never mention an earthly Millennial reign. It has nothing to do with our interpretation of the expression "thousand years." I simply stated an incontrovertible Biblical FACT because Biblical FACTS are the foundation of my eshcatology. The Bible nowhere states that Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. I've explained this before, I thought you understood it. Please ackowledge now that you understand it, so the conversation can progress to the promised land of Truth.
Apparently I don't agree to that at all. This was on hold for a different reply but it fits here also,

pretty much convinced there was no pre-trib rapture and no mid-trib rapture ( the 3 1/2 year trib has no mid, it is based on 3, three slightly different time-lines for 3 different groups, the saved, the unsaved, and the ones that started this mess in the first place, the 1/3 of Angels that are as fallen as Satan), no end of the trib rapture, Christ comes to this earth, the righteous right there with Him, Satan's little helpers have all gone away, Satan himself has been put on the back burner so that when he is released he is looking into the kingdom of God. From the time that the last 'little helper' the earth again takes on the appearance it did when Eden was complete. The people live for the whole thousand years, a static population for both Israel and the Gentiles for that time. What they witness here is a preview of what will be forever as soon as Satan is dealth with for the final time.

Then is the first time that even the righteous get to heaven in a glorified body.
Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.




As for the meaning of the 1000 years: I never said or suggested anything like "1000 can be any number except 1000." Such comments grossly mischaracterize the differences in our points of view, and greatly diminishes the quality of our converstation.
Sorry I thought you believed we have been in the 1000 years since 30 or 70AD



My comments were not directed at you or your personal interperetations that differ from mainstream futurism. I was talking about the futurist idea that there must be a rebuilt temple so it can be redesolated.
I don't think his deception that he is God is going to have much success without setting up something in the 3 1/2 days the two witnesses lay dead. A chair in a tent would qualify but many people are supposed to see it.



That is a pretty serious accusation Wayne. You have now obligated yourself to either recanting or posting at least three examples of verses that I have declared to "have no meaning."
I only remember one time, just before or during or after I started the rant about who wrote Revelation.



God has been using Scipture and the folks on this forum (including you Wayne!) to correct many of the "errors in my ways." Let us pray that He continue in His wonderful work.
Do you think He listens in on conversations like this? Two or three gathered in His name type of stuff.



We are not enemies Wayne. You know my fundamental motivation. I want my eschatology founded on Biblical facts and reality. I hate false doctrines made up by people who change their beliefs as often as their clothes. First its the Russians are coming! Rosh and Magog! The mark is your Social Secturity number - no, I mean a bar code imprinted on your forehead- no, I mean a biochip - and the scorpions are helicopters - :blah: :blah: :blah: - I have very good reasons to oppose personal invention in the field of eschatology, wouldn't you agree Wayne?
Being from different camps puts us in contention, thats good. Nothing makes for a shorter thread than having two agree on everything, about 4 posts and then Yep and then dead silence. LOL



Indeed, since this means so much to you, I really would think you would DELIGHT in my demand that all our doctrines be founded on Biblical FACTS.


I am and I do.

[MHz]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm still trying to discern what it is that Futurist feel is so prophetic in today's geographical Israel. It's apparent that after more 60 years of the supposed Jewish rebirth, how come nothings happened yet? When we compare the prophet Daniel, it took them about 49 years to rebuild the temple. Here it is 60 years later after the supposed rebirth of Israel, yet there hasn't been one single stone laid.

Oh and consider this. The Jews were able to rebuilt the temple twice Once during Ezra and Nehemiah, and again after Antiochus damaged the temple, yet both refurbishing took less than 40 years to do, and this was during the captivity of two mighty Kingdoms; Greece and Rome.

Yet these Jews today are surrounded by weak Arabs who use TNT strapped to their chests to fight their wars, yet the Jews can't even lay one single stone to rebuild their temple AFTER 60 years! :confused2: Am I missing something here that's supposed to be so prophetic? Because I don't think I missed a thing.

How is it that the Jews prior to the first century, were able to rebuild a temple DURING CAPTIVITY twice! Yet these Jews today are scared of a tribe that basically has no power nor a military. I don't get it!

Joe

They should be aware of the Messiah, the BRANCH, God is the only one to build a temple that is safe for them to enter.
Be interesting to see what these would do should they ever get control of that ground.

Re:2:9: I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Re:3:9: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm still trying to discern what it is that Futurist feel is so prophetic in today's geographical Israel. It's apparent that after more 60 years of the supposed Jewish rebirth, how come nothings happened yet? When we compare the prophet Daniel, it took them about 49 years to rebuild the temple. Here it is 60 years later after the supposed rebirth of Israel, yet there hasn't been one single stone laid.

Oh and consider this. The Jews were able to rebuilt the temple twice Once during Ezra and Nehemiah, and again after Antiochus damaged the temple, yet both refurbishing took less than 40 years to do, and this was during the captivity of two mighty Kingdoms; Greece and Rome.

Yet these Jews today are surrounded by weak Arabs who use TNT strapped to their chests to fight their wars, yet the Jews can't even lay one single stone to rebuild their temple AFTER 60 years! :confused2: Am I missing something here that's supposed to be so prophetic? Because I don't think I missed a thing.

How is it that the Jews prior to the first century, were able to rebuild a temple DURING CAPTIVITY twice! Yet these Jews today are scared of a tribe that basically has no power nor a military. I don't get it!

Joe
Hey Joe,

That's an excellent question! :thumb: With you and Dave, we could write ourselves a neat webpage called "101 Questions Futurism Can't Answer." Maybe we should start a thread with that title.

The Dome of the Rock looks like a seal that God put on the Temple mount to ensure that the Jews in their rebellion could not rebuild the Temple. And why? Becuase God does not want them building temples made of sticks and stones, He want's them to repent of their sins and come to faith in Christ. And that's the Gospel Truth!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

They should be aware of the Messiah, the BRANCH, God is the only one to build a temple that is safe for them to enter.
Be interesting to see what these would do should they ever get control of that ground.

Re:2:9: I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Re:3:9: Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Hey Wayne,

Yes, that is a much better position than the usual futurist idea that the Antichirst will build the temple. Could you clarify your stance here? Will there be an Antichrist to redesecrate a rebuilt temple that will then be redestroyed by the revived Roman empire?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard, (finally finished this one)

Hey Wayne,

That was one big post! How are your fingers holding up? :lol: Mine were too weak to pick my nose after the thousands of words I typed yesterday.


If I seem peeved, it is because I keep reading references to how 'out-of-touch' with Scripture anybody who believes in a future fulfillment of some prophecy is.

All is good bro. We patched that one up, praise God!


Besides that link I PM'd you I was at a futurist site that was pre-trib . They had one 'section' just for non pre trib. After talking there for a few years I was banned and I came away from that place



Now that is very interesting. You - a dedicated futurist - got banned from a futurist site because your particular brand of futurism was deemed unorthox? Wow. That reminds me of a joke ....
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well... are you religious?" He said yes.

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?

"Protestant."

"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist"

"Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God!"

"Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God!"

"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum!", and pushed him off.


:lol:


Rather than point by point on this post I retrace my steps a bit.
I'm afraid it starts with how I approach God's word. I think it is meant to explain a lot of things in the fewest words as possible. I think He is consistent
in the way He has explained things, right from Ge:1. The format is that God says something and then it becomes a reality (usually within a specific time-line). Look for the verses starting with 'God said'.
Some verses are based on a certain topic that may span a very long time-line, in verses like the one we have been talking about. This verse is also written the same way,
Ge:3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel.

That one verse pretty much covers the whole of the text.
I think we are somewhere after the bruise to the heel but still waiting for Christ to bruise Satan's head. You take the stance that both are past.

I'm tracking with you on that. It really is amazing that one little verse in Gen 3:15 pretty much anticipates the "rest of the story" all the way up through Revelation.




Come on Wayne - your accusation is entirely unfounded. You know that I have not avoided any challenge to anything I believe on this forum. Indeed, I practically BEG you to challenge my beliefs. So don't accuse me of things I'm not doing, ok? Thanks buddy!

So why was the topic of deluded futurists brought up. It certainly had nothing to do with why you believe what you do, nor with anything I believe in that I don't adhere to those teachings mentioned, I oppose them. Just as strongly as I oppose some things being said here.

I don't remember ever talking about "deluded futurists." Are you refering to my comment about "moronic literalism?" If so, I trust you realize now that I was not applying that to you at all, but rather to a particular species of hermeneutical error which involved the shape of the head of gold. In any case, everything is patch up now, right? I certainly would never desire to insult you or cause you distress in any way.


Is that verse at all similar to the one I posted from Ge:3. One subject that covers more than one point in time. Several things that occur in a sequence. I didn't introduce a 40 year period, this site did (even though I had heard about it before). I hate that I keep reposting it but it really assists me in trying to explain why it fits. Without any time given it still lists a sequence that will all eventually be on a time-line.

Sure, I can see that Gen 3:15 spans a lot of time. But it was not a "time prediction" so that doesn't explain or justify the idea of a 1937+ year gap in the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks.

As for the "40 year gap" in the history associated with Daniels 70th week - that may or may not be a problem depending on how we understand the prophecy. But in any case, it's really nothing like the 1937+ ongoing gap that futurists insert in the prophecy, is it?


The sequence, the cross then destruction

Exactly correct. Except you left off the final point. The actual sequence is:

Cross => Destruction => Diaspora

And Daniel 12:7 says that the Diapora was the sign that marked when all his prophecies would be fulfilled.

Now it seems to me that there can be no dispute about when these things happened.

Cross (30 AD)
Destructrion (70 AD)
Diaspora (70-132 AD)

Therefore all of Daniels prophecies have been fulfilled in the first century.

The preterist vision preaches the Gospel by proving the Jesus was the Christ of Prophecy. There can NEVER be a repetition of the first century, so there never can be another fulfillment of those prophecies of Christ. If Jesus wasn't it, no one ever will be. It seems to me that futurism corrodes (if not destroys) this great witness of the truth of God's Gospel.




Gaps are holes - that's one reason I called the futurist ideology of "theology of holes." Once you accept that basic premise, you have left behind the Bible and entered into the wild and wonderful world of speculation.

The neat thing about having an unanswered question (hole) is that another verse or three might act as a plug. You have to hear my version before you can determine what holes I have, being a futurist is a whole in itself, errors in doctrine about the future is not a new thing.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I know that our understanding of the Bible is "full of holes" because we are all very ignorant, and it takes a lifetime to search out the answers. But that is not what I was talking about. Pop futurism builds doctrines from the nothinginess of the holes themselves. Now I know you differ in many ways from pop futurists, so this may not apply to you. And it wasn't aimed at you anyway - I was talking about how we must base all doctrine on the clear and unambiguous witness of at least two or three verses. The really important doctrines will have a whole complex of verses that confirm them, such as the integrated prophetic complex of Dan-Rev-OD that confirms the preterist view.


So we agree that there will be a man who goes to the lake with the beast. Can you find the false prophet in both the OD and Daniel?

No, we don't agree on the future tense of "will be." The false prophet is past, and has already been "thrown in the lake of fire" which is the symbol of God's final judgment on him (his damnation).

As for finding the false prophet in the OD and Daniel - yes, there are some pretty obvious links but I haven't worked them all out yet. The strongest link is to the son of perdition in 2 Thess 2 which also is part of the prophetic complex. Indeed, the whole Bible is integrated in this complex, but I refer to it by its primary elements as Dan-Rev-OD for simplicity and clarity.


Apparently I don't agree to that at all. This was on hold for a different reply but it fits here also,

pretty much convinced there was no pre-trib rapture and no mid-trib rapture ( the 3 1/2 year trib has no mid, it is based on 3, three slightly different time-lines for 3 different groups, the saved, the unsaved, and the ones that started this mess in the first place, the 1/3 of Angels that are as fallen as Satan), no end of the trib rapture, Christ comes to this earth, the righteous right there with Him, Satan's little helpers have all gone away, Satan himself has been put on the back burner so that when he is released he is looking into the kingdom of God. From the time that the last 'little helper' the earth again takes on the appearance it did when Eden was complete. The people live for the whole thousand years, a static population for both Israel and the Gentiles for that time. What they witness here is a preview of what will be forever as soon as Satan is dealth with for the final time.

The red sentence is not, and never can be, sufficiently founded on Scripture to be taught as a "Christian Doctrine" - its ok to speculate about it, but to suggest it is what the Bible "really teaches" would be a serious error under my First Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics which demands that every doctrine must be clearly supported by at least two or three unambiguous passages.


Then is the first time that even the righteous get to heaven in a glorified body.
Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

How do you know when the "first time" is? Don't you realize you could be wrong? How can you assert these things as "facts" when you don't really know the truth?




As for the meaning of the 1000 years: I never said or suggested anything like "1000 can be any number except 1000." Such comments grossly mischaracterize the differences in our points of view, and greatly diminishes the quality of our converstation.

Sorry I thought you believed we have been in the 1000 years since 30 or 70AD
I do think that the "thousand years" probably does represent the Church age (though I do not teach it as docrine because there are no unambigous confirming passages). But the fact that I believe the "thousand years" can represent a large unspecified number most definitely does NOT mean that "1000 can be any number except 1000" as you suggested.




My comments were not directed at you or your personal interperetations that differ from mainstream futurism. I was talking about the futurist idea that there must be a rebuilt temple so it can be redesolated.

I don't think his deception that he is God is going to have much success without setting up something in the 3 1/2 days the two witnesses lay dead. A chair in a tent would qualify but many people are supposed to see it.

So you want to make 2 Thess 2 future and "literal" by having the beast sit in a tent. Why not just recognize that it was literally fulfilled in the first century when the literal temple was still standing?




That is a pretty serious accusation Wayne. You have now obligated yourself to either recanting or posting at least three examples of verses that I have declared to "have no meaning."

I only remember one time, just before or during or after I started the rant about who wrote Revelation.
I don't want to bother hashing over past arguments too much, but you do have me curious to know if I ever made such an error as to suggest that any verse of God's most excellent Word could "have no meaning." So please post it if you can find it.




God has been using Scipture and the folks on this forum (including you Wayne!) to correct many of the "errors in my ways." Let us pray that He continue in His wonderful work.

Do you think He listens in on conversations like this? Two or three gathered in His name type of stuff.

Yes I do! It's a very comforting thought (most of the time :rolleyes:).


Being from different camps puts us in contention, thats good. Nothing makes for a shorter thread than having two agree on everything, about 4 posts and then Yep and then dead silence. LOL
ROFL! That's the truth, aint it?

Thank God for our differences. Makes for an interesting, and fruitful, conversation.

God bless you bro,

Richard



I am and I do.[/quote]

[MHz]

That was one big post! How are your fingers holding up? :lol: Mine were too weak to pick my nose after the thousands of words I typed yesterday.
It's my eyes that are taking the beating, see. :eek:



Now that is very interesting. You - a dedicated futurist - got banned from a futurist site because your particular brand of futurism was deemed unorthox?

It gets better, a pre-tib and Israel friendly banned me because I promote a larger number being in the 1000 years than they did. Their figure was the 1/3 of Zec:13, Christ would personally kill the other 2/3. You already know my view has them as being at 100% being alive. I always thought it a bit ironic, you would have though they would have jumped on the idea as worth further 'research'. Now you know the rest if the story.



I'm tracking with you on that. It really is amazing that one little verse in Gen 3:15 pretty much anticipates the "rest of the story" all the way up through Revelation.
He uses that same format in other verses, even chapters can be read that way Re:12 being an example The relationship between mankind and Satan at three different important times, the fall, the arrival of the Messiah, and judgment on him fulfilled. Same subjects over a long period of time.



Sure, I can see that Gen 3:15 spans a lot of time. But it was not a "time prediction" so that doesn't explain or justify the idea of a 1937+ year gap in the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks.
You're right, it gives a sequence of events, does this verse from Daniel seem like a sequence of events.
Da:9:24:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy.

I would say all those things were completed. Where I start to feel resistance is when 'all things fulfilled' includes more than this list provides. Vision an prophecy about the 70 weeks. The iron is still after the 70 weeks and the sacking of the city and the captivity of the people to the Nations is included as being part of events in the time of the brass. My futurist view says we are waiting for the events associated with Daniel's iron and clay kingdom, which starts when the visions of Revelation begin to unfold on a set time-line. Each event has a start and a finish, just like the 3 parts of the 70 weeks, once it starts it runs without any breaks. The children of the light should be able to count the days from that point.



As for the "40 year gap" in the history associated with Daniels 70th week - that may or may not be a problem depending on how we understand the prophecy. But in any case, it's really nothing like the 1937+ ongoing gap that futurists insert in the prophecy, is it?
My 'gap' is based on 70AD as being in the brass, so that is what I'm waiting for is that period to end. The 'gap' is there to allow for a large number of Gentiles to be joined with Him when He does come. Maybe He has a certain number in mind while we only see something like this,
Re:7:9:
After this I beheld,
and,
lo,
a great multitude,
which no man could number,
of all nations,
and kindreds,
and people,
and tongues,
stood before the throne,
and before the Lamb,
clothed with white robes,
and palms in their hands;

In 70 AD that number would be the smaller than it is today, and today will be less than tomorrow.

Would the below happen in 40 short years?
2Pe:3:3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe:3:4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


Exactly correct. Except you left off the final point. The actual sequence is:

Cross => Destruction => Diaspora

And Daniel 12:7 says that the Diapora was the sign that marked when all his prophecies would be fulfilled.

Now it seems to me that there can be no dispute about when these things happened.

Cross (30 AD)
Destructrion (70 AD)
Diaspora (70-132 AD)

Therefore all of Daniels prophecies have been fulfilled in the first century.



The preterist vision preaches the Gospel by proving the Jesus was the Christ of Prophecy. There can NEVER be a repetition of the first century, so there never can be another fulfillment of those prophecies of Christ. If Jesus wasn't it, no one ever will be. It seems to me that futurism corrodes (if not destroys) this great witness of the truth of God's Gospel.

He only had to do those things once. That fulfilled some prophecy, His SC will fulfill some that are still waiting to be fulfilled. Then the prophecy about what happens after will begin to be fulfilled.



How do you know when the "first time" is? Don't you realize you could be wrong? How can you assert these things as "facts" when you don't really know the truth?
If you have a verse that better describes men going to heaven (and watching it) at the end of time for this earth please post it.



I do think that the "thousand years" probably does represent the Church age (though I do not teach it as docrine because there are no unambigous confirming passages). But the fact that I believe the "thousand years" can represent a large unspecified number most definitely does NOT mean that "1000 can be any number except 1000" as you suggested.
In your case the number 1000 is long past so it can't that exact number.

Later Richard,

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You're right, it gives a sequence of events, does this verse from Daniel seem like a sequence of events.
Da:9:24:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy.

I would say all those things were completed.

Excellent! Its good to know we are tracking with each other this far.


Where I start to feel resistance is when 'all things fulfilled' includes more than this list provides. Vision an prophecy about the 70 weeks. The iron is still after the 70 weeks and the sacking of the city and the captivity of the people to the Nations is included as being part of events in the time of the brass.

I agree that the Iron kingdom (Rome) lasted for four centuries after God used them to destroy Jerusalem. But so what? What does that have to do with any prophecy in the Bible?


My futurist view says we are waiting for the events associated with Daniel's iron and clay kingdom, which starts when the visions of Revelation begin to unfold on a set time-line.

But is there anything in the Bible to suggest, let alone support and prove, that view?


Each event has a start and a finish, just like the 3 parts of the 70 weeks, once it starts it runs without any breaks. The children of the light should be able to count the days from that point.

From what point?


My 'gap' is based on 70AD as being in the brass, so that is what I'm waiting for is that period to end.

That seems impossible. The Brass Kingdom was Greece. It ended its rule over Jerusalem in the 2nd century BC. All evidence that I know of including the Roman beast in Rev and the historical fact that Rome ruled at the time of the crucifixion points to the Iron Kingdom (Rome). I'm guessing I must have missed a few or your posts on your ideas.


The 'gap' is there to allow for a large number of Gentiles to be joined with Him when He does come.

What gap? The Church age is not a "gap." The Old Law and Judaism are gone forever. The whole purpose of the Law was to bring us to Christ. God is never going back to types and shadows.


Maybe He has a certain number in mind while we only see something like this,
Re:7:9:
After this I beheld,
and,
lo,
a great multitude,
which no man could number,
of all nations,
and kindreds,
and people,
and tongues,
stood before the throne,
and before the Lamb,
clothed with white robes,
and palms in their hands;

In 70 AD that number would be the smaller than it is today, and today will be less than tomorrow.
The vision was symbolic, and could have represented all saved peoples of all times.


Would the below happen in 40 short years?
2Pe:3:3: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe:3:4: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Absolutely. OR what? Are you saying that Peter's letter was meaningless to the folks he wrote to? And besides, it fits perfectly with what was happening at that time. Jesus had told them the Temple was going to be destroyed in their lifetime. But the years went on and on. Not many standing there listening to him were still alive after nearly forty years. So YES YES YES the scoffers would have mocked them when they quoted Christ about His soon coming.


He only had to do those things once. That fulfilled some prophecy, His SC will fulfill some that are still waiting to be fulfilled. Then the prophecy about what happens after will begin to be fulfilled.

No futurist has ever shown me a prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled. Perhaps you would like to be the first?


If you have a verse that better describes men going to heaven (and watching it) at the end of time for this earth please post it.

That's not how you do biblical hermeneutics! Its not a game to see who can invent the best story to go along with a verse. If you can not support your doctrine with two or three clear and unambiguous passages, then you should not be talking as if you "know" what you are talking about, because you do not know because God has not revealed it in His Word (or if He has, you have not yet found the evidence).

That is my fundamental rule of Biblical Hermeneutics. If you assert that something is "true" without clear bilbical support, then I will reject your assertion until you can find real evidence.

Richard

[MHz]

How about these ones as not being fulfilled?

Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Re:21:5: And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Re: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.
Re:21:7: He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.



Re:21:10: And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Wayne

[basilfo]

Hi Wayne,
I'm enjoying reading this dialogue between you and Richard. Respectful and informative even though you guys don't agree on everything. Good to see.


............
My futurist view says we are waiting for the events associated with Daniel's iron and clay kingdom, which starts when the visions of Revelation begin to unfold on a set time-line.

Each event has a start and a finish, just like the 3 parts of the 70 weeks, once it starts it runs without any breaks. The children of the light should be able to count the days from that point.

My 'gap' is based on 70AD as being in the brass, so that is what I'm waiting for is that period to end.

One of the hardest things for all of us to do is read Scripture WITHOUT any pre-conceived notion. It's almost impossible, but it can be done. It's amazing what you see. The reason I never saw the dozens of places that the apostles and Jesus taught that His kingdom, the end of the age, last days, and His Parousia were all upon them/at hand/about to take place was that I had my futurist glasses on which changed clear words into something else...... to fit my eschatological position.

If you read Dan 2 as if it was the first time you ever did, I believe you will see that the 4 kingdoms are continuous without any breaks including when the stone crushes them all (which happened in the 1st century with Christ). So it is not possible IMO to still be 'in the brass' because that would mean there is still a Greek World Empire today. There are clearly NO WORLD EMPIRES today, and haven't been for many centuries.




In 70 AD that number would be the smaller than it is today, and today will be less than tomorrow.

The text gives no info on comparitive size over time, so I'm not following you.

Peace to you all,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How about these ones as not being fulfilled?

Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Re:21:5: And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Re: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.
Re:21:7: He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Re:21:10: And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Wayne
Good morning Wayne.


As you know, I understand the Bible to teach that verses were and are being fulfilled in the Church, the Bride of Christ. I've gone over this a number of times, I'm surprised that you brought them up again. There are many lines that all converge on the same conclusion. Paul says the Church is the Temple of God, and Jesus said:
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Obviously, you are not going to be made into a literal "pillar" in a literal "city." The fact that the NJ is a symbol of the Church is amplified by the repeated use of the symbolic number 12 (a symbol of God's people) in its description, and the proof is made explicit in Rev 21:9-10 where the NJ is plainly declared to be the Bride of Christ, which is the Church:
Revelation 21:9-10 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, If anything has ever been "proved" in the Bible, I would have to say it is the identity of the New Jerusalem as the Church of God. I find it extremely curious that you left the defining verse out of your citation from Rev 21.

This has been my experience with most, if not all, of the futurist verses anyone has suggested are yet to be fulfilled. For example, the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 at Pentecost is extremely obvious, as is the fact it can not be "literal" becuase it says "David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd" (Ezek 37:24). We know that both "David my servant" and the "one shepherd" are symbols of Jesus Christ. Or what? Are you claiming that literal David the son of Jesse is going to be resurrected to rule as king over a reestablished ethnic nation of Isreal? :eek: That would be madness, as well as being contrary to the style and message of the entire Bible.

So the issue seems quite settled in my mind. All the "standard issue" futurist verses collapse when investigated.

Again, I would be very happy if you wanted to actually challenge my conclusions. As it is, I feel like we just hop around from verse to verse without ever settling anything. Do you agree with my conclusions about Rev 21? If not, why not? Do you agree with my conclusions about Ezek 37? If not, why not?

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Or what? Are you claiming that literal David the son of Jesse is going to be resurrected to rule as king over a reestablished ethnic nation of Isreal? That would be madness, as well as being contrary to the style and message of the entire Bible.

I've heard of the rebuilt temple of Ezekiel. I've heard of the return of Elijah in fleshly form before the second coming. I've heard of Jesus raising the dead and the mortals abide with immortals during the 1000 years to bread a new offspring, and all nations traveling to Jerusalem to worship Christ during the 1000 years. But I don't think I've ever heard of David ruling Jerusalem during this time. :confused2:

Is that what you believe brother MHz? I'm just asking, so I hope you don't mind.

Joe

[eliyahu]

Holy Cow. Lota words in here.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Holy Cow. Lota words in here.
Yeah ... that happens a lot around here cuz we often try to answer a dozen differetn questions in a single post. I think things would be a lot easier for everyone if we just focused on one thing at a time.

[TheForgiven]

It appears that Papias was the first one to teach of a literal 1000 year reign in Jerusalem. This reign was called Chiliasm, or Millennialism in English. Some of the early fathers appear to have taught an idea that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and that the Messiah would rule the earth from there, for a 1000 years. But what inspired a few of the early fathers to teach this? My theory is that many Jewish Apocrypha writings took roots within the Church's of Asia.

One such writing is a Syriac version of Revelation which is actually composed by a Jew, apparently not very fluid with the Greek language. Some believe that the Jewish version of Revelation was written around 69 C.E. during the reign of Galba, the first Emperor to be killed only three months into his reign.

Other such writings are the writings of Enoch, which also appears to be of Jewish origin. There are many other Jewish Apocrypha writings which were rejected as frauds. Some of these frauds were probably because of sympathy or anger in response to the destruction of Jerusalem. The Syriac or Jewish version of Revelation seems to be a book written to warn the Gentiles that Jerusalem would be rebuilt and their Messiah would indeed be coming....not Jesus, but THEIR Messiah. However, this is only the theory.

Ancient Jewish apocalyptic thought that was never mentioned by Jesus or the apostles, was adopted by writers long after the New Testament was written. The Apostles were very cautious about mixing Jewish apocalyptic theology with Christianity. As Paul said, "I count all things a loss, for the sake of Christ Jesus, so that I am not found to have a righteousness of my own, but through Christ...."

But reading a few writings of the early fathers, is apparent that later century Christian authors were not so cautious. Accepting the Jewish apocalypses as sacred books of antiquity, they eagerly read and taught, and combined these thoughts with Christianity. The Gentile Christians took possession of them, and just in proportion as they were neglected by the Jews who, after the war of Bar-Cochba in 132 AD, became indifferent to the Messianic hope and hardened themselves once more in devotion to the law. This would explain how and why these books became Christian documents, and it also explains why many of these writings were maintained throughout the centuries.

On example is the early father, Papias, whose writings we no longer have, taught the Jewish expectations of a Millennial Messiah, and was passed down to later fathers such as in the epistle of Barnabas, and by Justin. Papias actually confounds expressions of Jesus with verses from the Apocalypse of Baruch, referring to the amazing fertility of the days of the Messianic kingdom (Papias in Iren. v. 33). Barnabas (Chapter. 15) gives us the Jewish theory that the present condition of the world is to last six thousand years from creation, that at the beginning of the Sabbath (the seventh millennium) the Son of God appears, to put an end to the time of Satan, and to judge the ungodly and renew the earth. But he does not indulge, like Papias, in sensational descriptions of this seventh millennium, or 1000 year reign; to Barnabas it is a time of rest, of sinlessness, and temporary reign of Jesus on earth. This is probably where Futurist get the idea of a 1000 year immortal reign, with eternity abiding with those who continue to marry and give birth to children; although Barnabus never taught that. And according to Barnabus, this is not yet the end, but the "end" is followed by an eighth day of eternal duration, which he calls, "the beginning of another world".

Chiliasm was later rejected in the 3rd century and Jewish Apocrypha began to decline, though the writings were preserved and are once again in great circulation today. This explains the Protestant rise of Futurism in the 18th century, which took a rather large and strange turn, leading to some of the absurdities we're reading about in books and watching on television today.

My point to all of this is that the idea of a physical reign in Jerusalem sometime in the future is not scriptural and this entire idea was based off the sympathy for scattered Jews, combined with a misunderstanding of John's Revelation in chapter 20. The origins of Chiliasm was developed by scattered Jews who wrote writings as mentioned above, and also that of the Tumult. Therefore, I reject the Jewish teaching and hope of a restored physical Jerusalem for a 1000 years, thereby setting aside the true Kingdom of God (The Church), and I conclude that there are no re-gathering or restoration prophesies at work today.

Joe

[MHz]

Hi Dave,


One of the hardest things for all of us to do is read Scripture WITHOUT any pre-conceived notion. It's almost impossible, but it can be done.
And then there is the issue of impatience, you read something that you don't understand so you seek advice outside Scripture that gives you a shortcut to understanding something. If you don't go and read more (before and after) than what is given to you as evidence of something you haven't confirmed that is just what it means, test everything.

I read this long 'paper' somebody wrote, I agreed with everything written except for one 'small point'. Jesus never baptized anybody before being resurrected, only His disciples baptized people. That did not go over well. The reason I knew that is because when I read it I wasn't sure what Vs# it was so I looked it up (e-bible search). If I hadn't I would probably be saying that it happened that way. Doing that stopped me from getting sucked into some theories that didn't line up with Scripture all that well.



It's amazing what you see. The reason I never saw the dozens of places that the apostles and Jesus taught that His kingdom, the end of the age, last days, and His Parousia were all upon them/at hand/about to take place was that I had my futurist glasses on which changed clear words into something else...... to fit my eschatological position.
Can you put what changed when changed classes? The only change I found was that the 7 year trib didn't have any support. I already had arguments as to why the 3 most popular 'raptures' had more holes than answers.



If you read Dan 2 as if it was the first time you ever did, I believe you will see that the 4 kingdoms are continuous without any breaks including when the stone crushes them all (which happened in the 1st century with Christ). So it is not possible IMO to still be 'in the brass' because that would mean there is still a Greek World Empire today. There are clearly NO WORLD EMPIRES today, and haven't been for many centuries.
Let's do that, the first time.
Who did Daniel pray to? Answer, God, the one true God.
Who gave the visions and prophecy to Daniel? the same as above.
How long did God say He would send the Messiah for? one week
Then what? The city would be leveled and the people disbursed.
Until when? The consummation of all prophecy concerning anything being made desolate.

We are in that period of time.

From God's POV we are in the brass because the last days only start when that day Jesus talked about as being only God knows has not started, Satan has not had the kind of power over man as he did before the flood.

In the mean-time Jesus left one sword with somebody as a protector from evil. Romans 13
Do you find any time-limit on that? That ends when Satan's time of wrath begins. The first two woes in Revelation, 5th & 6th trumps.
God's wrath comes at the end of those two woes. At the end of the 3rd woe Christ has control of the whole earth, and Satan is only bound, waiting his final time before the lake.



The text gives no info on comparitive size over time, so I'm not following you.

The more time until the fullness of the Gentiles the more people in that group.

Wayne

[MHz]

I've heard of the rebuilt temple of Ezekiel.
Who is supposed to build it Christ or some people without God's authority?


I've heard of the return of Elijah in fleshly form before the second coming. Past, that was John the Baptist, Christ can 'go to work' as soon as it is time.



I've heard of Jesus raising the dead and the mortals abide with immortals during the 1000 years to bread a new offspring, and all nations traveling to Jerusalem to worship Christ during the 1000 years.

There are no mortals, no births, no marriages, everybody who is there at the start is a believer, everybody will 'have enough instruction' by the end to meet God, the one true God, as being 'purified by Christ'.

Once a year for the full thousand.



But I don't think I've ever heard of David ruling Jerusalem during this time. :confused2: Why was Joseph chosen to be Jesus's earthly father?

Ask away Joe

Wayne

[MHz]

We know that both "David my servant" and the "one shepherd" are symbols of Jesus Christ. Or what? Are you claiming that literal David the son of Jesse is going to be resurrected to rule as king over a reestablished ethnic nation of Isreal? :eek: That would be madness, as well as being contrary to the style and message of the entire Bible.

Lu:1:27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lu:1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Ac:15:16: After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Re:22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Only your vision of how it plays out make it contrary.

[QUOTE=RAM;4808]
Again, I would be very happy if you wanted to actually challenge my conclusions.

You missed my question, prove all these things are past.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow,
nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.

Tears,death,sorrow,crying, pain.

None of those things have 'passed away'.

Later Richard,

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We know that both "David my servant" and the "one shepherd" are symbols of Jesus Christ. Or what? Are you claiming that literal David the son of Jesse is going to be resurrected to rule as king over a reestablished ethnic nation of Isreal? :eek: That would be madness, as well as being contrary to the style and message of the entire Bible.

Lu:1:27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lu:1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Ac:15:16: After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Re:22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Only your vision of how it plays out make it contrary.

No, there is nothing about my vision that makes it contrary. My vision is perfectly consistent with the symbolic prophecies. The problem is created when people say that the symbolic visions that have been fulfilled in the first coming of Christ are "literal" and "still future."


You missed my question, prove all these things are past.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;
and there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow,
nor crying,
neither shall there be any more pain:
for the former things are passed away.

Tears,death,sorrow,crying, pain.

None of those things have 'passed away'.

Later Richard,

Wayne
Yes, all those things have passed away.

There is no more death for those who believe in Jesus, for He said "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26) How do you answer His question? Do you believe Him? If so, how do you "interpret" His words? How do they relate to Rev 21?

And Christ really does "wipe away all tears" from the eyes of those who trust in Him. Or what, does He not wipe away your tears?

In Christ, we have no more sorrow, pain, or death. He is alive, and our lives are hid in Him. Believest thou this?

Rev 21 is a vision of the blessedness of Christians in Christ. There is nothing in the vision that suggests a future "literal" fulfillment.

You have never proven that it is future. You have never given any exegesis of Rev 21 that suggests, let alone proves, that the symbolic vision is supposed to be mapped onto "literal" reality like mapping the outline of the head of gold in Daniel 2 onto the physical boundaries of Babylon.

Do you understand what you must do if you want to prove your ideas are biblical? You need to show that they are what the Bible teaches. You have not shown me that Rev 21 is future or literal. You have not answered the PLAIN TEXT of Rev 21:9-10 which declared that New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ, which is the church.

Don't you get tired of going round and round on this? If you want you views to prevail, you need to establish them on the Bible.

Richard

[MHz]

Yes, all those things have passed away.
Go hit yourself on the thump with a hammer and come back and tell me truthfully that you felt no pain?



There is no more death for those who believe in Jesus, for He said "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26) How do you answer His question? Do you believe Him? If so, how do you "interpret" His words? How do they relate to Rev 21?
Said on His way to call somebody from the tomb.



And Christ really does "wipe away all tears" from the eyes of those who trust in Him. Or what, does He not wipe away your tears?
So Christians never ever feel any sorrow?



In Christ, we have no more sorrow, pain, or death. He is alive, and our lives are hid in Him. Believest thou this?
That was God speaking to 'the rest' the ones who have just been resurrected.

Go ahead make everything spiritual, it won't change even one thing when reality sets in.



Rev 21 is a vision of the blessedness of Christians in Christ. There is nothing in the vision that suggests a future "literal" fulfillment.
Vs:3 "God himself". The fact that it is a vision itself is proof that it is for the future.



You have never proven that it is future. You have never given any exegesis of Rev 21 that suggests, let alone proves, that the symbolic vision is supposed to be mapped onto "literal" reality like mapping the outline of the head of gold in Daniel 2 onto the physical boundaries of Babylon.

I only have to prove what death, sorrow, pain and tears are, that itself is enough. God defined what death was back in Ge:3. If you want to add or subtract from Revelation you aren't getting any support from me.



Do you understand what you must do if you want to prove your ideas are biblical? You need to show that they are what the Bible teaches. You have not shown me that Rev 21 is future or literal. You have not answered the PLAIN TEXT of Rev 21:9-10 which declared that New Jerusalem is the Bride of Christ, which is the church.



Don't you get tired of going round and round on this? If you want you views to prevail, you need to establish them on the Bible.

Do you want me to start posing some more Scripture?
Ac:15:16:
After this I will return,
and will build again the tabernacle of David,
which is fallen down;
and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up:

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Go hit yourself on the thump with a hammer and come back and tell me truthfully that you felt no pain?

I can truthfully tell you that I would not feel the kind of pain that the Apostle John spoke of in Rev 21:4. Words have meanings Wayne. The Bible is a spiritual book, and it tells you that it must be spiritually interpreted. Why do you not receive this?




There is no more death for those who believe in Jesus, for He said "whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26) How do you answer His question? Do you believe Him? If so, how do you "interpret" His words? How do they relate to Rev 21?

Said on His way to call somebody from the tomb.

So what? Do you believe His Words or not?


So Christians never ever feel any sorrow?

Not the kind of sorrow that the Apostle John was talking about in Rev 21:4.




In Christ, we have no more sorrow, pain, or death. He is alive, and our lives are hid in Him. Believest thou this?

That was God speaking to 'the rest' the ones who have just been resurrected.

The Bible doesn't say that! Paul was talking to living Christians in the first century when he said "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3). I'm sorry Wayne, but I gotta tell you that it seems like you just made that up.


Go ahead make everything spiritual, it won't change even one thing when reality sets in.

I don't "make" anything "spiritual." I'm just understanding the Bible to the best of my ability. But I do find it very strange that you prefer a carnal literalism over a spiritual reality.


Vs:3 "God himself". The fact that it is a vision itself is proof that it is for the future.

False. Revelation contained things that were past, present (in the first century) and future.

You need to prove two points to support you futurism. 1) That Rev 21 was not a vision of the present reality of the Church in Jesus Christ at the time it was written, and 2) if it was future, that it was not fulfilled soon after being written in the first century (as would be consistent with the rest happening then).


I only have to prove what death, sorrow, pain and tears are, that itself is enough. God defined what death was back in Ge:3. If you want to add or subtract from Revelation you aren't getting any support from me.
There are different kinds death - there is a physical death and a "second death." If you ignore the "second death" then you have subtracted from Revelation, but don't worry, I'll give you all my support to help free you from any errors in your interpretations. I trust you'll do the same for me.




Don't you get tired of going round and round on this? If you want you views to prevail, you need to establish them on the Bible.

Do you want me to start posing some more Scripture?
Ac:15:16:
After this I will return,
and will build again the tabernacle of David,
which is fallen down;
and I will build again the ruins thereof,
and I will set it up:

Wayne
James cited that verse to prove it was fulfilled when God grafted in the Gentiles into the Church in the first century. I already explained this at least three times in previous posts. Didn't you read them? If you disagree, that's fine, but you need to show (from the Bible) why we should believe it is still future.

Richard

[MHz]

So you don't agree that these verses are sequential?

Re:20:11: And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Re:20:12: And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Re:20:13: And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Re:20:14: And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Re:20:15: And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Re:21:1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Re:21:2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Re:21:5: And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Re: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.
Re:21:7: He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Re:21:8: But the fearful, 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.

The death spoken of is from Vs:20:14, the lake of fire is as eternal as the new earth, so it won't be going anywhere.

[Abigail]

There are different kinds death - there is a physical death and a "second death." If you ignore the "second death" then you have subtracted from Revelation, but don't worry, I'll give you all my support to help free you from any errors in your interpretations. I trust you'll do the same for me.


Richard


There is also two kinds of resurrections. Spiritual and physical. Do you believe we will be physically resurrected in the future ?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There is also two kinds of resurrections. Spiritual and physical. Do you believe we will be physically resurrected in the future ?
I'm working on trying to understand the when, what and where of the resurrection. Does the Bible say we will be "physcially resurrected" when we get our "spiritual" body? I wonder if our resurrected spiritual body may be "more real" than mere earthly dust. There are many questions that no one seems to have an answer for. Therefore, questions based on the precise meaning of the resurrection do not seem suited for the discerning the truth or falsehood of any particular eschatological system.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I'm working on trying to understand the when, what and where of the resurrection. Does the Bible say we will be "physcially resurrected" when we get our "spiritual" body? I wonder if our resurrected spiritual body may be "more real" than mere earthly dust. There are many questions that no one seems to have an answer for. Therefore, questions based on the precise meaning of the resurrection do not seem suited for the discerning the truth or falsehood of any particular eschatological system.

Richard

I believe our spirit will be provided new heavenly tents, not based on blood, flesh, and bone. If blood, then Christ Himself would have bled all over the place when Thomas thrust his fingers into the wounds of Jesus. But He didn't bleed all over the place, indicating that His body had become a spiritual body. This doesn't mean it didn't contain mass, and He was not a phantom of some type. He was a physical person, who could be touched. But His physical attributes were of the heavenly splendor and appearance.

Now for those of you who say that flesh and bone has to do with the resurrection, then let me ask you this question. I've asked this before, and nobody ever answers this. If a person is over-weight and has what he or others may feel to be a detestable appearance (This is only fictions now), will he or she be raised as an over-weight person? If someone was 5 foot 6 inches tall, will he or she be raised 5' 6" tall? What if someone didn't like the way they looked, and hoped for a better body in the heavens, will this person be raised baring the same attributes? And if so, wouldn't this crush any hope for that person? Granted a Christian isn't, or shouldn't be, preoccupied with his or her appearance. But the truth is, we all are. Therefore, will a person who feels he or she is ugly, will you be offering that person any hope in telling him that he or she is not only stuck with the ugly appearance on earth, but also in the heavens?

Think about it because those who are displeased with their current physical characteristics might not find any hope in knowing they will be raised baring the same splendor or appearance.

Think about that.

Joe

[Rose]

Now for those of you who say that flesh and bone has to do with the resurrection, then let me ask you this question. I've asked this before, and nobody ever answers this. If a person is over-weight and has what he or others may feel to be a detestable appearance (This is only fictions now), will he or she be raised as an over-weight person? If someone was 5 foot 6 inches tall, will he or she be raised 5' 6" tall? What if someone didn't like the way they looked, and hoped for a better body in the heavens, will this person be raised baring the same attributes? And if so, wouldn't this crush any hope for that person? Granted a Christian isn't, or shouldn't be, preoccupied with his or her appearance. But the truth is, we all are. Therefore, will a person who feels he or she is ugly, will you be offering that person any hope in telling him that he or she is not only stuck with the ugly appearance on earth, but also in the heavens?

Think about it because those who are displeased with their current physical characteristics might not find any hope in knowing they will be raised baring the same splendor or appearance.

Think about that.

Joe

Hi Joe,
Good question :thumb:
I too have also asked that question, and taken it one step further.
What about those who are babies when they die? What will their age be?
Or those who are very old with worn out bodies? They surely don't want to be stuck with those bodies forever :eek:

When we are resurrected we leave behind our earthly bodies, we are raised with spiritual bodies in the image of the heavenly, that is the image of who we are in Christ.


1 Cor. 15:49 "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."Rose

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,
Good question
I too have also asked that question, and taken it one step further.
What about those who are babies when they die? What will their age be?
Or those who are very old with worn out bodies? They surely don't want to be stuck with those bodies forever

When we are resurrected we leave behind our earthly bodies, we are raised with spiritual bodies in the image of the heavenly, that is the image of who we are in Christ.

That is a very good question Rose. I've wondered about that myself. I'd like to hear others answer that question as well. If our actual earthly bodies are raised, then what happens to an infant, or a child? Will they be raised as an infant or a young child?




Luke 1
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This makes me wonder...Was John a unique individual who would later die and be raised as John the Baptist or Elijah? That has always made me curious. For Luke writes that John the Baptist was born of the Holy Spirit, and that he would preach in the power and spirit of Elijah. Therefore, how shall John be raised, if he has not yet been raised?

Jesus was born as the Messiah, and I believe is God incarnate of the flesh. God overshadowed Mary, the mother of Jesus, and became man through the virgin birth. I wonder if John the Baptist was born in the same way, through the spirit of Elijah. If so, then would his body be raised at the resurrection bearing the identity as John the Baptists or Elijah? Because we know that Elijah did not die, but went straight into heaven.

Any thoughts on this anyone?

Joe

[Abigail]

Now for those of you who say that flesh and bone has to do with the resurrection, then let me ask you this question. I've asked this before, and nobody ever answers this. If a person is over-weight and has what he or others may feel to be a detestable appearance (This is only fictions now), will he or she be raised as an over-weight person? If someone was 5 foot 6 inches tall, will he or she be raised 5' 6" tall? What if someone didn't like the way they looked, and hoped for a better body in the heavens, will this person be raised baring the same attributes? And if so, wouldn't this crush any hope for that person? Granted a Christian isn't, or shouldn't be, preoccupied with his or her appearance. But the truth is, we all are. Therefore, will a person who feels he or she is ugly, will you be offering that person any hope in telling him that he or she is not only stuck with the ugly appearance on earth, but also in the heavens?

I would speculate that the creation will be made perfect again in that our bodies would be made into what God believed to be perfect for each one of us.

Not everything about us is our physical attributes, so much of what makes up a person is non-material, ie I might not be a very talented poet but then does that mean that I will become one after the resurrection, so these 'problems' you mention are not restricted to the physical. However will not the God of all the universe do right.

Jesus walked through walls after His resurrection, was this a glimpse for us of a physical body under control of the spirit ie the flesh does what the spirit wants. Right now we are still battling the flesh.

[TheForgiven]

I would speculate that the creation will be made perfect again in that our bodies would be made into what God believed to be perfect for each one of us.

Not everything about us is our physical attributes, so much of what makes up a person is non-material, ie I might not be a very talented poet but then does that mean that I will become one after the resurrection, so these 'problems' you mention are not restricted to the physical. However will not the God of all the universe do right.

Jesus walked through walls after His resurrection, was this a glimpse for us of a physical body under control of the spirit ie the flesh does what the spirit wants. Right now we are still battling the flesh.

:thumb: Right on the money Abigail. That is what we Preterist believe. You see, Gnostics believed that there is no resurrection containing mass or that can be touched. They believe in a Greek myth that all die and only their ghost like spirits live on. Preterist do not believe or teach that. We believe that the resurrection involves a new body, a new creation, that is spiritual in nature, having its own splendor, appearance, and sharing in the power of God. This does not make them invisible or untouchable, but a new creation. The old perishes and turns into dust. And God does not take that dust and raise it. He provides our spirits with new tents, made in the heavens and not by the joining of hands. That is what we believe.

Good discussion, but as you can tell, I don't like talking about it too much because we just don't know.

Joe