DEVIL'S DIGEST

[duxrow]

:prof:
Devil's Digest of Metaphor

Gen3:1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

1John3:12 "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous".

Zech3:2 "And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?"

Luke4:3 "And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread".

James4:7 "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you".

Rev12:9 "And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:
he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him".

Satan is the: Deceiver - Rev20:3 * Destroyer - Ex12:23 * Devil - Matt4:1 * Dragon - Rev 20:2 * Serpent - Gen3 * Lucifer - Isa14:12
Beelzebub - Matt12:24 * "god" of this world - 2Cor4:4 * Accuser - Rev12:10 * Adversary - 1Pet 5:8 * Amalek (type) - Ex17:16 *
King Tyrus - Ezek 28:12 * Damned - Mk16:16 * Serpent - Rev12:9 *

Jesus is the "Lamb of God", who said: "Behold, I send you forth as SHEEP in the midst of WOLVES;
be ye therefore wise as SERPENTS, and harmless as DOVES". Matt 10:16 KJV :yo:

[duxrow]

:sEm_oops:We're the baby! Of course we all acknowledge GOD as a Heavenly Father (not mother), and we realize that King Solomon was bluffing--that he wouldn't really have cut the baby in half, because that would have violated the commandment against murder. The one baby in this case represents all mankind (fig. of speech "synecdoche"), in a manner similar to the way Scripture says: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive". 1Cor15:22. We're all born "IN ADAM", but only those "IN CHRIST" have the Eternal Life. Scripture calls wisdom a "she", and God is "Love", and Jesus is "Truth".

The story agrees with the account in Job where Satan had a discussion with GOD, and we learned that Job was really in Satan's territory -- "Behold, he (Job) is in thine hand; but save his life", Job 2:6. The "Sons of God" were in heaven also, and probably increased in numbers since we first learned about them back in Genesis chapter six. The believers and followers of the Almighty aren't simply salt and light, and kings and priests, and living epistles and lively stones, but are also the Sons of God. John 1:12 tells us that "as many as received him, [Jesus] to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."

The "lying mother" is a type of Satan -- today we'd say she was certifiably insane for agreeing to accept half a baby. Most allegories include some kind of preposterous contention which gets pounced upon by the skeptics and unbelievers.:thumb:

[duxrow]

:typing:The Devil's an Oppressor, too!
"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him". Acts10:38
The "god of this world" (little 'g') goes by many titles, and uses beautiful and talented people to carry out his agenda! :thumb:

[L67]

:typing:The Devil's an Oppressor, too!
"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him". Acts10:38
The "god of this world" (little 'g') goes by many titles, and uses beautiful and talented people to carry out his agenda! :thumb:

That's not true. Why are you quoting only verses that you like. Why don't you quote the Bible when it says Jesus defeated the devil and he was cast out as ruler of this world. Now if you want to keep repeating your error, you have to show everyone why the Bible is wrong and you're right.

[duxrow]

That's not true. Why are you quoting only verses that you like. Why don't you quote the Bible when it says Jesus defeated the devil and he was cast out as ruler of this world. Now if you want to keep repeating your error, you have to show everyone why the Bible is wrong and you're right. :thumbsdown:You must have missed your medication -- naturally I'm narrowing the topic down to a few verses, cause from Gen1:1 to Rev22:21 is rather much, doncha think? But it's ALL true.. maybe not what you're thinking, though. :p

[L67]

:thumbsdown:You must have missed your medication -- naturally I'm narrowing the topic down to a few verses, cause from Gen1:1 to Rev22:21 is rather much, doncha think? But it's ALL true.. maybe not what you're thinking, though. :p

Why don't you try dealing with the facts for a change? ALL the verses you are quoting are meaningless. Because they all set the ground work for Jesus to defeat the devil and cast him out as ruler of this world. So you keep persisting on saying that satan is still influencing this world. Show us why the Bible is wrong.

It's really amazing that I'm the one ACTUALLY defending what the Bible says.

[duxrow]

:police:Actually, you really are proving the truth of the Bible, and about Satan, with your twisted logic. I don't believe you are sincere at all -- simply making noises
to while the time, no doubt. Stop wasting our time, and get a life! :mad:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Satan is the: Deceiver - Rev20:3 * Destroyer - Ex12:23 * Devil - Matt4:1 * Dragon - Rev 20:2 * Serpent - Gen3 * Lucifer - Isa14:12
Beelzebub - Matt12:24 * "god" of this world - 2Cor4:4 * Accuser - Rev12:10 * Adversary - 1Pet 5:8 * Amalek (type) - Ex17:16 *
King Tyrus - Ezek 28:12 * Damned - Mk16:16 * Serpent - Rev12:9 *


Good morning Bob, :yo:

One little detail in your list caught my attention. There is no fallen angel called "Lucifer" in the Bible. That's an erroneous translation that was copied from the Latin Vulgate into the KJV:
Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

First, the verse is about the king of Babylon, not a fallen angel. But even if you wanted to interpret it that way, the name would not be "Lucifer." That word is the Latin name of the planet Venus, aka the "morning star" known in Greek either as phosphoros (bringer of the light) or eosophorus (bringer of the dawn) which is how the underlying Hebrew was translated in the Septuagint. We find the word lucifer again as a title of Christ in the Latin Vulgate:
VUL 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Or in English:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [lucifer] arise in your hearts:

This verse tells us to wait until LUCIFER rises in our hearts! Remember, these are the words of the Latin Vulgate, which was the primary Bible used though out Western Christendom for over a thousand years. These are the words everyone would have read in the Holy Bible, telling us hope that "lucifer" would arise in our hearts. Now I know this is shocking, but it shows how false superstitions have utterly corrupted the Christian mind and teachings. Think of all the things you have heard and believed over the years concerning "Lucifier." THEY ARE ALL FALSE! There is no fallen angel named "Lucifer" mentioned in the real Bible.

Sorry for the interruption, but this is a pet peeve of mine because it is such a common error.

Carry on!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's not true. Why are you quoting only verses that you like. Why don't you quote the Bible when it says Jesus defeated the devil and he was cast out as ruler of this world. Now if you want to keep repeating your error, you have to show everyone why the Bible is wrong and you're right.
:thumbsdown:You must have missed your medication -- naturally I'm narrowing the topic down to a few verses, cause from Gen1:1 to Rev22:21 is rather much, doncha think? But it's ALL true.. maybe not what you're thinking, though. :p

I'm trying to discern the dispute here. L67 rightly notes that Jesus, back in the first century, "defeated the devil and he was cast out as ruler of this world." The verse supporting this view:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Jesus was talking about how his death and resurrection would defeat the devil and cast him out as rule of this world. This is confirmed in a variety of verses:
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Of course, it is a bit confusing to see Colossians tell use that the principalities and powers have been "disarmed" while Ephesians tells us to put on the "whole armor of God" because they are still active. Likewise, there seems to be some confusion about 1 Peter 5:8 saying that "the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" after he was supposed to have been defeated.

Is the Bible consistent on this point? Apparently not. And for that matter, our friend David M adamantly asserts that there are no fallen angels at all. So opinions amongst the most staunch "Bible believers" can vary significantly. Indeed, the most serious students of Scripture often come to diametrically opposing conclusions. I find that rather enlightening as to the nature of the Bible and belief.

[L67]

:police:Actually, you really are proving the truth of the Bible, and about Satan, with your twisted logic. I don't believe you are sincere at all -- simply making noises
to while the time, no doubt. Stop wasting our time, and get a life! :mad:

I'm glad you can admit that I'm right and you don't know what you're talking about. I also don't care if you think I am sincere or not. The fact of the matter is one of us is actually quoting the Bible in context and not cherry picking verses to suite my religious beliefs.

You have demonstrated you can't defend your positions and resort to insults when challenged on your assertions.

[duxrow]

Good morning Bob, :yo:

One little detail in your list caught my attention. There is no fallen angel called "Lucifer" in the Bible. That's an erroneous translation that was copied from the Latin Vulgate into the KJV:
Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

First, the verse is about the king of Babylon, not a fallen angel. But even if you wanted to interpret it that way, the name would not be "Lucifer." That word is the Latin name of the planet Venus, aka the "morning star" known in Greek either as phosphoros (bringer of the light) or eosophorus (bringer of the dawn) which is how the underlying Hebrew was translated in the Septuagint. We find the word lucifer again as a title of Christ in the Latin Vulgate:
VUL 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

Or in English:
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [lucifer] arise in your hearts:

This verse tells us to wait until LUCIFER rises in our hearts! Remember, these are the words of the Latin Vulgate, which was the primary Bible used though out Western Christendom for over a thousand years. These are the words everyone would have read in the Holy Bible, telling us hope that "lucifer" would arise in our hearts. Now I know this is shocking, but it shows how false superstitions have utterly corrupted the Christian mind and teachings. Think of all the things you have heard and believed over the years concerning "Lucifier." THEY ARE ALL FALSE! There is no fallen angel named "Lucifer" mentioned in the real Bible.
Sorry for the interruption, but this is a pet peeve of mine because it is such a common error.
Mine is about the four(4) crucified with Christ.
Carry on!I've heard that argument before, and don't buy it, because it 'fits' with 2Cor11:14 as another metaphor of "god of this world" -- those who see disparities in scripture and conclude them evidence of untruth, vs those who maybe can't explain all things but take some things 'by faith'. And just because all 'believers' don't agree in all things doesn't mean they're all wrong.

2Cor11:14 "..Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light". G5457 phosphorus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I've heard that argument before, and don't buy it, because it 'fits' with 2Cor11:14 as another metaphor of "god of this world" -- those who see disparities in scripture and conclude them evidence of untruth, vs those who maybe can't explain all things but take some things 'by faith'. And just because all 'believers' don't agree in all things doesn't mean they're all wrong.

2Cor11:14 "..Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light". G5457 phosphorus

I think you missed my point. I was talking about the word "Lucifer." It does not belong in any Bible except the Latin Vulgate because it is a Latin word. A proper translation of the Hebrew heylel into English could be "morning star" or "day star" or just "Venus" but not "Lucifer." Do you agree?

As for 2 Cor 11:14 - Where did you get your info on Strong's number in that verse? It is not correct. The term "angel of light" is αγγελον φωτος (angelon photos). The word photos is the genetive form of phos (φως, Strong's #5457) meaning light. The word "phosphorus" does not appear in that verse. I see that it "fits" with the idea that there is a fallen angel named Lucifer, but that's irrelevant because there is no mention of any such being in the Bible.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry for the interruption, but this is a pet peeve of mine because it is such a common error.
Mine is about the four(4) crucified with Christ.


How you could believe there were four crucified with Christ utterly mystifies me. Your argument is based on the fundamental error of insisting the synonyms "thieves" and "malefactors" are not synonyms, but actually refer to different people.

Matthew 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

If your theory were true, we would also be forced to conclude that Christ was born twice and crucified four times in order to account for all the different words used in the different Gospels. In other words, your theory destroys any possibility of understanding the Bible at all.

[duxrow]

How you could believe there were four crucified with Christ utterly mystifies me. Your argument is based on the fundamental error of insisting the synonyms "thieves" and "malefactors" are not synonyms, but actually refer to different people.
Roger--lestai (thief) is different from kakourgia (malefactor). Thief is someone who steals, and malefactor maybe a drunk driver? (left for our speculation..)
Matthew 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Reverse these! The malefactors were led out WITH Jesus and crucified WITH Him -- the thieves weren't crucified until AFTER the sign afixed to Jesus.Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

If your theory were true, we would also be forced to conclude that Christ was born twice and crucified four times in order to account for all the different words used in the different Gospels. In other words, your theory destroys any possibility of understanding the Bible at all.
NONSENSE, meaning you really aren't trying!
:mmph:Actually, they all 'fit' together when you don't insist on reading only from Matthew to John -- reading from John to Matthew (right to left?) may make it clearer to you. :)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Roger--lestai (thief) is different from kakourgia (malefactor). Thief is someone who steals, and malefactor maybe a drunk driver? (left for our speculation..)

Yes, but a thief is also a malefactor, and a malefactor can be a thief. Don't you understand the concept of synonyms? If you insist that synonyms must indicate different events or individuals, then you must also insist that Christ was born twice and crucified four times because of the different words used in the different Gospels.



Reverse these! The malefactors were led out WITH Jesus and crucified WITH Him -- the thieves weren't crucified until AFTER the sign afixed to Jesus.

If you generate doctrines from the inconsistencies in the Bible, there will be no limit to what you could invent, and no reason to believe any of it. If everyone followed the methods of your hermeneutics, there would be ten thousand more denominations than there already are. Nobody could agree about anything because there would be no logic or rationality to the Bible at all.





If your theory were true, we would also be forced to conclude that Christ was born twice and crucified four times in order to account for all the different words used in the different Gospels. In other words, your theory destroys any possibility of understanding the Bible at all.
NONSENSE, meaning you really aren't trying!

If what I wrote was nonsense, you should have no problem showing why. Merely rejecting my comments without reason is unreasonable, by definition.

Do you understand the point I am making? If you use insist that synonyms refer to separate people and events, then you must conclude that Christ was born twice and crucified four times.

[L67]

I'm trying to discern the dispute here. L67 rightly notes that Jesus, back in the first century, "defeated the devil and he was cast out as ruler of this world." The verse supporting this view:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Jesus was talking about how his death and resurrection would defeat the devil and cast him out as rule of this world. This is confirmed in a variety of verses:
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.


Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Of course, it is a bit confusing to see Colossians tell use that the principalities and powers have been "disarmed" while Ephesians tells us to put on the "whole armor of God" because they are still active. Likewise, there seems to be some confusion about 1 Peter 5:8 saying that "the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" after he was supposed to have been defeated.

Is the Bible consistent on this point? Apparently not. And for that matter, our friend David M adamantly asserts that there are no fallen angels at all. So opinions amongst the most staunch "Bible believers" can vary significantly. Indeed, the most serious students of Scripture often come to diametrically opposing conclusions. I find that rather enlightening as to the nature of the Bible and belief.

That's exactly right. Revelation tells us the devil was on earth but his time was short. Revelation 12:12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

And John tells us the sole reason Jesus appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:7-8 backs this up. 7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

And Peter tells us Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world. 1Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

So if, Jesus was chosen before the creation of the world and his sole mission was to destroy the works of the devil, then how can the devil have any influence anymore? Plus, there are other verses say the devil was rendered powerless.

In conclusion, either Jesus rendered the devil powerless like he said or there is a contradiction. Either way presents a problem for Christians.

[duxrow]

Yes, but a thief is also a malefactor, and a malefactor can be a thief. Don't you understand the concept of synonyms? If you insist that synonyms must indicate different events or individuals, then you must also insist that Christ was born twice and crucified four times because of the different words used in the different Gospels.

If you generate doctrines from the inconsistencies in the Bible, there will be no limit to what you could invent, and no reason to believe any of it. If everyone followed the methods of your hermeneutics, there would be ten thousand more denominations than there already are. Nobody could agree about anything because there would be no logic or rationality to the Bible at all.

If what I wrote was nonsense, you should have no problem showing why. Merely rejecting my comments without reason is unreasonable, by definition.
No "if's" about it--you aren't sure whether it was two thief's or two malefactors, when actually it was Both!
Do you understand the point I am making? If you use insist that synonyms refer to separate people and events, then you must conclude that Christ was born twice and crucified four times.
:uplane:
born twice and crucified four times -- born twice and crucified four times?? You've got to be kidding! What kinda stuff you been drinking?

Nice chatting, Richard... maybe some other time. OK?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No "if's" about it--you aren't sure whether it was two thief's or two malefactors, when actually it was Both!

You did not respond to the reasons I gave.



:uplane:
born twice and crucified four times -- born twice and crucified four times?? You've got to be kidding! What kinda stuff you been drinking?

Nice chatting, Richard... maybe some other time. OK?
I've been drinking the hermeneutical Kool Aid that you've been serving up! I was not saying that I believed that Christ was born twice and crucified for times. I was explaining that YOUR hermeneutical approach leads to that absurdity.

How is it possible that you don't understand me? I have explained myself many times. Let me repeat:

Your theory about four people being crucified with Christ is as absurd as saying that Christ was born twice and crucified four times. Do you understand this?

[Timmy]

I've been drinking the hermeneutical Kool Aid that you've been serving up!
I was not saying I believed that...
I was explaining that YOUR hermeneutical approach leads to that absurdity.

How is it possible that you don't understand me? I have explained myself...

:woah::hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

KOOLAID? A newt named herman perhaps, but the Sonoran Dessert toad I named Buf Al
:Date_Setting:revealed it might just be some juice from his head
...just like RAM can be ram and RAM and:alien011:RAM.

Al became familiar with Timmy after his black cat named Lucy lost her ninth life.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

:woah::hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

KOOLAID? A newt named herman perhaps, but the Sonoran Dessert toad I named Buf Al
:Date_Setting:revealed it might just be some juice from his head
...just like RAM can be ram and RAM and:alien011:RAM.

Al became familiar with Timmy after his black cat named Lucy lost her ninth life.

Hey ho Timmy - OH!

Just wanted to let you know that I see your posts but haven't had time to answer yet.

Carry on!

[Timmy]

Hey ho Timmy - OH!

Just wanted to let you know that I see your posts but haven't had time to answer yet.

Carry on!

Don't sweat it bro!
It is fun just reading through so...Danke ihnen sehr.
All is fair...
In Agape
Under Will,

Timmy

BTW, none from Dixie Dregs have been part of the current Kansas band.

[David M]

Hello Richard, duxrow, L67

Just adding my little contribution

Richard. At last another point of agreement. Lucifer is not a fallen Angel. I am with you on this one. Even the JWs changed their belief on this one. I will keep bashing away that Satan is not a fallen Angel and that as the morning star rose and gave light, so the light on the truth of Satan might eventually dawn.

duxrow. thanks for starting this thread. Of course you cannot bring into mind all the verses from Genesis 1 to Revelation 21 but at least you bring enough to make us think about these things.

L67. I will let you have my thoughts on what it meant for "Jesus to destroy the devil" I do not see the Devil or Satan as a fallen Angel of God. The only way I identify the Devil or Satan with an actual being is by personification.
The Devil is in us all. The Devil was in Jesus and that is what makes Jesus a man and not God. As a man, Jesus could have sinned, but as we know, he did not. Jesus had thoughts which had he acted on would have been contrary to what God wanted of him and as God wants of us. It is in our nature to rebel. It is this nature to rebel which Jesus overcame. It is the nature of those who make up "the world" which people follow. While people in the "world" do not recognize it, those who have separated themselves from the "world", will say " the devil is the god of this world". Another word which we could use is; headiness. Those in the "world" are lovers of self and not lovers of God. We are exhorted to be of sober mind, which is the opposite to headiness and we are exhorted "not to be of this world" which is enmity with God. Jesus said; I have overcome the world" In other words, the god which this "world" is blindly following, is the world's god which Jesus overcame. Jesus did not yield to thoughts which would have made him sin, otherwise he would have acted in conformance with those thoughts.

Jesus overcame the devil which was in him and which was a part of his nature. Jesus defeated the devil finally at his own death. Jesus has not defeated the devil which is in each person and Jesus has not defeated every devil that remains the "god of this world" and is still in you and me. Jesus defeated his own devil and has made it possible for the devil that is in us to be defeated. Everyday we battle against the devil as long as we have fall prey to the rebellious thoughts against the things of God and what God would have us do. The devil, which is in our nature, will ultimately be defeated at at death, so long as we are raised to eternal life. We are still subject to death and for those who die eternally, the Devil which is in their nature will have gained the victory. Until you beat death, you have not defeated the Devil that is in your nature. I recognize that the devil is still in me and I am battling against the Devil daily.

Jesus has to come back to to this earth and set up the kingdom of God and the final accomplishment before the kingdom is handed back to God, will be the total abolishing of sin and death. As Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:26)The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. While death is still present in the world, this must mean the devil is still present in the world as part of people's nature.

Though I have already lost the battle to sin, because I am not perfect and I am not sinless, I know that through my association with and commitment to Jesus as was confirmed by my baptism, I repented and vowed to not follow after the "world". I will find acceptance before God, because Jesus is my covering for sin at is is only with the righteous covering of Jesus that I am presentable to God. It is through Jesus I will gain the final victory over the devil and in so doing, I gain also the victory over death. It will be a victory, but it is not the victory I have won myself, but the victory Jesus has won for me. Hence Paul writes;
(1 Corinthians 15)
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I hope you can realize now that you have the devil in you, which is your nature, and that nature will be destroyed once you have been given the same incorruptible body which Jesus was given upon his resurrection. As John writes"we shall be like him (1 John 3:2) What the whole verse tells me is that we cannot imagine what it feels like to be as Jesus is now after his resurrection, but when we see him and when we have also been given the same incorruptible body, then we shall shall know what it is like, hence to quote that verse fully; Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. When and where we will see Jesus and be with Jesus, I will leave answering until another time.

All the best

David

[L67]

L67. I will let you have my thoughts on what it meant for "Jesus to destroy the devil" I do not see the Devil or Satan as a fallen Angel of God. The only way I identify the Devil or Satan with an actual being is by personification.
The Devil is in us all. The Devil was in Jesus and that is what makes Jesus a man and not God. As a man, Jesus could have sinned, but as we know, he did not. Jesus had thoughts which had he acted on would have been contrary to what God wanted of him and as God wants of us. It is in our nature to rebel. It is this nature to rebel which Jesus overcame. It is the nature of those who make up "the world" which people follow. While people in the "world" do not recognize it, those who have separated themselves from the "world", will say " the devil is the god of this world". Another word which we could use is; headiness. Those in the "world" are lovers of self and not lovers of God. We are exhorted to be of sober mind, which is the opposite to headiness and we are exhorted "not to be of this world" which is enmity with God. Jesus said; I have overcome the world" In other words, the god which this "world" is blindly following, is the world's god which Jesus overcame. Jesus did not yield to thoughts which would have made him sin, otherwise he would have acted in conformance with those thoughts.

But those are your fallible interpretations that Jesus is not God. There is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.




Jesus overcame the devil which was in him and which was a part of his nature. Jesus defeated the devil finally at his own death. Jesus has not defeated the devil which is in each person and Jesus has not defeated every devil that remains the "god of this world" and is still in you and me. Jesus defeated his own devil and has made it possible for the devil that is in us to be defeated. Everyday we battle against the devil as long as we have fall prey to the rebellious thoughts against the things of God and what God would have us do. The devil, which is in our nature, will ultimately be defeated at at death, so long as we are raised to eternal life. We are still subject to death and for those who die eternally, the Devil which is in their nature will have gained the victory. Until you beat death, you have not defeated the Devil that is in your nature. I recognize that the devil is still in me and I am battling against the Devil daily.

How you can be so confused about this issue? But I see your problem. You look at this from a futuristic perspective and believe there has to still be devils for Jesus to come back. You can't accept that Jesus already returned and that everything is done.

Jesus said that dying on the cross defeated the devil and cast him out as ruler of this world. And after the resurrection Jesus said: Mathew 28:18 8 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

That means he has control over everything. Every single devil you believe in is under his control. Therefore, they are rendered powerless totally, unless Jesus is wrong.



Jesus has to come back to to this earth and set up the kingdom of God and the final accomplishment before the kingdom is handed back to God, will be the total abolishing of sin and death. As Paul writes (1 Corinthians 15:26)The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. While death is still present in the world, this must mean the devil is still present in the world as part of people's nature.

No he doesn't and he won't. It is already done David. Jesus already came back to earth and setup the Kingdom of God. If you say otherwise you simply don't know the Bible. Let me show you how.


1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. He was revealed when he walked the earth and died for our sins. He died on the cross to defeat the devil because they were in the last times back then. The Bible plainly tells us that.

Jesus said the time is fulfilled for the Kingdom of God. Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


He told the disciples that some would not die before they see the Kingdom of God. Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”


Jesus also told the disciples that the Kingdom was so near he said this at the last supper. Mark 14:24–25 “And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. “Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Now we learn of Christ Kingdom.

Daniel prophesied about Christ kingdom. Daniel 7:13-14 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Matthew 28:18-20 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. That confirms he had all authority over heaven and earth.

Colossians 1:13-14 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, That explicitly show the Kingdom was established.

Hebrews 12:28 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, This also said the Kingdom was established.

And John said he was in Christ Kingdom Revelation 1:6-9

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.



The Kingdom is the church, which was established on Pentecost. Daniel 2:4 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

Mathew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it

Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

If you ignore this than you completely ignore Daniels prophecy. It's that simple. Plus, there is plenty more to show that all this has taken place. Like the land the promise. That is already a done deal as well.

I will start a new thread soon about Jesus already returning like you mentioned the other day.


I hope you can realize now that you have the devil in you, which is your nature, and that nature will be destroyed once you have been given the same incorruptible body which Jesus was given upon his resurrection. As John writes"we shall be like him (1 John 3:2) What the whole verse tells me is that we cannot imagine what it feels like to be as Jesus is now after his resurrection, but when we see him and when we have also been given the same incorruptible body, then we shall shall know what it is like, hence to quote that verse fully; Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. When and where we will see Jesus and be with Jesus, I will leave answering until another time.

No I don't realize I have the devil in me. Because for one I don't believe in him. And two the Bible said he was already defeated and that the last days already happened.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard. At last another point of agreement. Lucifer is not a fallen Angel. I am with you on this one. Even the JWs changed their belief on this one. I will keep bashing away that Satan is not a fallen Angel and that as the morning star rose and gave light, so the light on the truth of Satan might eventually dawn.

Hey there David,

I didn't say that Satan is not a fallen angel. I said that the name "Lucifer" is not valid and does not apply to Satan because it is just a mistranslation. It is curious how you could fail to understand this and think that I was agreeing with you despite the many times I have explained why I do not.

Your assertion that Satan is neither a fallen angel nor even a personal being contradicts a truckload of Bible verses. For example:

Jesus had a conversation with the devil. Only personal beings have conversations:
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

The devil is a personal being that goes about "seeking whom he may devour":
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

The devil sins, and only moral agents (personal beings) can sin:
1 John 3:8 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.

And so on. There are hundreds of verses that contradict your doctrines. You have to explain away all of them. And what is the basis of your explanations? You personal, limited, fallible, human logic! So it is not the Bible that you really believe, but rather your fallible interpretations of it. And worse, your logic is biased in favor of your preconceived doctrines. Rather than starting with an open view to all possible interpretations, you have begun with your conclusion and are trying to force the Bible to conform to it. Or that's how it looks to me anyway.

Great chatting,

Richard

[David M]

Hey there David,

I didn't say that Satan is not a fallen angel. I said that the name "Lucifer" is not valid and does not apply to Satan because it is just a mistranslation. It is curious how you could fail to understand this and think that I was agreeing with you despite the many times I have explained why I do not.
Hello Richard. I know that you think Satan is a fallen Angel of God. I never said that you thought anything else. I said I would keep "bashing away" so that one day, the light might dawn and you begin to understand Satan as I do.


Your assertion that Satan is neither a fallen angel nor even a personal being contradicts a truckload of Bible verses. For example:

Jesus had a conversation with the devil. Only personal beings have conversations:
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Richard, don't you ever have a conversation in your head? It is incorrect that a conversation has to take place between two separate beings. Just as you can tell yourself not do to do something, it is possible to have a conversation with one's self. The story of the temptation of Jesus is presented as a simple story. I used to think the Devil and Satan existed as a separate person, but now I know better. It is easy to understand as a child and then later, once personification is understood, Satan/Devil is understood in this way. I have grown up and I am feeding on "the meat of the word". Just as we know that an epileptic fit is not a "demon" and that demons have 21st century medical explanations, so we ought to be giving a 21st century explanation of what the Devil/Satan is.


The devil is a personal being that goes about "seeking whom he may devour":
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
The devil is in us all and it depends on how much we repress the evil side to our nature. It is people which metaphorically go around devouring other people. What do you think people like Hitler were doing?


The devil sins, and only moral agents (personal beings) can sin:
1 John 3:8 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.
Yes, the devil was in Eve and in Adam. We inherit the nature of Adam. Eve believed her own lie. It was her nature that is the devil that lies to us. That is why Jesus said (John 8:44); 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.
Question: How do you explain the devil is our father and if so the devil conceives us?



And so on. There are hundreds of verses that contradict your doctrines. You have to explain away all of them. And what is the basis of your explanations? You personal, limited, fallible, human logic! So it is not the Bible that you really believe, but rather your fallible interpretations of it. And worse, your logic is biased in favor of your preconceived doctrines. Rather than starting with an open view to all possible interpretations, you have begun with your conclusion and are trying to force the Bible to conform to it. Or that's how it looks to me anyway,
I doubt there are as many verses as you claim that contradict the doctrines I believe. The fact that I harmonize scripture more than you do, is the reason I have no contradictions. What you claim might apply to Christianity in general and I do not like being put in the same mold. I do explain away the verses you present to me as I have done above. I do not ignore trying to get to the truth by not scratching below the surface. It is like those who say reproduction furniture is made of wood; when you scratch below the artificial veneer you find the furniture is made of MDF. OK, MDF is made from compressed wood flour, but it is incorrect to describe reproduction furniture as "real wood", which implies the wood is "natural wood". This example plainly illustrates the difference between us in how we understand the Bible. I scratch below the surface to find out what is underneath; you do not. I can see why you think as you do and promote false teaching, because you do not want to look beyond what the Bible says at face value.

You are an equally fallible man and so you give me no reason to accept anything you say which is your own reasoning. I have said that we must stop this type of language so why do you persist and give me cause to rely in this fashion? I have never claimed not to be fallible. From now please do not bring this into the conversation.

I dig below the surface to pull out the truth from the Bible. I look for the spiritual meanings and lessons that are being taught. I think the understanding I have and which other people agree is more reliable than the understanding of those who do not search these things out and who like sheep are blindly following their church leaders. My appeal to everyone is not to accept my word, but to search the scriptures and compare what I say with the world of God. All of God's word must be taken into account before reaching a conclusion.

Great chatting,

David

[David M]

But those are your fallible interpretations that Jesus is not God. There is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.
Hello L67
If they are my fallible explanations then they will not stand up. The same will apply to your fallible interpretations that are either your own or those of someone else you believe.


How you can be so confused about this issue? But I see your problem. You look at this from a futuristic perspective and believe there has to still be devils for Jesus to come back. You can't accept that Jesus already returned and that everything is done.
My problem is the same as your problem if you believe that there is no prophecy to be fulfilled after AD70. Neither of us had to come to the conclusions we hold before we researched the scriptures and formed our opinion. Now that I have a futurist understanding, it is not going to be easy for anyone to convince me otherwise. All we can do is give our explanations for holding the opinions we do and let others do their own research to determine who to believe.


Jesus said that dying on the cross defeated the devil and cast him out as ruler of this world. And after the resurrection Jesus said: Mathew 28:18 8 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

That means he has control over everything. Every single devil you believe in is under his control. Therefore, they are rendered powerless totally, unless Jesus is wrong.
I believe when Jesus was given access to the Holy Spirit (God's power) that nothing would be withheld from him. This is why it was such a temptation for Jesus to abuse the power that was available to him. We know that all judgement has been given to Jesus at the resurrection, but since that day has not come, Jesus has not exercised that judgement. At the moment, Jesus is with God in Heaven and is not on earth. I understand that when Jesus comes back, he will come back to reign in power. He did not use God's power to reign during his ministry. That disappointed the likes of Judas, yet the power of Jesus to control the weather and heal the sick was sufficient to demonstrate that all power had been given to him. Jesus did not exercise the power in the way you think he should.


No he doesn't and he won't. It is already done David. Jesus already came back to earth and setup the Kingdom of God. If you say otherwise you simply don't know the Bible. Let me show you how.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. He was revealed when he walked the earth and died for our sins. He died on the cross to defeat the devil because they were in the last times back then. The Bible plainly tells us that.

Jesus said the time is fulfilled for the Kingdom of God. Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

First of all, Jesus was in the mind of God before he created man and created the earth as the environment for man to live in. If we accept that God foreknew that at sometime man would sin, and that it was also possible for a man to lead a sinless life, then the covering for man's sin and the way to redeem mankind had to be provided and so it becomes clear how the perfect sinless life of Jesus would be necessary since from the time of the first sin, then method of redemption was by the shedding of blood. This was seen when God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to cover their nakedness and sin. (Hebrews 9:22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Matthew 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The gospel message in the teaching of Jesus is all about the kingdom. It is the kingdom to come for all generations and not just the generations up to AD70. The inscription of Pilate on the cross of Jesus said; THE KING OF THE JEWS. However, Jesus said (John 18:36); My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. When Jesus was here it was not the time the kingdom would be restored to Israel which is the question the disciples were asking even to the time of his ascension to heaven. The time the kingdom will be restored is when Jesus returns. In one sense, Jesus was the king that was present with them and where a king is, there is his kingdom. The first time Jesus was here on earth, Jesus did not sit upon his throne. The throne Jesus will sit on will be the continuation of the throne first occupied by King David. Until that happens, then Jesus is not sitting on his throne in his kingdom.
When Jesus said (Luke 17:21); the kingdom of God is within you. the way I see this is; it is letting God and Jesus into our lives. It is the same as Jesus and God making their abode in us. Once we begin developing the mind of Christ and have the words of God and Jesus in our mind which affects the way we live, then in this sense the kingdom is within us. Spiritually speaking, Jesus and God are already reigning in our hearts.


He told the disciples that some would not die before they see the Kingdom of God. Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
These words were said before Jesus was transfigured before a few of his disciples. What those disciples were privileged to see was a vision of Jesus coming into his kingdom in which there will be the patriarchs of Israel and all the other great people who will be resurrected. Jesus was correct when he said "some" for as we know, Jesus did not take all his disciples with him to witness that event. It was such a privileged event that he charged those few disciples not to say anything until he was raised from the dead (Mark 9:9); And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.


Jesus also told the disciples that the Kingdom was so near he said this at the last supper. Mark 14:24–25 “And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. “Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
As far as I understand, the disciples are still dead awaiting the resurrection. The disciples might have thought that day would be soon. The apostle John was writing the Revelation circa AD95 although some would say earlier so as to fit in with the preterist understanding. Jesus will drink of the vine with his disciples when he comes into the kingdom and the disciples are resurrected. For me that time has not happened, for the disciples, it will be their next waking moment since death for the believer is the same as going to bed for the night and waking up the next morning without a sense of the passage of time.


Now we learn of Christ Kingdom.

Daniel prophesied about Christ kingdom. Daniel 7:13-14 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Matthew 28:18-20 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. That confirms he had all authority over heaven and earth.

Colossians 1:13-14 13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, That explicitly show the Kingdom was established.

Hebrews 12:28 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, This also said the Kingdom was established.
I will deal with these first and leave John as a separate answer. None of the above refer in anyway to the physical kingdom that will be set up on earth. I have already referred to the spiritual way in which we can see Jesus and God reigning in our hearts and in this way I see the kingdom is already within us. I think we have to get into perspective the spiritual and the physical. The physical kingdom is still to come


And John said he was in Christ Kingdom Revelation 1:6-9

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Matthew 8 and the story of the Centurion is interesting in that the centurion recognized that Jesus had all power and the centurion had an understanding of how the that power was used. In this same story in which Jesus said he had not found such faith amongst his own people and so goes on to mention the kingdom. I think it is necessary we understand the context in which the word kingdom is used. John was not in the physical kingdom to come but was in spiritual kingdom made up by believers and those eligible for judgement. How else are you going to explain the following? (Matthew 8:12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The only way I can explain this is that the "children of the kingdom" do not make it to the kingdom of God and they are rejected. John can also be considered to be of the "children of the kingdom" but not amongst those who will be cast out. In a similar way, we can be "children of the kingdom" and waiting for the physical kingdom to come on earth in the way that Jesus taught his disciples to pray and make that a priority; (Matthew 6:9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. There has been no change and as followers of Jesus until the day of resurrection we should be praying for God's kingdom to come.


The Kingdom is the church, which was established on Pentecost. Daniel 2:4 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
Daniel's image showed the stone pulverizing the nations represented by the feet of iron and clay. In the same way as the empires of Babylon, Persia , Greece have disappeared, when has the feet of iron and clay disappeared? They are with us today. These physical kingdoms have not disappeared so the day has to come when they will.


Mathew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it
What has this verse to do with the kingdom? It is a verse used by the Catholic Church to support their claim that the Pope is the descendants of the line of Peter who it is thought is the rock on which the Christ's church is established. The rock on which the church is established is what Peter said (Matthew 16:16); And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Once again, what am I to conclude from this quote? It does not tell me that the church is a substitute for the Kingdom of God. I agree that the world will be without end and for that reason I understand the kingdom of God will be upon this earth for eternity and that the day will come when God's Glory shall fill whole earth.
Paul writes (Acts 28:20);for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Do you understand what the hope of Israel was. Jesus did not tell his disciples not to expect the kingdom to be restored to Israel; all Jesus replied was (Acts 1:7) It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. No-one not even you can say when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. To have assumed that in some way that happened around AD70 is to put a time on something which is not know and Jesus was not denying that this would physically happen as the people expected. The Jews were cast off, but God promised not to cast them off forever or make a full end of them. That is why Israel exists today, because his chosen race through which His plan and purpose is being fulfilled are God's witnesses. (Isaiah 44:8) Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.


If you ignore this than you completely ignore Daniels prophecy. It's that simple. Plus, there is plenty more to show that all this has taken place. Like the land the promise. That is already a done deal as well.
I hope that I might have shown you that I have not ignored Daniel's prophecy. I trust you will answer my questions and that you are not ignoring other parts of scripture which must be explained. The Land of Promise you mention is by no means finished. Abraham's descendants were brought into the land and then they were scattered and regathered and so on until they were brought together and formed a nation in 1948. Abraham has not received his inheritance. The promise was made to Abraham. Abraham believed in the resurrection and is dead until that day. His inheritance will be not be fully realized until he is in the kingdom of God.


I will start a new thread soon about Jesus already returning like you mentioned the other day.
Please do and I will give my response in the way you have replied to mine. This is all we can do, is present the evidence as we understand it. As a result of having to defend by beliefs on this forum, it has made me see somethings in a slightly different way, but no so much as to change the doctrines that it is essential to believe for salvation.


No I don't realize I have the devil in me. Because for one I don't believe in him. And two the Bible said he was already defeated and that the last days already happened.
OK, so I failed to help you see that the Devil is part of your human nature. I do not understand what you mean by "I don't believe in him". What do you believe the Devil/Satan is/was? Jesus defeated the devil that was in him, which I explained and through Jesus we all win the same victory that in death, we defeat the devil that is in us.
As for "the last days have already happened" I will wait for your for your new thread. With all that is taking place in the Middle East and and all that is happening in the world pointing to a time of disaster like there never has been I would like to know what you think the future of this earth is. If the earth is destroyed, how can God's Glory fill it; that is God's promise I am waiting to see fulfilled.

All the best

David

[L67]

Hello L67

My problem is the same as your problem if you believe that there is no prophecy to be fulfilled after AD70. Neither of us had to come to the conclusions we hold before we researched the scriptures and formed our opinion. Now that I have a futurist understanding, it is not going to be easy for anyone to convince me otherwise. All we can do is give our explanations for holding the opinions we do and let others do their own research to determine who to believe.

No I don't believe there is any prophecy left to fulfill. There is Zero evidence to support that belief and a mountain of evidence to oppose it.



I believe when Jesus was given access to the Holy Spirit (God's power) that nothing would be withheld from him. This is why it was such a temptation for Jesus to abuse the power that was available to him. We know that all judgement has been given to Jesus at the resurrection, but since that day has not come, Jesus has not exercised that judgement. At the moment, Jesus is with God in Heaven and is not on earth. I understand that when Jesus comes back, he will come back to reign in power. He did not use God's power to reign during his ministry. That disappointed the likes of Judas, yet the power of Jesus to control the weather and heal the sick was sufficient to demonstrate that all power had been given to him. Jesus did not exercise the power in the way you think he should.

Where is your proof that he didn't exert his power?



First of all, Jesus was in the mind of God before he created man and created the earth as the environment for man to live in. If we accept that God foreknew that at sometime man would sin, and that it was also possible for a man to lead a sinless life, then the covering for man's sin and the way to redeem mankind had to be provided and so it becomes clear how the perfect sinless life of Jesus would be necessary since from the time of the first sin, then method of redemption was by the shedding of blood. This was seen when God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to cover their nakedness and sin. (Hebrews 9:22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Matthew 26:28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But that doesn't deal with any of the verses I quoted.



The gospel message in the teaching of Jesus is all about the kingdom. It is the kingdom to come for all generations and not just the generations up to AD70. The inscription of Pilate on the cross of Jesus said; THE KING OF THE JEWS. However, Jesus said (John 18:36); My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. When Jesus was here it was not the time the kingdom would be restored to Israel which is the question the disciples were asking even to the time of his ascension to heaven. The time the kingdom will be restored is when Jesus returns. In one sense, Jesus was the king that was present with them and where a king is, there is his kingdom. The first time Jesus was here on earth, Jesus did not sit upon his throne. The throne Jesus will sit on will be the continuation of the throne first occupied by King David. Until that happens, then Jesus is not sitting on his throne in his kingdom.
When Jesus said (Luke 17:21); the kingdom of God is within you. the way I see this is; it is letting God and Jesus into our lives. It is the same as Jesus and God making their abode in us. Once we begin developing the mind of Christ and have the words of God and Jesus in our mind which affects the way we live, then in this sense the kingdom is within us. Spiritually speaking, Jesus and God are already reigning in our hearts.

There is no proof that it meant for all generations. It quite clearly says that generation. And for you to assert that the Bible meant something else is absurd. You are portraying Jesus as a liar.

You completely ignored MARK 1:15 and asserted it to say something it doesn't say. And Mathew 4:17 backs Mark up. From then on Jesus began to preach, "Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near."

So Jesus really meant something else in those verses? No. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Jesus explicitly said the kingdom was in that generation nothing else.

You proposition also ignores all the prophecy to the contrary.

You think Jesus is to be an earthly king. That is false. He quite clearly told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. He was to be a spiritual king. The kingdom was established and Jesus is sitting on his throne now. Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand. You have to refute this with verses to back up your assertions or you are calling Jesus a liar.

Plus, Jeremiah prophesied that Jesus can't sit on Davids earthly throne. Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? "O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD! "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.' "

Jesus is a literal descendant of Coniah, proving the throne of David is forever in heaven. So is Jeremiah wrong?

God gave Israel the earthly throne of David. But that throne was a symbol of God's throne in heaven. 1 Chronicles 28:5 "Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

God also told David that two of his seed would sit on his throne: Solomon on earth and Christ in heaven at the resurrection. 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 "When your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. "I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. "But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever."

But God was so angry with Israel that he took away the throne until Jesus, the descendant of David would sit on it. Hosea 13:9-11 It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help. Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities, And your judges of whom you requested, "Give me a king and princes"? I gave you a king in My anger And took him away in My wrath.

God said he would sit Jesus on the throne after the resurrection. Acts 2:29-36

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus is on his throne now. Revelation 3:21 "'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."




These words were said before Jesus was transfigured before a few of his disciples. What those disciples were privileged to see was a vision of Jesus coming into his kingdom in which there will be the patriarchs of Israel and all the other great people who will be resurrected. Jesus was correct when he said "some" for as we know, Jesus did not take all his disciples with him to witness that event. It was such a privileged event that he charged those few disciples not to say anything until he was raised from the dead (Mark 9:9); And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

Again you are asserting things that aren't there. You didn't back any of your assertions up with verses that support your claim.



As far as I understand, the disciples are still dead awaiting the resurrection. The disciples might have thought that day would be soon. The apostle John was writing the Revelation circa AD95 although some would say earlier so as to fit in with the preterist understanding. Jesus will drink of the vine with his disciples when he comes into the kingdom and the disciples are resurrected. For me that time has not happened, for the disciples, it will be their next waking moment since death for the believer is the same as going to bed for the night and waking up the next morning without a sense of the passage of time.

Then you are calling Jesus a liar by saying he didn't mean that generation. Why do you butcher the plain meaning of words? Your whole proposition is absurd with no facts supporting it.



I will deal with these first and leave John as a separate answer. None of the above refer in anyway to the physical kingdom that will be set up on earth. I have already referred to the spiritual way in which we can see Jesus and God reigning in our hearts and in this way I see the kingdom is already within us. I think we have to get into perspective the spiritual and the physical. The physical kingdom is still to come

Because the Bible doesn't talk about a physical kingdom. Remember Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world? It's painfully obvious.



Matthew 8 and the story of the Centurion is interesting in that the centurion recognized that Jesus had all power and the centurion had an understanding of how the that power was used. In this same story in which Jesus said he had not found such faith amongst his own people and so goes on to mention the kingdom. I think it is necessary we understand the context in which the word kingdom is used. John was not in the physical kingdom to come but was in spiritual kingdom made up by believers and those eligible for judgement. How else are you going to explain the following? (Matthew 8:12) But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The only way I can explain this is that the "children of the kingdom" do not make it to the kingdom of God and they are rejected. John can also be considered to be of the "children of the kingdom" but not amongst those who will be cast out. In a similar way, we can be "children of the kingdom" and waiting for the physical kingdom to come on earth in the way that Jesus taught his disciples to pray and make that a priority; (Matthew 6:9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. There has been no change and as followers of Jesus until the day of resurrection we should be praying for God's kingdom to come.

How about you're wrong and the kingdom was already established. There was no physical kingdom David. It's a spiritual kingdom.



Daniel's image showed the stone pulverizing the nations represented by the feet of iron and clay. In the same way as the empires of Babylon, Persia , Greece have disappeared, when has the feet of iron and clay disappeared? They are with us today. These physical kingdoms have not disappeared so the day has to come when they will.


Again there is NO physical kingdom. The kingdom is the church. And Daniels prophecy was fulfilled in Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

And in Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,



What has this verse to do with the kingdom? It is a verse used by the Catholic Church to support their claim that the Pope is the descendants of the line of Peter who it is thought is the rock on which the Christ's church is established. The rock on which the church is established is what Peter said (Matthew 16:16); And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Because the church is the kingdom established on Pentecost.



Once again, what am I to conclude from this quote? It does not tell me that the church is a substitute for the Kingdom of God. I agree that the world will be without end and for that reason I understand the kingdom of God will be upon this earth for eternity and that the day will come when God's Glory shall fill whole earth.
Paul writes (Acts 28:20);for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. Do you understand what the hope of Israel was. Jesus did not tell his disciples not to expect the kingdom to be restored to Israel; all Jesus replied was (Acts 1:7) It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. No-one not even you can say when the kingdom will be restored to Israel. To have assumed that in some way that happened around AD70 is to put a time on something which is not know and Jesus was not denying that this would physically happen as the people expected. The Jews were cast off, but God promised not to cast them off forever or make a full end of them. That is why Israel exists today, because his chosen race through which His plan and purpose is being fulfilled are God's witnesses. (Isaiah 44:8) Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Because Daniel prophesied about a kingdom that wouldn't be destroyed. Eph. 3:21 fulfills that prophecy. As fo other verses.



I hope that I might have shown you that I have not ignored Daniel's prophecy. I trust you will answer my questions and that you are not ignoring other parts of scripture which must be explained. The Land of Promise you mention is by no means finished. Abraham's descendants were brought into the land and then they were scattered and regathered and so on until they were brought together and formed a nation in 1948. Abraham has not received his inheritance. The promise was made to Abraham. Abraham believed in the resurrection and is dead until that day. His inheritance will be not be fully realized until he is in the kingdom of God.

Oh you have ignored his prophecy. Your view makes those prophecies irrelevant.

And you are flat out WRONG about the land promise. There were three promises God made. 1: Great nation promise. 2: Land promise. 3: Seed promise.

Great nation promise. Jeremiah 11:5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'--the land you possess today." I answered, "Amen, LORD."

Land and seed promise Nehemiah 9:8 And Thou didst find Abraham's heart faithful before Thee, and didst make a covenant with him to give him the land of the Canaanite, of the Hittite and the Amorite, of the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite-- to give it to his descendants. And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, for Thou art righteous.

Deuteronomy 34:4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

Genesis 12:7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him.

Genesis 28:13-15 13 There above it[a] stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. 15 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”

Genesis 13:14- 15 4 The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

Deuteronomy 1:8 See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.”

Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Genesis 15:4-7

4 Then a message came to Abram from the Lord. He said, “This man will not get what belongs to you. A son will come from your own body. He will get everything you own.”

5 The Lord took Abram outside and said, “Look up at the sky. Count the stars, if you can.” Then he said to him, “That is how many children you will have.”

6 Abram believed the Lord. The Lord accepted Abram because he believed. So his faith made him right with the Lord.

7 He also said to Abram, “I am the Lord. I brought you out of Ur in Babylonia. I wanted to give you this land to take as your very own.”

It mentions give in a few of these verses. But when the Hebrew word translated 'give' is considered, it has many different meanings. Like assign, ascribe, bestow, give, put down, make it over. It also said his seed would inherit the land. So the land promise was fulfilled through Abraham's descendants.

Plus God said that if Israel got all the land promised, then they would have six cities of refuge.

Deuteronomy 19:7-9 "Therefore, I command you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself.' "If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers— if you carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always—then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three.

Joshua 20:7-9 lists six cities of refuge - Kadesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan

And here is the nail in the coffin that said all was fulfilled. Joshua 21:43-45 So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

Joshua 23:14-15 Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. "It shall come about that just as all the good words which the Lord your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you.

You can either accept what the Bible says or you can go on and keep calling God a liar.




OK, so I failed to help you see that the Devil is part of your human nature. I do not understand what you mean by "I don't believe in him". What do you believe the Devil/Satan is/was? Jesus defeated the devil that was in him, which I explained and through Jesus we all win the same victory that in death, we defeat the devil that is in us.
As for "the last days have already happened" I will wait for your for your new thread. With all that is taking place in the Middle East and and all that is happening in the world pointing to a time of disaster like there never has been I would like to know what you think the future of this earth is. If the earth is destroyed, how can God's Glory fill it; that is God's promise I am waiting to see fulfilled.

You couldn't help see anything because I don't believe the Bible is the writing of a god. I see the devil as a fictional character just like every other religion.

The future of the earth is that nobody knows. You start with the assumption that the Bible is true. The default position should be that it isn't true. And then examine the evidence to see whether the claims in the Bible stand up to what we know today. The fact is the Bible crumbles when examined objectively.

Yes there is a lot happening in the middle east but it is irrelevant to biblical prophecy. If you would stop looking at this from a futuristic perspective you would start to see that the Bible was not speaking of far off future events but rather in the times.

[David M]

Hello L67
I will wait for your thread in which you are going to explain the reasons for believing what you do. Your concluding remarks in this your last reply are sufficient to question why I should bother to reply to you at all.


No I don't believe there is any prophecy left to fulfill. There is Zero evidence to support that belief and a mountain of evidence to oppose it.
These are just meaningless words and you are not addressing all of scripture. There is one simple verse for example that says God's promise is; God's Glory shall fill the whole earth. What do you understand this to mean? As I understand "God's Glory" I do not see that this has happened and if that is the case, it would have to be future from now. Please explain this and I will see how you fit this to happening by the time of AD70


Where is your proof that he didn't exert his power?
The proof is simply by the things which Jesus has not done.


But that doesn't deal with any of the verses I quoted.
Without quoting again the exact verses you quoted, I questioned why you were quoting the verses you did. They did not support what you were saying. This is best left until you start the thread you said you were going to do.


There is no proof that it meant for all generations. It quite clearly says that generation. And for you to assert that the Bible meant something else is absurd. You are portraying Jesus as a liar. Only to you does my answer portray Jesus as a liar. I could make the same accusation against you and that gets us nowhere.


You completely ignored MARK 1:15 and asserted it to say something it doesn't say. That is an oxymoron. How could I have "ignored it" and then "asserted it to say something it doesn't say". Either I ignored it, or I did not. Let's see what that verse says;
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
It depends what is meant by "at hand". I explained that Jesus as king means he has a kingdom but that Jesus is not yet sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem. One can be close to the king and the kingdom that is God's kingdom to come on earth is close at hand depending on whose timescale you are working on. The advent of the king makes that reality one step nearer. The disciples were asking when the kingdom would be restored to Israel and expected Jesus to reign as king, but that did not happen. Jesus did not rebuke them for believing so, and instead told them that only his Heavenly Father knew when that would be. If Jesus did not know when how do you know it took place around AD70 when there is no physical sign of that happening?


And Mathew 4:17 backs Mark up. From then on Jesus began to preach, "Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near."
It is nearer for that generation as it was for the generation before. The kingdom is only a lifetime away for any of us and the advent of Jesus just makes the certainty one step nearer. I think you are forcing the point to fit in with your own conclusion that the kingdom of God must have come around the time of AD70. You have no option when you believe all prophecy to have been fulfilled by that time.


So Jesus really meant something else in those verses? No. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Jesus explicitly said the kingdom was in that generation nothing else.
Have you explained what is meant by the saying; (Luke 17:21) behold, the kingdom of God is within you. How does that square with being "near"?
Also we should note what else Jesus says at this time. Jesus said to "this generation" (Luke 17:22); The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. It was "ths generation" which was to crucify Jesus and it was "this generation" which would most likely not see the coming of Jesus (Luke 17:25); But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. The coming of Jesus is not going to be in secret that not everyone knows about just as the JWs thought he was to return in 1914 and because he did not, they then said he started ruling from Heaven. What episode do you refer to that indicates any return and rulership of Jesus prior to AD70. Jesus said; his coming would be like the lightening that flashes across the whole sky and you cannot fail to observe when that happens. No such event has happened. The coming of Jesus has been such a monumental event, it has caused a significant change in the way the years are dated. That might happen again when Jesus returns. (Luke 17:24) For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.


You proposition also ignores all the prophecy to the contrary.
Mere hot air on your part. I will deal and have dealt with any prophecy you quote.


You think Jesus is to be an earthly king. That is false. He quite clearly told Pilate his kingdom was not of this world. He was to be a spiritual king. The kingdom was established and Jesus is sitting on his throne now. Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand. You have to refute this with verses to back up your assertions or you are calling Jesus a liar.
I am not calling Jesus a liar and I think you do not understand what is meant by "the world". It is people that make up the world and for the most part, the people who are in "the word" know not God. That is why people who believe in God are told to separate themselves from "the world". It is this "world" that is enmity with God. If you remain in the world and identify with it, this makes you an enemy of God. It is in this sense that Jesus said; "I am not of this world". This has nothing to do with the earth being the place where God's kingdom will be.


Plus, Jeremiah prophesied that Jesus can't sit on Davids earthly throne. Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? "O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD! "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.' "

Jesus is a literal descendant of Coniah, proving the throne of David is forever in heaven. So is Jeremiah wrong?
Jeremiah is not wrong, but you are. I do not rely on just one translation of the Bible I would look at many translations and include the KJV before reaching a conclusion. This is what the opening verse of the passage you quoted says;
Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
If you look at the genealogy (the genesis (ORIGIN) of Jesus) as listed in Matthew 1, where is Coniah (Jehoiachin) listed? He is not. If you can prove Jesus is descended from Coniah (Jehoiachin) , you might have a case, but if you cannot, then that goes to prove just how shaky all of your so called proofs are. Jeohachin was removed and never became king. That still does not make Jesus a descendant of Jehoiakim who was the reigning king at that time.


God gave Israel the earthly throne of David. But that throne was a symbol of God's throne in heaven. 1 Chronicles 28:5 "Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

God also told David that two of his seed would sit on his throne: Solomon on earth and Christ in heaven at the resurrection. [B] 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 "When your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. "I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. "But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever."

But God was so angry with Israel that he took away the throne until Jesus, the descendant of David would sit on it. Hosea 13:9-11 It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help. Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities, And your judges of whom you requested, "Give me a king and princes"? I gave you a king in My anger And took him away in My wrath.
So far I agree that God took away the throne from Israel, but the verses you cite say nothing of Jesus' throne being in heaven.


God said he would sit Jesus on the throne after the resurrection. Acts 2:29-36

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Jesus is on his throne now.
Let me deal with this part first before dealing with the passage from Revelation. The point Peter was making is that Jesus will sit on the throne of David and David was still dead and therefore was still waiting for the day of resurrection to happen. Jesus being in Heaven, is Jesus being seated at the right hand of God with God sat on His throne. We are not told Jesus is sat on the throne of David ruling from Heaven. Jesus must come back to earth to sit on the throne of David and reign until the last enemy to be destroyed is death. After this, Jesus hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. The place sin and death occurs is here on earth and this is where Jesus must reign to defeat sin and death.


Revelation 3:21 "'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
What you must also bear in mind is that no man (with the exception of Christ) has entered Heaven. That is not the intended place for those who are resurrected. The question is asked in 2 Chronicles 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? as if God is too big and bigger than the universe in which we live. However Revelation 21:3 states;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. So God will dwell with men, and as we know, God is king. God will dwell with men on the earth. This is at the time when God's Glory shall fill the whole earth and God will be "all and in all". God's plan and purpose is with this earth and who knows what else God has in store for them that love and fear him. The apostle Paul said, "it has not entered the imagination of men.." So how different to you suppose Heaven to be of heaven is not on earth. If all the joys of God's creation on earth are to be enjoyed in Heaven, then what is the difference to being on earth. Heaven is the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of man is on earth; that is why God comes to dwell with man and man does not go to dwell with God. How can man ever be greater than God and go where God can go outside this universe?



Again you are asserting things that aren't there. You didn't back any of your assertions up with verses that support your claim.
I referred you to the transfiguration of Jesus and I quoted his charge to his disciples. How can you make such a claim that I asserted things that are not there. I explained how Jesus said; "some standing here..." who was of that generation.


Then you are calling Jesus a liar by saying he didn't mean that generation. Why do you butcher the plain meaning of words? Your whole proposition is absurd with no facts supporting it.
You are full of hot air claiming I am calling Jesus a liar when I have explained to you all the ways I understand the verses you quote. Since I am waiting your reply to prove that Jesus was a descendant of Coniah, then without that proof and if you cannot provide it, why should I trust anything you say. Quite clearly I can explain any verse you quote but not in the way you want to understand. I know you are defending your position, but I have yet to see the evidence stacking up in your favor, but please go on trying till we exhaust your evidence.


Because the Bible doesn't talk about a physical kingdom. Remember Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world? It's painfully obvious.
Jesus is talking about a physical kingdom and it is clear you have not understood what is meant by "the world". I have explained this to you and I can do no more.




How about you're wrong and the kingdom was already established. There was no physical kingdom David. It's a spiritual kingdom.
I believe we are in a spiritual kingdom in that if we have withdrawn ourselves from "this world" and are living unto Christ (our king) we are living in a spiritual kingdom. I explained this when saying how Jesus and God make their abode in us. We have to have the mind of Christ and that will only come bu doing what Jesus did and having God's word in his mind at all time which guided him. We see this especially in the times when Jesus was tempted and when Jesus said; "it is written". We have to have God's word in our minds to the exclusion of evil thoughts that otherwise might occupy our minds. It is what is in our mind that is "in our hearts" that is the "spirit of man" by which God will store our spirit until the day of resurrection and that is what I understand the process to be when Jesus said; "into Thy hands I commend my spirit"


Again there is NO physical kingdom. The kingdom is the church. And Daniels prophecy was fulfilled in Ephesians 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Since I do not know what Bible you are quoting from, please show me where it says or implies that the church is the same as the kingdom. I can then deal with the verse(s) you quote.


And in Hebrews 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
I agree that we are receiving now a spiritual kingdom that cannot be shaken that will have its ultimate fulfillment in the kingdom of God to come when all kingdoms of men that are on the earth now and of which "the world" is, then God's kingdom will be set up for eternity and that means it can never be shaken.


Because the church is the kingdom established on Pentecost.
I do not disagree that the churches foundation could have started at Pentecost, and for the reasons already given until you provide some poof that "the church is the kingdom of God" then I stand by what I believe.


Because Daniel prophesied about a kingdom that wouldn't be destroyed. Eph. 3:21 fulfills that prophecy. As for other verses.
OK so I will quote Ephesians to see what that verse says;
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
First of all, the ending of this verse tells me that the "world" is without end. We have to understand what this world is in light of what I have explained the "world" to be of which Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. We have to get the meaning of the word "world" into proper context. If you want to consider the church to be a continuation into the kingdom of God on earth, then I will go with that, but as far a I understand this passage from Ephesians it does not tell me that the church is the kingdom of God. You need to give me stronger evidence than this.


Oh you have ignored his prophecy. Your view makes those prophecies irrelevant.
I did not ignore the prophecy of Daniel, you do not accept my explanation.



And you are flat out WRONG about the land promise. There were three promises God made. 1: Great nation promise. 2: Land promise. 3: Seed promise.
I had not set out to answer every challenge in your reply, but having got so far, I will continue to reply to your evidence. I have no problem with the above promises.


Great nation promise. Jeremiah 11:5 Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'--the land you possess today." I answered, "Amen, LORD." No problem with this and in some ways Israel became a great nation though not in physical numbers. Also, Israel became a despised nation and so we have to to take into account all that happened to Israel and learn from what happened to them.


Land and seed promise Nehemiah 9:8 And Thou didst find Abraham's heart faithful before Thee, and didst make a covenant with him to give him the land of the Canaanite, of the Hittite and the Amorite, of the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite-- to give it to his descendants. And Thou hast fulfilled Thy promise, for Thou art righteous. I agree that Abraham's descendants received the promise and was brought into the land that is Abraham's inheritance.


Deuteronomy 34:4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. I agree and note that the land was given to Abraham's seed and that Abraham has not personally inherited it as was implicit in the original promise (Genesis 13:15); For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. The promise has not been completed in two respects. The first is that Abraham died before he received it and second Abraham is not alive "for ever". Until Abraham is raised to life he cannot receive his inheritance. (Hebrews 11:8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, I have to balance this with Galatians 3:18; but God gave it to Abraham by promise and Ezekiel 33:24 ;Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Note that Ezekiel is quoting what people are saying and that what they are saying is not necessarily true because Ezekiel is quoting them. The land is God's and is given to Abraham and his descendants by promise. Therefore, you have to understand Hebrews 11:13 ; These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. This clearly states that Abraham did not receive the land which was promised to him and all the time he was in the land, he was a pilgrim in the land as much as he was a pilgrim on the earth having left Ur of the Chaldees.


Genesis 12:7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him. I have no disagreement with you quoting this verse. It confirms that the land would also be given to Abraham's seed.


Genesis 28:13-15 13 There above it[a] stood the Lord, and he said: “I am the Lord, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. 14 Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. 15 I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.”
Note that God tells Abraham that He will (future) bring Abraham back to this land. Abraham died and Abraham has not received his eternal inheritance which he has to be alive to receive.


Genesis 13:14- 15 4 The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”
The same applies as I have responded to the verse you quote before this one. I note the difference is you are quoting from the NIV which says; I am giving it to you whereas the KJV says;for I will (future definite) give it unto thee.


Deuteronomy 1:8 See, I have given you this land. Go in and take possession of the land the Lord swore he would give to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—and to their descendants after them.” These are the words of God given to the Children of Israel through Moses. God is not talking to Abraham. The C of I did enter the land an possess it. It was with God's help that they were able to overcome the people living in the land. Their possession of the land was temporary and they did not have the land as an everlasting possession. That will happen and can only happen when Jesus comes back to save Israel the final time and will be the setting up of God's kingdom.


Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. At last you are quoting a verse with the words "will give" which is future definite.

Genesis 15:4-7

4 Then a message came to Abram from the Lord. He said, “This man will not get what belongs to you. A son will come from your own body. He will get everything you own.”

5 The Lord took Abram outside and said, “Look up at the sky. Count the stars, if you can.” Then he said to him, “That is how many children you will have.”

6 Abram believed the Lord. The Lord accepted Abram because he believed. So his faith made him right with the Lord.

7 He also said to Abram, “I am the Lord. I brought you out of Ur in Babylonia. I wanted to give you this land to take as your very own.”

It mentions give in a few of these verses. But when the Hebrew word translated 'give' is considered, it has many different meanings. Like assign, ascribe, bestow, give, put down, make it over. It also said his seed would inherit the land. So the land promise was fulfilled through Abraham's descendants.
You have dealt with the word "give" and omitted the word "will". I have no difficulty dealing with the fact that Jesus will rule from Jerusalem (Zion) taking up the throne of David and Abraham can also receive his inheriitance once he is raised to eternal life. The inheritance given to Abraham is academic in the sens that all land on earth belongs to God who created it. In the kingdom of God, God's people will be able to go anywhere and enjoy the whole earth. I do not envisage the restrictions imposed by borders that nations set up in this "world". All those in the kingdom of God will enjoy Abraham's inheritance as much as Abraham has all of God's kingdom on earth to enjoy.


Plus God said that if Israel got all the land promised, then they would have six cities of refuge.

Deuteronomy 19:7-9 "Therefore, I command you, saying, 'You shall set aside three cities for yourself.' "If the LORD your God enlarges your territory, just as He has sworn to your fathers, and gives you all the land which He promised to give your fathers— if you carefully observe all this commandment which I command you today, to love the LORD your God, and to walk in His ways always—then you shall add three more cities for yourself, besides these three.

Joshua 20:7-9 lists six cities of refuge - Kadesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan

And here is the nail in the coffin that said all was fulfilled. Joshua 21:43-45 So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.
Joshua 23:14-15 Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the Lord your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. "It shall come about that just as all the good words which the Lord your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you.
So what does that prove? The C of I were brought to the land promised, but they have not remained in the land on a continuous basis. Why not? because Israel turned out to be unfaithful and God punished them and took the land away from them by dispersing them among all the nations on earth. You have pointed this out in the last verse you quote. At the same time, God promised not make a full end of the land (Jeremiah 4:27); For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. Also of the people, God promised (Jeremiah 5:18); Nevertheless in those days, saith the LORD, I will not make a full end with you. Also God promised to restore Israel whenever they were dispersed (Jeremiah 30:11); For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. If they are not made a full end as we have seen with many massive empires that have vanished, this must mean that Israel will remain in someway. The only way Israel can remain as a nation is for that nation to be restored. It was in 1948 in preparation for the time of the end. The nation of Israel will now remain despite the threats looming on it and will remain until the kingdom of God is established and the earth is restored to its former glory in which man had not sinned and then all the earth will be filled with one people having one language and enjoying the whole earth. It is a wonderful prospect in store.

The fact that Israel have been brought back and a nation is now set up in the land (not necessarily all of the land that is promised to them) is demonstrating that it is still God's land reserved as Abraham's inheritance and that the only right of anyone to live in the land is God's people who are Israel and in the fulness of time that includes spiritual Israel that is now of which the Gentiles can be a part.


You can either accept what the Bible says or you can go on and keep calling God a liar.
I think it is very raw to keep accusing me of calling God a liar. I have explained why I believe what I do and I have answered the quotes you have cited and I have also given you you some more Biblical quotes to support what I am saying. I will let others be the judge of my sincerity.



You couldn't help see anything because I don't believe the Bible is the writing of a god.
For this reason alone, I said in my opening I was not going to respond to all you replied, but I have in order not to appear to have quit. There is nothing you can present me with from the Bible that will significantly change my understanding. The fact that you admit you do not believe the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" gives me reason not to even debate with you. If you do not believe the Bible to be God's word' why support a doctrine that every prophecy was fulfilled by AD70. What are you basing it upon? It appears to me to be your own lies or the works of fallible men whom you are wasting your time reading and defending


I see the devil as a fictional character just like every other religion. Herein is the one (less important) part of scripture I agree with you. The Devil/Satan is used by way of personification and that to me makes a personal Devil/Satan fictional.


The future of the earth is that nobody knows. You start with the assumption that the Bible is true. The default position should be that it isn't true. And then examine the evidence to see whether the claims in the Bible stand up to what we know today. The fact is the Bible crumbles when examined objectively.
I see you are now arguing from a point of not believing the Bible and therefore you do not search for a proper understanding and instead are opting to go along with anyone who opposes the Bible. I thought that Preterists had some future to look forward to as you might have done in teaching that Jesus is ruling from Heaven, but why should I believe you, when you do not even believe this is true as you think the Bible is not the world of God.
My belief that the Bible is true might well have started from that premise. The fact is that for decades I have read the Bible and listened to all sides and while watching for the signs of the times, I have come to the conclusion that God's word is true. I have not been presented with any evidence to convince me otherwise. The fact that some people have converted from believing the Bible to be untrue and now accepting the Bible as true goes against your argument that starting off with that premise is the only way of being convinced. The fact that Richard and Rose have lost the faith they once had, does not alter the fact that for them the Bible might be true or at least the existence of God might be true. They have made obstacles out of the Bible as excuses for not believing. I do not see the obstacles Rose and Richard are creating for themselves.


Yes there is a lot happening in the middle east but it is irrelevant to biblical prophecy. If you would stop looking at this from a futuristic perspective you would start to see that the Bible was not speaking of far off future events but rather in the times.
Time only will tell who is right and who is wrong. I cannot help now but look from a futuristic perspective. I have overcome all the quotes from the Bible you have cited and I am careful to consider all translations of the Bible. To claim that Jesus is the descendant of Coniah is now very interesting. I will worry how I am going to reply to you, if you can substantiate what you say. I think your whole method of reasoning and whether anyone should believe your understanding of prophecy is going to stand or fall on this one point.

In a similar way the myths built up around God's Angels rebelling has built up a house of cards and once one card is taken out, the whole house falls down. The only way to keep the house standing is to ignore other scriptures which indicate the the contrary.
I am very aware of building my spiritual house on sand which is not what I am doing and that is why I will respond to your challenges even though I now see you are a complete disbeliever. You can be the big bad wolf and huff and puff and you will not blow my house down which is built upon the rock which is Christ.


David

[L67]

Hello L67
I will wait for your thread in which you are going to explain the reasons for believing what you do. Your concluding remarks in this your last reply are sufficient to question why I should bother to reply to you at all.

Well if it's that much of a bother for you to reply at all, then don't.



These are just meaningless words and you are not addressing all of scripture. There is one simple verse for example that says God's promise is; God's Glory shall fill the whole earth. What do you understand this to mean? As I understand "God's Glory" I do not see that this has happened and if that is the case, it would have to be future from now. Please explain this and I will see how you fit this to happening by the time of AD70

Talk about meaningless words. YOU made the assertion and now you can't back up your claims. It is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Where is your proof?

But to answer your question on what it meant for God's glory to fill the whole earth. Isaiah 6:3 And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."

You could also say these verses proves God's glory filled the earth. Col 1:23

“if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”

Rom 1:8

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.”

Col 1:6

“which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth”

Acts 2:5

“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.”

Those verses line up perfectly with God's gory filling the whole earth.




The proof is simply by the things which Jesus has not done.

That's not proof. Those are your assertions. Proof would be having scripture backing up your claims. I take it you have no proof other than your belief.



Without quoting again the exact verses you quoted, I questioned why you were quoting the verses you did. They did not support what you were saying. This is best left until you start the thread you said you were going to do.

My verses absolutely support my argument. You saying they don't isn't refuting them.


Only to you does my answer portray Jesus as a liar. I could make the same accusation against you and that gets us nowhere.

No you couldn't say the same for me. I am quoting Jesus in plain context. You are picking verses and then trying to apply a FALSE futurist perspective to it. I have provided evidence what Jesus actually meant. You give mere interpretation of your beliefs. My evidence needs no interpretation. The verses I have quoted are very explicit and leave no room for interpretation. If you feel otherwise than show me with concrete evidence, rather than mere assertion on your part.


That is an oxymoron. How could I have "ignored it" and then "asserted it to say something it doesn't say". Either I ignored it, or I did not. Let's see what that verse says;
It depends what is meant by "at hand". I explained that Jesus as king means he has a kingdom but that Jesus is not yet sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem. One can be close to the king and the kingdom that is God's kingdom to come on earth is close at hand depending on whose timescale you are working on. The advent of the king makes that reality one step nearer. The disciples were asking when the kingdom would be restored to Israel and expected Jesus to reign as king, but that did not happen. Jesus did not rebuke them for believing so, and instead told them that only his Heavenly Father knew when that would be. If Jesus did not know when how do you know it took place around AD70 when there is no physical sign of that happening?

No it isn't. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You ignored the meaning of the verse and then asserted it to say something else. I don't care what you interpretation of the verse is. Show me concrete evidence of what you are saying. There is a mountain of evidence to support they were in the last times in that generation. You have nothing but mere assertion.

You are playing with words David. Lets see what the expression "at hand" means. at hand
1. Close by; near.
2. Soon in time; imminent:

Those definitions do not fit a futuristic perspective.

How many times do I have to tell you Jesus said he was a spiritual king? Not an earthly king like you assert. He was very explicit with what he told Pilate. Why can't you take Jesus word? Why do you twist everything he says to fit your preconceived belief?


It is nearer for that generation as it was for the generation before. The kingdom is only a lifetime away for any of us and the advent of Jesus just makes the certainty one step nearer. I think you are forcing the point to fit in with your own conclusion that the kingdom of God must have come around the time of AD70. You have no option when you believe all prophecy to have been fulfilled by that time.

More assertion from you? Why can't you refute anything I have said with evidence?

I'm also not forcing anything to fit my conclusion. I am using the plain words of the Bible, while you are interjecting your interpretations. You interpretations have no value with no evidence to back that up.



Have you explained what is meant by the saying; (Luke 17:21) behold, the kingdom of God is within you. How does that square with being "near"?
Also we should note what else Jesus says at this time. Jesus said to "this generation" (Luke 17:22); The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. It was "ths generation" which was to crucify Jesus and it was "this generation" which would most likely not see the coming of Jesus (Luke 17:25); But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. The coming of Jesus is not going to be in secret that not everyone knows about just as the JWs thought he was to return in 1914 and because he did not, they then said he started ruling from Heaven. What episode do you refer to that indicates any return and rulership of Jesus prior to AD70. Jesus said; his coming would be like the lightening that flashes across the whole sky and you cannot fail to observe when that happens. No such event has happened. The coming of Jesus has been such a monumental event, it has caused a significant change in the way the years are dated. That might happen again when Jesus returns. (Luke 17:24) For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.


David Luke 17:21 refers to a spiritual kingdom. Jesus in his own words said his kingdom was not of this world.

The rest of the verses are irrelevant to Jesus telling the disciples it would be this generation.

It's like this. Jesus said: Matthew 23:36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Luke 17:25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

Jesus said in Matthew 24 that the tribulation and the “end of the Temple” would come within one generation. A generation is roughly 40 years. Jesus prophesied in 30 AD. The Temple was destroyed 70 AD… exactly one generation later.

There's also a a lot more verses that confirm it was "this" generation.

You think Jesus has to return to setup his kingdom and rule in it. Jesus is a king with a kingdom. And there are many verses to confirm it.

Also you keep referencing Jesus coming like lightning across the sky. Did it ever occur to you that the Bible is fiction?


Mere hot air on your part. I will deal and have dealt with any prophecy you quote.

Than deal with them in facts. Your assertions are not facts!



I am not calling Jesus a liar and I think you do not understand what is meant by "the world". It is people that make up the world and for the most part, the people who are in "the word" know not God. That is why people who believe in God are told to separate themselves from "the world". It is this "world" that is enmity with God. If you remain in the world and identify with it, this makes you an enemy of God. It is in this sense that Jesus said; "I am not of this world". This has nothing to do with the earth being the place where God's kingdom will be.

You still didn't deal with anything I said. You asserted your beliefs again.



Jeremiah is not wrong, but you are. I do not rely on just one translation of the Bible I would look at many translations and include the KJV before reaching a conclusion. This is what the opening verse of the passage you quoted says;
If you look at the genealogy (the genesis (ORIGIN) of Jesus) as listed in Matthew 1, where is Coniah (Jehoiachin) listed? He is not. If you can prove Jesus is descended from Coniah (Jehoiachin) , you might have a case, but if you cannot, then that goes to prove just how shaky all of your so called proofs are. Jeohachin was removed and never became king. That still does not make Jesus a descendant of Jehoiakim who was the reigning king at that time.

If you want to say I'm wrong you have to prove it. You didn't. But I'll show you why you are wrong.

Coniah is short for Jeconiah.

Mathew 1:12 12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

If you say that even if Jeconiah is listed there that doesn't make Jesus a descendant then you just turned the Bible on its head. The Bible clearly went to the trouble of listing the genealogy that led up to Jesus. How can you call yourself a true Bible believer?



So far I agree that God took away the throne from Israel, but the verses you cite say nothing of Jesus' throne being in heaven.

How can you be so confused? David where is God's throne? In heaven. Duh! Where did Jesus go after the resurrection? Heaven. God said he would seat Jesus on the throne after the resurrection. It's painfully obvious. You should have quoted my entire post and then maybe you would have understood it.



Let me deal with this part first before dealing with the passage from Revelation. The point Peter was making is that Jesus will sit on the throne of David and David was still dead and therefore was still waiting for the day of resurrection to happen. Jesus being in Heaven, is Jesus being seated at the right hand of God with God sat on His throne. We are not told Jesus is sat on the throne of David ruling from Heaven. Jesus must come back to earth to sit on the throne of David and reign until the last enemy to be destroyed is death. After this, Jesus hands over the restored kingdom to his Heavenly Father. The place sin and death occurs is here on earth and this is where Jesus must reign to defeat sin and death.

No David! You are ignoring Jeremiahs prophecy. Jesus can't sit on an earthly throne again. I proved that above. Acts clearly says Christ would be seated after the resurrection. He is seated on Davids throne in heaven NOW just like the Bible said he would. You are totally confused on this issue.


What you must also bear in mind is that no man (with the exception of Christ) has entered Heaven. That is not the intended place for those who are resurrected. The question is asked in 2 Chronicles 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? as if God is too big and bigger than the universe in which we live. However Revelation 21:3 states;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. So God will dwell with men, and as we know, God is king. God will dwell with men on the earth. This is at the time when God's Glory shall fill the whole earth and God will be "all and in all". God's plan and purpose is with this earth and who knows what else God has in store for them that love and fear him. The apostle Paul said, "it has not entered the imagination of men.." So how different to you suppose Heaven to be of heaven is not on earth. If all the joys of God's creation on earth are to be enjoyed in Heaven, then what is the difference to being on earth. Heaven is the dwelling place of God and the dwelling place of man is on earth; that is why God comes to dwell with man and man does not go to dwell with God. How can man ever be greater than God and go where God can go outside this universe?



I referred you to the transfiguration of Jesus and I quoted his charge to his disciples. How can you make such a claim that I asserted things that are not there. I explained how Jesus said; "some standing here..." who was of that generation.

But that still doesn't solve the problem. You originally quoted my post of Mark 9:1. Jesus states that the disciples will live to see the kingdom of prophecy established on earth when it comes with power of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. You explanation doesn't solve what Jesus plainly states. And there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts you.



You are full of hot air claiming I am calling Jesus a liar when I have explained to you all the ways I understand the verses you quote. Since I am waiting your reply to prove that Jesus was a descendant of Coniah, then without that proof and if you cannot provide it, why should I trust anything you say. Quite clearly I can explain any verse you quote but not in the way you want to understand. I know you are defending your position, but I have yet to see the evidence stacking up in your favor, but please go on trying till we exhaust your evidence.

The only one with hot air is you. You haven't refuted anything I have said in this thread. You only assert things. I proved Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah earlier. You don't see my evidence because you don't want to. You can't accept the fact that the Bible already fulfilled all the prophecy because it goes against your beliefs. My evidence is damaging to your beliefs.



Jesus is talking about a physical kingdom and it is clear you have not understood what is meant by "the world". I have explained this to you and I can do no more.

No he's not. Your whole belief system preaches a physical kingdom and Jesus sitting on the throne of David. Jesus can't sit on an earthly throne or Jeremiah is a liar. Jesus is in his kingdom and on the throne of David now. You don't need to explain it to me. I understand what the plain text is means.





I believe we are in a spiritual kingdom in that if we have withdrawn ourselves from "this world" and are living unto Christ (our king) we are living in a spiritual kingdom. I explained this when saying how Jesus and God make their abode in us. We have to have the mind of Christ and that will only come bu doing what Jesus did and having God's word in his mind at all time which guided him. We see this especially in the times when Jesus was tempted and when Jesus said; "it is written". We have to have God's word in our minds to the exclusion of evil thoughts that otherwise might occupy our minds. It is what is in our mind that is "in our hearts" that is the "spirit of man" by which God will store our spirit until the day of resurrection and that is what I understand the process to be when Jesus said; "into Thy hands I commend my spirit"

These comments do nothing to refute anything I have posted, nor do they advance your argument.



Since I do not know what Bible you are quoting from, please show me where it says or implies that the church is the same as the kingdom. I can then deal with the verse(s) you quote.

Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe

Notice that receiving is active present tense. Plus where else do you worship God?

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,[/QUOTE]

That's Daniels prophecy. Notice how Hebrews says the kingdom cannot be shaken. Mathew confirms this as well. [B] Mathew 18:18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

Ephesians confirms this as well. Eph. 3:21 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

There's plenty more verses that confirm this.




I agree that we are receiving now a spiritual kingdom that cannot be shaken that will have its ultimate fulfillment in the kingdom of God to come when all kingdoms of men that are on the earth now and of which "the world" is, then God's kingdom will be set up for eternity and that means it can never be shaken.

Nope. Jesus was speaking to that generation David. You are turning the Bible on it's head. The word receiving is the active present tense David not future.



I do not disagree that the churches foundation could have started at Pentecost, and for the reasons already given until you provide some poof that "the church is the kingdom of God" then I stand by what I believe.

I showed that earlier. And there is plenty more verses to support it as well.



OK so I will quote Ephesians to see what that verse says;
First of all, the ending of this verse tells me that the "world" is without end. We have to understand what this world is in light of what I have explained the "world" to be of which Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. We have to get the meaning of the word "world" into proper context. If you want to consider the church to be a continuation into the kingdom of God on earth, then I will go with that, but as far a I understand this passage from Ephesians it does not tell me that the church is the kingdom of God. You need to give me stronger evidence than this.

David, Daniels prophecy said the kingdom would never be destroyed and it would endure forever. Eph 3:21 fulfills Daniels prophecy. It's telling you the church will endure forever.



I did not ignore the prophecy of Daniel, you do not accept my explanation.

I don't accept your explanation because it is ignoring Daniels prophecy. I showed that earlier.




I had not set out to answer every challenge in your reply, but having got so far, I will continue to reply to your evidence. I have no problem with the above promises.

If you have no problem with it, then why are you disagreeing with me.


No problem with this and in some ways Israel became a great nation though not in physical numbers. Also, Israel became a despised nation and so we have to to take into account all that happened to Israel and learn from what happened to them.

Ok we agree on something then.


I agree that Abraham's descendants received the promise and was brought into the land that is Abraham's inheritance.

And that is exactly what God promised.


I agree and note that the land was given to Abraham's seed and that Abraham has not personally inherited it as was implicit in the original promise (Genesis 13:15); For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. The promise has not been completed in two respects. The first is that Abraham died before he received it and second Abraham is not alive "for ever". Until Abraham is raised to life he cannot receive his inheritance. (Hebrews 11:8) By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, I have to balance this with Galatians 3:18; but God gave it to Abraham by promise and Ezekiel 33:24 ;Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance. Note that Ezekiel is quoting what people are saying and that what they are saying is not necessarily true because Ezekiel is quoting them. The land is God's and is given to Abraham and his descendants by promise. Therefore, you have to understand Hebrews 11:13 ; These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. This clearly states that Abraham did not receive the land which was promised to him and all the time he was in the land, he was a pilgrim in the land as much as he was a pilgrim on the earth having left Ur of the Chaldees.

Wrong! Nowhere in the scriptures does it say Abraham thought he would receive the land promise. The first promise was to Abrahams seed. Plus, when translated give has other meanings other than giving literally. If what you say is true, then God lied when he said he fulfilled all the promises to Israel. He then lied when he said they would have six cites of refuge. He then lied to all of Abrahams descendants. Is that what you are proposing? You can't pick and chose or else it's all irrelevant.

The purpose of the land promise was for a very specific purpose. You completely miss the point.

But let me show you why you are WRONG. God plainly said he fulfilled all promises. If I'm to take the Bible seriously I'll go with what God said. He said he fulfilled all the land he promised in the OT. And there is a lot of verses that confirm this.

I posted a lot of evidence to support my claim but let's go a little further since you aren't satisfied.


Do you notice that the word seed is singular and not plural? It was to prophesy one seed. That was Jesus. Mathew 1 shows this.

The original promise was to Abrahams seed. Genesis 12:7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.

One of the sole reasons Jesus appeared was to confirm the promises to Abraham. Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The land of Israel was promised to Abraham and his seed, Jesus.

Galatians 3:26-29 also confirms this. Galatians 3:26-29 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Romans 4:13 also confirms the promise was fulfilled. Romans 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.




Note that God tells Abraham that He will (future) bring Abraham back to this land. Abraham died and Abraham has not received his eternal inheritance which he has to be alive to receive.

He wasn't talking to Abraham. And he certainly did not say he would bring Abraham back to this land. He was speaking to Jacob.



The same applies as I have responded to the verse you quote before this one. I note the difference is you are quoting from the NIV which says; I am giving it to you whereas the KJV says;for I will (future definite) give it unto thee.

And you were wrong on your interpretation on the previous verse.


These are the words of God given to the Children of Israel through Moses. God is not talking to Abraham. The C of I did enter the land an possess it. It was with God's help that they were able to overcome the people living in the land. Their possession of the land was temporary and they did not have the land as an everlasting possession. That will happen and can only happen when Jesus comes back to save Israel the final time and will be the setting up of God's kingdom.

It's not what you think it says David. The verse to to prove the land promise was fulfilled. The Bible said they would have everlasting possesion. GENESIS 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.

I have utterly refuted your claim that Jesus can't come back and setup a kingdom and sit on Davids throne.



At last you are quoting a verse with the words "will give" which is future definite.

It sill doesn't say what you think it says. Nahthan, Strong #5414 http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5414/nathan.htm

Give has many different meanings when translated.


You have dealt with the word "give" and omitted the word "will". I have no difficulty dealing with the fact that Jesus will rule from Jerusalem (Zion) taking up the throne of David and Abraham can also receive his inheriitance once he is raised to eternal life. The inheritance given to Abraham is academic in the sens that all land on earth belongs to God who created it. In the kingdom of God, God's people will be able to go anywhere and enjoy the whole earth. I do not envisage the restrictions imposed by borders that nations set up in this "world". All those in the kingdom of God will enjoy Abraham's inheritance as much as Abraham has all of God's kingdom on earth to enjoy.

See above for all the different meanings give has. I have refuted all your claims with rock solid evidence.



So what does that prove? The C of I were brought to the land promised, but they have not remained in the land on a continuous basis. Why not? because Israel turned out to be unfaithful and God punished them and took the land away from them by dispersing them among all the nations on earth. You have pointed this out in the last verse you quote. At the same time, God promised not make a full end of the land (Jeremiah 4:27); For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. Also of the people, God promised (Jeremiah 5:18); Nevertheless in those days, saith the LORD, I will not make a full end with you. Also God promised to restore Israel whenever they were dispersed (Jeremiah 30:11); For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee: though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished. If they are not made a full end as we have seen with many massive empires that have vanished, this must mean that Israel will remain in someway. The only way Israel can remain as a nation is for that nation to be restored. It was in 1948 in preparation for the time of the end. The nation of Israel will now remain despite the threats looming on it and will remain until the kingdom of God is established and the earth is restored to its former glory in which man had not sinned and then all the earth will be filled with one people having one language and enjoying the whole earth. It is a wonderful prospect in store.

The fact that Israel have been brought back and a nation is now set up in the land (not necessarily all of the land that is promised to them) is demonstrating that it is still God's land reserved as Abraham's inheritance and that the only right of anyone to live in the land is God's people who are Israel and in the fulness of time that includes spiritual Israel that is now of which the Gentiles can be a part.

The six cities of refuge prove God fulfilled his land promise.

1948 has NOTHING to do with the Bible. I have shown in this thread that your belief system is utterly false.




I think it is very raw to keep accusing me of calling God a liar. I have explained why I believe what I do and I have answered the quotes you have cited and I have also given you you some more Biblical quotes to support what I am saying. I will let others be the judge of my sincerity.

I don't doubt you are sincere David. But you are ignoring the plain teachings of the Bible and interjecting it your futurist doctrine. The futurist doctrine is man made and has no relevance to Biblical prophecy.




For this reason alone, I said in my opening I was not going to respond to all you replied, but I have in order not to appear to have quit. There is nothing you can present me with from the Bible that will significantly change my understanding. The fact that you admit you do not believe the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" gives me reason not to even debate with you. If you do not believe the Bible to be God's word' why support a doctrine that every prophecy was fulfilled by AD70. What are you basing it upon? It appears to me to be your own lies or the works of fallible men whom you are wasting your time reading and defending

You can drop the holier than thou attitude.

What does me believing the Bible being the inspired Word of God have to do with anything? It doesn't. That is a lame excuse you use when you can't properly defend your positions. I was a Christian for 20+ years and I very much know what the Bible plainly teaches.

You ask why I would support a docotrine if I didn't believe the Bible was God's word. Simple. Because it shows the Bible was relevant of those times and is irrelevant in todays times.

Speaking of irony. The false futurist doctrine, which you believe is from fallible men who misinterpret the Bible.




I see you are now arguing from a point of not believing the Bible and therefore you do not search for a proper understanding and instead are opting to go along with anyone who opposes the Bible. I thought that Preterists had some future to look forward to as you might have done in teaching that Jesus is ruling from Heaven, but why should I believe you, when you do not even believe this is true as you think the Bible is not the world of God.
My belief that the Bible is true might well have started from that premise. The fact is that for decades I have read the Bible and listened to all sides and while watching for the signs of the times, I have come to the conclusion that God's word is true. I have not been presented with any evidence to convince me otherwise. The fact that some people have converted from believing the Bible to be untrue and now accepting the Bible as true goes against your argument that starting off with that premise is the only way of being convinced. The fact that Richard and Rose have lost the faith they once had, does not alter the fact that for them the Bible might be true or at least the existence of God might be true. They have made obstacles out of the Bible as excuses for not believing. I do not see the obstacles Rose and Richard are creating for themselves.

Oh please. Spare me the you can't understand pitch. I don't care if you believe me or not. If you are right then you should have no problem refuting everything I said, since I can't know what the Bible plainly teaches because I don't believe.



Time only will tell who is right and who is wrong. I cannot help now but look from a futuristic perspective. I have overcome all the quotes from the Bible you have cited and I am careful to consider all translations of the Bible. To claim that Jesus is the descendant of Coniah is now very interesting. I will worry how I am going to reply to you, if you can substantiate what you say. I think your whole method of reasoning and whether anyone should believe your understanding of prophecy is going to stand or fall on this one point.

Finally you are being reasonable. I proved the Coniah claim earlier.

[David M]

Hello L67

Well if it's that much of a bother for you to reply at all, then don't. If you had read the whole post before replying, your remark ought to be redundant. After completing my post and responding to all of your reply, I could have come back and deleted my opening remark. I let it stand to see whether you would pick up on it and you have. I did not see you at the end acknowledging that I had addressed all of your reply.
Since you have replied equally long, I will do the same, so as to address all the points you are making.

Talk about meaningless words. YOU made the assertion and now you can't back up your claims. It is on you to provide evidence for your claims. Where is your proof?I am giving you alternative verses from scripture to consider and I am pointing out how else verses can be understood. If you claim that my replies are not proof, I can say the same and that you are not giving me proof. What I shall show, is what you tell me is proof, is actually a faulty because you jump to the wrong conclusion just as your opening remark in your previous reply to me shows.

But to answer your question on what it meant for God's glory to fill the whole earth. Isaiah 6:3 And they were calling to one another: "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory."
You could also say these verses proves God's glory filled the earth. Col 1:23
“if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
Rom 1:8
“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.”
Col 1:6
“which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth”
Acts 2:5
“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.”
Those verses line up perfectly with God's gory filling the whole earth.Even though you have quoted many verses and brought in the idea of the "whole earth", this is not explaining God's Glory. Apart from Richard's reply in another thread and I was hoping for more replies before giving my understanding in that thread. I will do so (in part) now. By God's Glory I see this as meaning the excellency of God and God's excellency is seen in that everything is perfect. Hence at Creation God said that everything was "very good" (excellent). In this present world, not everything is excellent because man is destroying the earth. Mankind at present is not excellent, mankind is overall wicked and sinful. Until death and the cause of death (sin) is destroyed and as we are told () is the last enemy to be destroyed, God's Glory (excellence) cannot be seen to fill the whole earth.
Now for the verse in Isaiah you have chosen as your proof, I need not reply to every other verse you have given, because I would put those verses into different context. The verse in Isaiah has to be understood in the proper context, which you have missed (IMHO). As I understand Isaiah 6:3 let's look at this in context. It is very clear to me that Isaiah is given a vision and the date of that vision is set in the days of King Uzziah's death. Verse 1 is given is symbolic language and is a vision of things to come; I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. There is coming a day when that will be said.
The figurative language of Isaiah continues and for those who have not read the whole passage, this is what Isaiah says; (5) Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. (6) Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: (7) And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. The question we have to answer is when has this happened? Also, we have to take into account that Isaiah asked God (verse 11); 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? and then what has to be understood is the fulfillment of God's answer which was relating to a future time (11-13); And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. 13 But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. So God's glory cannot fill the earth at least until what God said would happen had taken place.
The problem that can apply to both of us and from which we should be aware was stated in verses 9 and 10; And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Just as the Jews remain blind to this day, the Jews have not been healed. Until the Jews and all the nations are healed, then the excellency of God's creation cannot be realized.
If you do not have see God's vision given to us of a perfect word to come. I can understand why you think God's glory has already filled the earth.

That's not proof. Those are your assertions. Proof would be having scripture backing up your claims. I take it you have no proof other than your belief.I am giving you my reasons. I can say the same about your reasons. I can claim your are making your assertions and that you have no proof other than your belief. I have had too many arguments with Richard making the same style of statement. We must leave personalities out of this and just stick to the scripture and express out understanding. I am sure we both have our supporters agreeing with us.

My verses absolutely support my argument. You saying they don't isn't refuting them. That might be so, but the verses you quote do not "absolutely support my (your) argument" for the reason explained in the Isaiah reference above and which I shall go on to show regarding the genealogy of Jesus, and I say now, that whilst I have learned something in the process of discussing with you in this thread, I shall show that your conclusion is not valid.

No you couldn't say the same for me. I am quoting Jesus in plain context. You are picking verses and then trying to apply a FALSE futurist perspective to it. I have provided evidence what Jesus actually meant. You give mere interpretation of your beliefs. My evidence needs no interpretation. The verses I have quoted are very explicit and leave no room for interpretation. If you feel otherwise than show me with concrete evidence, rather than mere assertion on your part. It is only false to you and all preterists; I understand why you think so. Your evidence does need interpretation and I shall continue to show you why. I shall also ask you to explain things to me so that I think are clear and plain.

No it isn't. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You ignored the meaning of the verse and then asserted it to say something else. I don't care what you interpretation of the verse is. Show me concrete evidence of what you are saying. There is a mountain of evidence to support they were in the last times in that generation. You have nothing but mere assertion.
If you just keep saying I am asserting and have not given you an explanation when I have, then I do not see how you are keeping an open mind. Your mind is set on your beliefs just as I am set on my beliefs. I have learned something from the Bible during this discussion; have you learned anything new of is your mind so closed, you have stopped searching?

You are playing with words David. Lets see what the expression "at hand" means. at hand
1. Close by; near.
2. Soon in time; imminent:
Those definitions do not fit a futuristic perspective.In the same way that Revelation which many think was written circa AD90 and not as preterists have to make out was written before AD70. The expression "shortly come to pass" was to apply to the beginning of things to come. It does not necessarily mean that everything was to be started and completed shortly. Yes, it can be forced to mean what you think it means and I see how it applies differently. The dating of when Revelation was revealed to John is a contentious point as that is fundamental to how what is contained in it is understood. If you say that all future events revealed to John had already happened by AD70 and you have satisfied yourself that fits in with all the scriptures, then I can see why you are fixed on what you believe, and as for me, preterists have not fully explained all scriptures to my satisfaction and hence the divide remains.

How many times do I have to tell you Jesus said he was a spiritual king? Not an earthly king like you assert. He was very explicit with what he told Pilate. Why can't you take Jesus word? Why do you twist everything he says to fit your preconceived belief? I have agreed that Jesus is now our spiritual king, and I believe Jesus will also come back to reign on earth. Jesus is not dead, he has an incorruptible body. Jesus has a heavenly body in that his incorruptible body was given to him by God. The same can be for us and that does not stop those bodies being on earth as Jesus showed himself on earth for 40 days after he was risen.
I have explained what "the world" meant in the context of what Jesus meant. How do you explain that I am in this world, but I am not to be of this world? I cannot go to heaven, my place is on earth, yet I have to separate myself from this world that is "enmity with God". As you object to my explanation, then please let me have your explanation of these verses

More assertion from you? Why can't you refute anything I have said with evidence?
I'm also not forcing anything to fit my conclusion. I am using the plain words of the Bible, while you are interjecting your interpretations. You interpretations have no value with no evidence to back that up. I know they have no value to you. That is all you can say.

David Luke 17:21 refers to a spiritual kingdom. Jesus in his own words said his kingdom was not of this world.
The rest of the verses are irrelevant to Jesus telling the disciples it would be this generation.
It's like this. Jesus said: Matthew 23:36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Luke 17:25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation."This generation" is again a phrase that as you know has to be taken in the context of the time period Jesus is referring to. "This generation" as when he was talking to the Pharisees obviously referred to the generation Jesus was living in and when Jesus was telling his disciples of things that must happen in the future, "this generation" applies to the generation who would witness those things.

Jesus said in Matthew 24 that the tribulation and the “end of the Temple” would come within one generation. A generation is roughly 40 years. Jesus prophesied in 30 AD. The Temple was destroyed 70 AD… exactly one generation later.A generation could also be 70 years. I just state that as an academic point. In the prophecy you quote, "the time of the Gentiles" as recorded by Luke is a point of difference. I believe we are still in the time of the Gentiles and Jerusalem is still being trodden down. In the same way that you say; you cannot say 1948 was prophecy, so you cannot say the date AD70 was prophecy. If I am accused of fitting dates to prophecy so must you be accused.

There's also a a lot more verses that confirm it was "this" generation. Not as many to confirm your conclusion when taken into context.

You think Jesus has to return to setup his kingdom and rule in it. Jesus is a king with a kingdom. And there are many verses to confirm it. There are enough

Also you keep referencing Jesus coming like lightning across the sky. Did it ever occur to you that the Bible is fiction? It did, but not any longer. I cannot throw away what I am now convinced is the truth. I am not wresting scripture and if I have got things wrong and as I am still waiting for some things to see how they turn out, I am at least constantly re-examining and standing up to challenges placed on my belief. I have said, I have learned something as a result of this discussion. That might give you hope that I come to see these things the way you do, but if you have nothing to learn and are not learning anything from this discussion, then that leaves me with no hope that you will change. I am not trying to get you to change, that is futile of me, I only hope visitors to this forum and this thread will have both sides of the argument to reach their own conclusions and must do so by reading the Bible.

Than deal with them in facts. Your assertions are not facts!
You still didn't deal with anything I said. You asserted your beliefs again. I am dealing with them, and I have given you explanations. I do not see what the difference is and the fact that you present verses which I do not consider supports your case and I give my reasons to just means that your words need not be said.

If you want to say I'm wrong you have to prove it. You didn't. But I'll show you why you are wrong. This is good, for as I have kept saying; I have learned something as I shall explain and I shall give you reasons why I continue to believe Jesus will be a future king reigning on earth.

Coniah is short for Jeconiah.
Mathew 1:12 12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
If you say that even if Jeconiah is listed there that doesn't make Jesus a descendant then you just turned the Bible on its head. The Bible clearly went to the trouble of listing the genealogy that led up to Jesus. How can you call yourself a true Bible believer?First of all, I am accepting that that Coniah is the same as Jecohniah the same as Jeohachin (NIV). My initial problem is where it says; Coniah the son of Jehoiakim and it is fitting in Jehoihakim with the remainder of the genealogy. (2 Kings 24:6) So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
The problem I have is equating the line of Amon - Josias - Jechoniah with Josiah - Jehoiakim - Jehconiah. I am trying to find out how Josiah (or is it Josias) becomes Jehoiakim. That aside, I am accepting that Coniah (Jehconiah) was in the genealogy line leading to Jesus because of Matthew's record. Luke gives a different line but for the sake of this discussion that doe not matter.
What I have to refute is the conclusion you made in your earlier post;
Plus, Jeremiah prophesied that Jesus can't sit on Davids earthly throne. Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised, shattered jar? Or is he an undesirable vessel? Why have he and his descendants been hurled out And cast into a land that they had not known? "O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD! "Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.' "
Jesus is a literal descendant of Coniah, proving the throne of David is forever in heaven. So is Jeremiah wrong?You are claiming Jeremiah is wrong and that God's inspired word is wrong! I do not make such a claim and I marvel how wonderful God's word in that God never lies and and God keeps His promises even if other people cannot recognize this. As I said, I am learning and to follow through on your claim, I did a quick search and came up with two lots of information. The information I am now supplying, you can argue against the two authors. There are two ways to reconcile the apparent contradiction when the line to the throne ends with Jehconiah.
The first link to a long article explaining 'the curse of Jehconiah and the virgin birth' (http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/rrj_curse_of_jeconiah.html)
The other link is to an article entitled; 'Jesus and Jehconiah' (http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ra_mclaughlin/OT.McLaughlin.Jeconiah.pdf)
You might not want to read those articles, and so I shall just pick a section that answers the main problem I have with accepting your argument. I have a problem with the promise God made to King David and it was an open promise and therefore does not have a time limit or compromises. Just because it is thought the line of ascension to the throne of David ended with Jehconiah the only alternative is to think that Jesus must reign from Heaven. As I said, JWs changed from thinking Jesus was coming back to reigning from Heaven after he did not return in 1914 was applying the same type of reasoning. We have to resolve the problem and maintain the open promise to David in which David envisaged his descendants sitting on his throne and Jesus disciples expected Jesus to be their king sitting on the throne of David. They were not assuming the Kingdom of Israel was going to be in Heaven.

God's Unconditional Promise to David
In order to show how the virgin birth of the Messiah became necessary, it is important to consider the foundations set up in God's special relationship with King David. God loved David so much that He vowed that his seed would endure forever. According to the LORD, it would be through the loins of David that the Messiah would come. In these passages, the LORD God refers to David in the following manner:
(2Samuel 7:12-13): "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."
Psalms 89:35-36: "Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me."
Psalms 132:11: "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."
God's promise to David was certainly unconditional, for according to Psalm 89:35-36 and Psalm 132:11, He swore by His holiness that He would not turn from it. In contrast, God's promise to David's descendants was NOT unconditional since it was a promise that was made with provisions, contingencies and stipulations.
God's Conditional Promise to David's Descendants
According to Psalm 132:12 the LORD promised David the following, "If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore." In this verse, God pledged to David that his kingdom would be established through his descendants if, and only if, they obeyed the covenant and testimony that He would teach them. According to the Bible, this conditional agreement would begin with David's son Solomon. Though David had many sons, God designated Solomon to build the temple, and through him the throne of his father David would continue. 1Chronicles 22:7-10 explains:
"And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God: (8) But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. (9) Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. (10) He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever."
David told Solomon that he was the one whom God had appointed to build the temple. Additionally, it would be through him that the kingdom of Israel would be established forever. However, the condition is also clear in that the LORD would establish the throne of Solomon's kingdom over Israel forever as long as he and his heirs succeeded in meeting the contingencies and requirements stipulated in Psalm 132:12.
We can find further verification of these provisions in other passages in the Bible. For example, 1 Kings chapter 8 describes the time when Solomon inaugurated the temple. Solomon prayed to the LORD God and asked Him for verification of the promise that He made to his father David. Solomon requested that the LORD would confirm that, through his seed, there would always be a man to sit upon the throne of Israel. 1Kings 8:22-28 states:
"And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven: (23) And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: (24) Who hast kept with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him: thou spakest also with thy mouth, and hast fulfilled it with thine hand, as it is this day. (25) Therefore now, LORD God of Israel, keep with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst him, saying, There shall not fail thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me. (26) And now, O God of Israel, let thy word, I pray thee, be verified, which thou spakest unto thy servant David my father. (27) But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? (28) Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant, and to his supplication, O LORD my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer, which thy servant prayeth before thee to day:"
Solomon's prayer ended at 1 Kings 8:54. It would be in the following chapter, in 1 Kings 9:3-5, that the LORD God replied to Solomon's prayer and repeated the same stipulations that were made in Psalm 132:12:
"And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (4) And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: (5) Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel."
In this passage, God endorsed the contingencies upon Solomon and his descendants. These provisions and stipulations were based solely on the fact that God required them to follow His statutes and His judgments. These had to be met! If they kept them, then and only then would the LORD establish the throne of Solomon's kingdom upon Israel forever.
1Kings 2:1-4 provides a final testimony to the provisions and conditions that God placed on Solomon and his descendants. In this passage, near the time of his death, David reminds Solomon of God's promise which was based solely upon these mandatory requirements:
"Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying, (2) I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man; (3) And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: (4) That the LORD may continue his word which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee (said he) a man on the throne of Israel."The main point is right at the beginning is that the descendant of David would sit on the throne for ever. Who else can that be but Christ?.

How can you be so confused? David where is God's throne? In heaven. Duh! Where did Jesus go after the resurrection? Heaven. God said he would seat Jesus on the throne after the resurrection. It's painfully obvious. You should have quoted my entire post and then maybe you would have understood it.I have no confusion. I explained that Jesus is in Heaven seated at God's right hand next to God with God sitting on God's throne. In Heaven, Jesus is acting in the capacity as High Priest and not in a kingly role as he will do when back on earth. The fact that i consider Jesus to be king in waiting and can have the title of king now does not alter the promise of God to king David.

No David! You are ignoring Jeremiahs prophecy. Jesus can't sit on an earthly throne again. I proved that above. Acts clearly says Christ would be seated after the resurrection. He is seated on Davids throne in heaven NOW just like the Bible said he would. You are totally confused on this issue.I have not ignored Jeremiah's prophecy and you have plenty of explanation above why I do not. You are only convincing yourself, I wish you could convince me, I am listening but I fail to see your argument as clearly as others have presented it, even if I cannot do such a good job myself.

But that still doesn't solve the problem. You originally quoted my post of Mark 9:1. Jesus states that the disciples will live to see the kingdom of prophecy established on earth when it comes with power of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. You explanation doesn't solve what Jesus plainly states. And there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts you.Jesus said that "some would see..." Not all the disciples did. I do not see Jesus coming in power at Pentecost. The disciples were given the Holy Spirit, so what; the Holy Spirit was given in limited form and nothing like the power Jesus could have shown if he had wanted to use God's power for his own glory. That is why I intimated Jesus had not shown all the power that was available to him, sufficient it was that Jesus could apparently control the weather that no man has ever been able to do. It merely shows us the power that Jesus will have when he comes again and why no nation of earth will win over Jesus.

The only one with hot air is you. You haven't refuted anything I have said in this thread. You only assert things. I proved Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah earlier. You don't see my evidence because you don't want to. You can't accept the fact that the Bible already fulfilled all the prophecy because it goes against your beliefs. My evidence is damaging to your beliefs. You have a lot of puff like the proverbial wolf but far from blowing my house down. Keep showing me more evidence that you have not shown me before and I will comment on it. Jehconiah has proven nothing against Christ reigning on earth on the throne of David in the age to come.

No he's not. Your whole belief system preaches a physical kingdom and Jesus sitting on the throne of David. Jesus can't sit on an earthly throne or Jeremiah is a liar. Jesus is in his kingdom and on the throne of David now. You don't need to explain it to me. I understand what the plain text is means. I do not claim it is my belief system; only what I understand by taking all of God's word including open promises into account. Jeremiah was not a liar. All the above information in the two articles I have directed you to explains this.

These comments do nothing to refute anything I have posted, nor do they advance your argument. I am now asking you to advance your argument by presenting fresh evidence. There is no point going over the same ground. I am please to have resolved the apparent contradiction with Jehconiah and so need more evidence from you. I have agreed that Jehconiah is in the line of descendants of king David leading to Jesus, unfortunately, that is the only point I concede and I have learned something I had not really looked into before, but now, I know that what might have been a challenge, is not, and so on to the next challenge.

Heb 12:28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe
Notice that receiving is active present tense. Plus where else do you worship God?

[B] Daniel 2:44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,We have to get the whole passage of Paul into context and Paul is speaking in spiritual terms. Had Paul or those in the church he was writing to come to Zion or the heavenly Jerusalem? (Hebrews 12:22) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, I do not see that as happened in a physical way.
That's Daniels prophecy. Notice how Hebrews says the kingdom cannot be shaken. Mathew confirms this as well. Mathew 18:18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.I agree that God's kingdom or the kingdom of Christ with Jesus reigning as king will not be destroyed by man. What Christ will set up will last forever even the kingdom which Jesus hands back to his Heavenly Father after putting down all authority and doing away with sin and death; (1 Corinthians 15:28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, That has simply not happened and I believe it will and is future. Shall be subdued is future and while we see terrible events of man's inhumanity to man, then all things have not been subdued.

Ephesians confirms this as well. Eph. 3:21 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
I agreed that there will be a "world without end" which is why there is an answer to the question on many people's lips even if it is only a cliche; "what is the world coming to?" The earth will be restored, God's kingdom will be restored as it was before the fall of man first with Adam and Eve and continuing with you and me, but through Christ, we gain the victory over the devil that is in each of us which is our nature to rebel.

There's plenty more verses that confirm this. Bring it on so we can examine in context what those verses say.

Nope. Jesus was speaking to that generation David. You are turning the Bible on it's head. The word receiving is the active present tense David not future. Repetition is a good learning aid as well as a brainwashing technique. Why are you repeating, you will not brainwash me.

I showed that earlier. And there is plenty more verses to support it as well. Bring it on so we can examine in context what those verses say.

David, Daniels prophecy said the kingdom would never be destroyed and it would endure forever. Eph 3:21 fulfills Daniels prophecy. It's telling you the church will endure forever. I do not disagree that Christ's kingdom will stand forever. Christ's kingdom leads to God's kingdom and this earth will last forever. Those who enter the kingdom will live forever. On this we ought to be agreed.

If you have no problem with it, then why are you disagreeing with me. "it" does not include everything, hence I disagree with you where I have to and agree when I do not have to disagree.

And that is exactly what God promised. except that Abraham is not alive to receive his promise. That is one reason for Abraham believing that God will raise him from the dead, just as he believed that it was in God's power to raise Isaac although God was asking him to sacrifice his son. That was the lesson for Abraham and even in type we how the sacrifice of God's only Son would be given and not withheld.

Wrong! Nowhere in the scriptures does it say Abraham thought he would receive the land promise. The first promise was to Abrahams seed. Plus, when translated give has other meanings other than giving literally. If what you say is true, then God lied when he said he fulfilled all the promises to Israel. He then lied when he said they would have six cites of refuge. He then lied to all of Abrahams descendants. Is that what you are proposing? You can't pick and chose or else it's all irrelevant. Nothing in God's word is irrelevant, even if I do not fully understand why somethings were recorded. If you have been promised an everlasting possession and you are going to die, how do you expect to live forever and keep that everlasting possession forever? I think Abraham could work that out.

The purpose of the land promise was for a very specific purpose. You completely miss the point. The land of Promise is for a purpose and it is still a land of promise in which all of God's promises have not been fulfilled.

But let me show you why you are WRONG. God plainly said he fulfilled all promises. If I'm to take the Bible seriously I'll go with what God said. He said he fulfilled all the land he promised in the OT. And there is a lot of verses that confirm this.
I posted a lot of evidence to support my claim but let's go a little further since you aren't satisfied.
Do you notice that the word seed is singular and not plural? It was to prophesy one seed. That was Jesus. Mathew 1 shows this.
The original promise was to Abrahams seed. Genesis 12:7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.
[QUOTE=L67;51827]One of the sole reasons Jesus appeared was to confirm the promises to Abraham. Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
The land of Israel was promised to Abraham and his seed, Jesus.
Galatians 3:26-29 also confirms this. Galatians 3:26-29 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Romans 4:13 also confirms the promise was fulfilled. Romans 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.God kept promises to Abraham and is keeping His promise. God kept His promise to Abraham concerning Abraham's seed which is Jesus; all this is accepted. The promises were made to Abraham AND his seed (Christ); this part of God's promises have been fulfilled. Concerning bringing the Children of Israel into the Land after bondage in Hebrews God did what he promised; he brought them into the land and he settled the people there. This is not the same as fulfilling the promise to Abraham personally. God's promise has to be to raise Abraham to live just as God's promise is to all those who believe according to John 3:16. Jesus said that Abraham saw his day and was glad so Abraham could see ahead to the time of Jesus and what that meant. The same promises are the basis of the "hope of Israel" of which Paul was bound in chains and was being sent Rome. By the end of Paul's life, the hope of Israel had not come about. It had come about my AD70. There is still an unfulfilled prophecy which says the veil will be removed from the eyes of Israel so that they will recognize Jesus. The Jews always expected a Messiah to save them and Jesus never did in his time upon the earth. That time will happen and has to happen for God has not fulfilled that promise.

He wasn't talking to Abraham. And he certainly did not say he would bring Abraham back to this land. He was speaking to Jacob.You are right and God was speaking to Jacob, but in verses 13 & 14 God says the exact same promises to Jacob as He did to Abraham, and do if God is going to bring Jacob back, He will also bring back Abraham. These are unconditional promises and it does not matter if Abraham of Jacob left the land and there is no more certain way than leaving than to die. God made the same promises to Isaac (Genesis 26:3) so we have the same promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and God's promise is unconditional and God's people and God's land is at the center of His plan and purpose which is being fulfilled in Christ until the time when "God is all in all" (I Cor. 15:28)

And you were wrong on your interpretation on the previous verse. Wrong that God will give Abraham as his inheritance which he gets at the same time as he gets eternal life. This is far difference to Abraham having been given the land in his lifetime. We know when his wife Sarah died, that he had to ask for a piece of land to bury his wife and he said; "I am a sojourner in your land" (Genesis 23:4)

It's not what you think it says David. The verse to to prove the land promise was fulfilled. The Bible said they would have everlasting possession. GENESIS 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession. Everlasting I take to mean without end and that will ultimately happen. The land belongs to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob seeing as God made the same promise to them all and it is their descendants who with God's blessing have their entitlement to the land. As we know the Jews have been unfaithful and have been turfed out of the land, but that does not mean God has renaged on His promise; God has not. The unconditional promise is still in force.

I have utterly refuted your claim that Jesus can't come back and setup a kingdom and sit on Davids throne. Unfortunately, you have not convinced me, and even though you can make your refutation.

It sill doesn't say what you think it says. Nahthan, Strong #5414 http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H5414/nathan.htm
Give has many different meanings when translated. Thanks for the link, it is not a site I use, but I will keep it for reference. The word Nathan does have a lot of different meanings of which the sense "will give" is one of them as used by the KJV translators. Here is what the site says; 1c1) to be given, be bestowed, be given up, be delivered up.

See above for all the different meanings give has. I have refuted all your claims with rock solid evidence. Above I have just shown that there is a future sense and for Abraham it is future as his inheritance which Abraham's seed whether singular or plural will have the benefit of starting when God brought the Children of Israel into the Promised Land. I don't see your evidence that Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob received the land in their lifetime and God has to fulfil his promise to them and not just their descendants.

The six cities of refuge prove God fulfilled his land promise. I agree that God kept His promise to Joshua and they built the six cities. This has nothing to do with God fulfilling His promise to Abraham within the lifetime of Abraham.

1948 has NOTHING to do with the Bible. I have shown in this thread that your belief system is utterly false. 1948 has proved God has been true to His unconditional promise to restore God's chosen race to the land promised to Abraham. Even if Israel was overrun again and the people dispersed, God would have to restore them to their land again.

I don't doubt you are sincere David. But you are ignoring the plain teachings of the Bible and interjecting it your futurist doctrine. The futurist doctrine is man made and has no relevance to Biblical prophecy. Let's just leave that as a difference of opinion based on how we interpret scripture.

You can drop the holier than thou attitude. I have no intention of appearing that way and I am surprised from what I said, you thought I was.

What does me believing the Bible being the inspired Word of God have to do with anything? It doesn't. That is a lame excuse you use when you can't properly defend your positions. I was a Christian for 20+ years and I very much know what the Bible plainly teaches.[QUOTE] I see how you have similarities with Richard and have lost your faith.
[QUOTE=L67;51827]You ask why I would support a docotrine if I didn't believe the Bible was God's word. Simple. Because it shows the Bible was relevant of those times is irrelevant in todays times. Unfortunately, your preterist view blinds you to what is going on in the world today and shows all the signs leading up to the great day of the Lord when God's judgments will be poured out on the nations. God is still saving people who turn to Him and believe. It is a pity that you have no hope of anything to look forward to.

Speaking of irony. The false futurist doctrine, which you believe is from fallible men who misinterpret the Bible. Preterists are no different in that case.

Oh please. Spare me the you can't understand pitch. I don't care if you believe me or not. If you are right then you should have no problem refuting everything I said, since I can't know what the Bible plainly teaches because I don't believe. I have not refuted everything you said and only refuted that with which I disagree.

Finally you are being reasonable. I proved the Coniah claim earlier. I try to be reasonable and I will change my views when I am presented with irrefutable evidence, but you have failed to convince me. I have learned something from reviewing the passages referring to Coniah and I have given you the two articles to read in which what God said regarding Coniah did not stop Jesus being in line for the throne. It is marvellous that the Bible has a cohesive thread running through it and that the answers in scripture are to be found in scripture if there is the will to search and understand. I accept preterists also think in a similar fashion so once again, only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. In the meantime, I will let the word of God be a lamp to my feet and guide me in the paths of righteousness as the way Jesus demonstrated. The world will eventually learn under the rulership of Christ that God's way is the best way. Those who get to God's kingdom will have accepted that.


David

[L67]

Hello L67
If you had read the whole post before replying, your remark ought to be redundant. After completing my post and responding to all of your reply, I could have come back and deleted my opening remark. I let it stand to see whether you would pick up on it and you have. I did not see you at the end acknowledging that I had addressed all of your reply.

Ok, fair enough.



Since you have replied equally long, I will do the same, so as to address all the points you are making.
I am giving you alternative verses from scripture to consider and I am pointing out how else verses can be understood. If you claim that my replies are not proof, I can say the same and that you are not giving me the proof. What I shall show, is what you tell me is proof, is actually a faulty because you jump to the wrong conclusion just as your opening remark in your previous reply to me shows.

The problem with your alternatives is they are just your beliefs. You need to have evidence to back up what you are saying.


Even though you have quoted many verses and brought in the idea of the "whole earth", this is not explaining God's Glory. Apart from Richard's reply in another thread and I was hoping for more replies before giving my understanding in that thread. I will do so (in part) now. By God's Glory I see this as meaning the excellency of God and God's excellency is seen in that everything is perfect. Hence at Creation God said that everything was "very good" (excellent). In this present world, not everything is excellent because man is destroying the earth. Mankind at present is not excellent, mankind is overall wicked and sinful. Until death and the cause of death (sin) is destroyed and as we are told () is the last enemy to be destroyed, God's Glory (excellence) cannot be seen to fill the whole earth.

But that still goes against the overwhelming evidence that supports all this taking place in the first century.


I am giving you my reasons. I can say the same about your reasons. I can claim your are making your assertions and that you have no proof other than your belief. I have had too many arguments with Richard making the same style of statement. We must leave personalities out of this and just stick to the scripture and express out understanding. I am sure we both have our supporters agreeing with us.

No you couldn't say the same about me. I am using the plain language of the Bible to support my arguments. I'm not mixing words to support my belief.



It is only false to you and all preterists; I understand why you think so. Your evidence does need interpretation and I shall continue to show you why. I shall also ask you to explain things to me so that I think are clear and plain.

They are false. Your view completely ignores the Bibles target audience, which was the first century.


If you just keep saying I am asserting and have not given you an explanation when I have, then I do not see how you are keeping an open mind. Your mind is set on your beliefs just as I am set on my beliefs. I have learned something from the Bible during this discussion; have you learned anything new of is your mind so closed, you have stopped searching?

My mind isn't closed at all. Your view completely ignores the first century perspective and make it to be a future one. That is the difference between you and I.



In the same way that Revelation which many think was written circa AD90 and not as preterists have to make out was written before AD70. The expression "shortly come to pass" was to apply to the beginning of things to come. It does not necessarily mean that everything was to be started and completed shortly. Yes, it can be forced to mean what you think it means and I see how it applies differently. The dating of when Revelation was revealed to John is a contentious point as that is fundamental to how what is contained in it is understood. If you say that all future events revealed to John had already happened by AD70 and you have satisfied yourself that fits in with all the scriptures, then I can see why you are fixed on what you believe, and as for me, preterists have not fully explained all scriptures to my satisfaction and hence the divide remains.


You are butchering plain words again David.

There is one problem with a dating of AD90. If Revelation was written in 90AD, as you attest to, and we know by historical evidence that Titus and the Roman legion destroyed the city of Jerusalem in about 70AD, then why was most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time, aside from the Resurrection of Christ, not mentioned? Since one of the express purposes of Revelation was "to show unto His servants the things which must shortly come to pass," and that there is still no mention of an event so imminent and so profound, is more astounding than if its mention were overlooked after the fact. Why didn't John mention any of this if Revelation was written after 70AD?

And there is a lot more evidence that can be shown to support this view.




I have agreed that Jesus is now our spiritual king, and I believe Jesus will also come back to reign on earth. Jesus is not dead, he has an incorruptible body. Jesus has a heavenly body in that his incorruptible body was given to him by God. The same can be for us and that does not stop those bodies being on earth as Jesus showed himself on earth for 40 days after he was risen.
I have explained what "the world" meant in the context of what Jesus meant. How do you explain that I am in this world, but I am not to be of this world? I cannot go to heaven, my place is on earth, yet I have to separate myself from this world that is "enmity with God". As you object to my explanation, then please let me have your explanation of these verses

Great. But how can you believe Jesus is now our spiritual king? If you believe that then you confirm that all was fulfilled like the Bible said it was. But you don't believe that way. You still think there is some future event still to take place. In order to take that position you ignore the monumental evidence that supports Jesus being a spirtual king now. You can't have it both ways.



"This generation" is again a phrase that as you know has to be taken in the context of the time period Jesus is referring to. "This generation" as when he was talking to the Pharisees obviously referred to the generation Jesus was living in and when Jesus was telling his disciples of things that must happen in the future, "this generation" applies to the generation who would witness those things.

Your explanation agrees with my position, so why are you trying to explain it?


A generation could also be 70 years. I just state that as an academic point. In the prophecy you quote, "the time of the Gentiles" as recorded by Luke is a point of difference. I believe we are still in the time of the Gentiles and Jerusalem is still being trodden down. In the same way that you say; you cannot say 1948 was prophecy, so you cannot say the date AD70 was prophecy. If I am accused of fitting dates to prophecy so must you be accused.

Uhhh... no you cannot accuse me of that. Jesus propheised in 30AD of the destruction of Jerusalem and there is evidence to support that it was detroyed in 70AD. There are mutually confriming veres that explicity say this.



Not as many to confirm your conclusion when taken into context.

This is wrong on so many levels. The whole Bible flows from begining to end about things ending in the first century.


It did, but not any longer. I cannot throw away what I am now convinced is the truth. I am not wresting scripture and if I have got things wrong and as I am still waiting for some things to see how they turn out, I am at least constantly re-examining and standing up to challenges placed on my belief. I have said, I have learned something as a result of this discussion. That might give you hope that I come to see these things the way you do, but if you have nothing to learn and are not learning anything from this discussion, then that leaves me with no hope that you will change. I am not trying to get you to change, that is futile of me, I only hope visitors to this forum and this thread will have both sides of the argument to reach their own conclusions and must do so by reading the Bible.

How can you convinced you are dealing with "truth"? The only "supposed" eyewitness accounts are the gospels and they are full of errors, contradictions, and straight up embellishments from each gospel.



This is is good, for as I have kept saying; I have learned something as I shall explain and I shall give you reasons why I continue to believe Jesus will be a future king reigning on earth.

First of all, I am accepting that that Coniah is the same as Jecohniah the same as Jeohachin (NIV). My initial problem is where it says; Coniah the son of Jehoiakim and it is fitting in Jehoihakim with the remainder of the genealogy. (2 Kings 24:6) So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
The problem I have is equating the line of Amon - Josias - Jechoniah with Josiah - Jehoiakim - Jehconiah. I am trying to find out how Josiah (or is it Josias) becomes Jehoiakim. That aside, I am accepting that Coniah (Jehconiah) was in the genealogy line leading to Jesus because of Matthew's record. Luke gives a different line but for the sake of this discussion that doe not matter.
What I have to refute is the conclusion you made in your earlier post;

David Jeremiah was very explicit that no descendant will rule on Davids throne or rule in Judah again. You can try to twist the facts any way you want but it doesn't change them. The genealogy in Mathew clearly shows Jesus was a descendant of Jeconiah. Mathew listed the geneaology for a reason you know. To show what led to Jesus. I know why you are resistant to accept this as truth but the fact remains.



You are claiming Jeremiah is wrong and that God's inspired word is wrong! I do not make such a claim and I marvel how wonderful God's word in that God never lies and and God keeps His promises even if other people cannot recognize this. As I said, I am learning and to follow through on your claim, I did a quick search and came up with two lots of information. The information I am now supplying, you can argue against the two authors. There are two ways to reconcile the apparent contradiction when the line to the throne ends with Jehconiah.
The first link to a long article explaining 'the curse of Jehconiah and the virgin birth'

No! It is YOU who is calling Jeremiah and God a liar by ignoring the plain teaching of their words. I am simply acknowledging the meaning of their words. The same cannot be said about you.


The other link is to an article entitled; 'Jesus and Jehconiah'
You might not want to read those articles, and so I shall just pick a section that answers the main problem I have with accepting your argument. I have a problem with the promise God made to King David and it was an open promise and therefore does not have a time limit or compromises. Just because it is thought the line of ascension to the throne of David ended with Jehconiah the only alternative is to think that Jesus must reign from Heaven. As I said, JWs changed from thinking Jesus was coming back to reigning from Heaven after he did not return in 1914 was applying the same type of reasoning. We have to resolve the problem and maintain the open promise to David in which David envisaged his descendants sitting on his throne and Jesus disciples expected Jesus to be their king sitting on the throne of David. They were not assuming the Kingdom of Israel was going to be in Heaven.

David why do you ignore my rock solid evidence? I have supported my argument with overwhelming evidence. You cannot say the same. You are trying to find ways to make the Bible fit your beliefs.

Jesus is on the throne NOW David. Just like the Bible says. This fits perfectly with why Jesus can't sit on an earthly throne. Go back and read my earlier posts again and you will clearly see that. Your refusal to accept this fact is simply astonishing.

God gave Israel the earthly throne of David. But that throne was a symbol of God's throne in heaven. 1 Chronicles 28:5 "Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

God also told David that two of his seed would sit on his throne: Solomon on earth and Christ in heaven at the resurrection. 1 Chronicles 17:11-14 "When your days are fulfilled that you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up one of your descendants after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. "I will be his father and he shall be My son; and I will not take My lovingkindness away from him, as I took it from him who was before you. "But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever."

But God was so angry with Israel that he took away the throne until Jesus, the descendant of David would sit on it. Hosea 13:9-11 It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help. Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities, And your judges of whom you requested, "Give me a king and princes"? I gave you a king in My anger And took him away in My wrath.

God said he would sit Jesus on the throne after the resurrection. Acts 2:29-36

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


The main point is right at the beginning is that the descendant of David would sit on the throne for ever. Who else can that be but Christ?.

That is precisely my point David. Jesus is on the throne NOW in heaven like the Bible plainly says. There are verses that confirm this. Go back to my earlier post and you will see it.


I have no confusion. I explained that Jesus is in Heaven seated at God's right hand next to God with God sitting on God's throne. In Heaven, Jesus is acting in the capacity as High Priest and not in a kingly role as he will do when back on earth. The fact that i consider Jesus to be king in waiting and can have the title of king now does not alter the promise of God to king David.

You are very confused. Zech 6:12-13 says he will be a priest on his THRONE. "Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."


I have not ignored Jeremiah's prophecy and you have plenty of explanation above why I do not. You are only convincing yourself, I wish you could convince me, I am listening but I fail to see your argument as clearly as others have presented it, even if I cannot do such a good job myself.

You have totally ignored Jeremiahs prophecy and looked for ways to cram your beliefs into verses. You don't see my argument because you don't want to. My evidence turns your belief system on its head.



Jesus said that "some would see..." Not all the disciples did. I do not see Jesus coming in power at Pentecost. The disciples were given the Holy Spirit, so what; the Holy Spirit was given in limited form and nothing like the power Jesus could have shown if he had wanted to use God's power for his own glory. That is why I intimated Jesus had not shown all the power that was available to him, sufficient it was that Jesus could apparently control the weather that no man has ever been able to do. It merely shows us the power that Jesus will have when he comes again and why no nation of earth will win over Jesus.

Do yu have any proof of those assertions? Nope. Plenty of verses that contradict you.



You have a lot of puff like the proverbial wolf but far from blowing my house down. Keep showing me more evidence that you have not shown me before and I will comment on it. Jehconiah has proven nothing against Christ reigning on earth on the throne of David in the age to come.

So much for you believing the Bible. Jeremiah is very explicit and you turn his prophecy on it's head. And Mathew 1 confirms Jeremiah. There is no way out of this one for you. You can't explain this away with any facts to support your beliefs.


I am now asking you to advance your argument by presenting fresh evidence. There is no point going over the same ground. I am please to have resolved the apparent contradiction with Jehconiah and so need more evidence from you. I have agreed that Jehconiah is in the line of descendants of king David leading to Jesus, unfortunately, that is the only point I concede and I have learned something I had not really looked into before, but now, I know that what might have been a challenge, is not, and so on to the next challenge.

You didn't resolve anything. Those links you posted are not proof. It does prove a few things though. Either the Bible is wrong or those people are misinterpreting it wrong. My evidence for Jeconiah stands. There are mutually agreeing verses that confirms this. Plus, God said he would seat Jesus on his throne after the resurrection in heaven.

You didn't deal with any of that.



I agree that God's kingdom or the kingdom of Christ with Jesus reigning as king will not be destroyed by man. What Christ will set up will last forever even the kingdom which Jesus hands back to his Heavenly Father after putting down all authority and doing away with sin and death; (1 Corinthians 15:28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, That has simply not happened and I believe it will and is future. Shall be subdued is future and while we see terrible events of man's inhumanity to man, then all things have not been subdued.

I agreed that there will be a "world without end" which is why there is an answer to the question on many people's lips even if it is only a cliche; "what is the world coming to?" The earth will be restored, God's kingdom will be restored as it was before the fall of man first with Adam and Eve and continuing with you and me, but through Christ, we gain the victory over the devil that is in each of us which is our nature to rebel.

That is precisely why the kingdom is the church, which was established on Pentecost. Eph. 3:21 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

That right there shows the kingdom will not end. Therefore the kingdom was already established and Jeus in on his throne now.



Repetition is a good learning aid as well as a brainwashing technique. Why are you repeating, you will not brainwash me.

Yea... I'm trying to brainwash you. Do you know how silly you sound. Take your tinfol hat off and put your big boy pants on.



except that Abraham is not alive to receive his promise. That is one reason for Abraham believing that God will raise him from the dead, just as he believed that it was in God's power to raise Isaac although God was asking him to sacrifice his son. That was the lesson for Abraham and even in type we how the sacrifice of God's only Son would be given and not withheld.

Except you completely ignore what God first told abraham that his SEED would inherit the land NOT Abraham. There is no evidence to suggest Abraham thought he would personally receive the land. In fact, to the contrary. I have posted rock solid evidence to support my case with multiple verses and you cling to one verse to say that Abraham didn't receice the land. Problem is the word give in hebrew does NOT mean to literally give. But that does not say the land would sometime be owned, controlled and lived in by Abraham personally. The statement, "to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever...for I will give it unto thee," is not a change. God assigned the land to Abraham and his line, and when he died its assignment was to his seed.

God made three promises to Abraham. Genesis 12:1-7 12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.

7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.




Nothing in God's word is irrelevant, even if I do not fully understand why somethings were recorded. If you have been promised an everlasting possession and you are going to die, how do you expect to live forever and keep that everlasting possession forever? I think Abraham could work that out.

You are making it irrelevant. You ERRONEOUSLY assume Abraham thought he would personally possess the land. That is FALSE. See above.





God kept promises to Abraham and is keeping His promise. God kept His promise to Abraham concerning Abraham's seed which is Jesus; all this is accepted. The promises were made to Abraham AND his seed (Christ); this part of God's promises have been fulfilled. Concerning bringing the Children of Israel into the Land after bondage in Hebrews God did what he promised; he brought them into the land and he settled the people there. This is not the same as fulfilling the promise to Abraham personally. God's promise has to be to raise Abraham to live just as God's promise is to all those who believe according to John 3:16. Jesus said that Abraham saw his day and was glad so Abraham could see ahead to the time of Jesus and what that meant. The same promises are the basis of the "hope of Israel" of which Paul was bound in chains and was being sent Rome. By the end of Paul's life, the hope of Israel had not come about. It had come about my AD70. There is still an unfulfilled prophecy which says the veil will be removed from the eyes of Israel so that they will recognize Jesus. The Jews always expected a Messiah to save them and Jesus never did in his time upon the earth. That time will happen and has to happen for God has not fulfilled that promise.

FALSE. God's first promise to Abraham was to his seed not Abraham himself. I explained this above. Your interpretation does not fit with what the Bible plainly say.



Wrong that God will give Abraham as his inheritance which he gets at the same time as he gets eternal life. This is far difference to Abraham having been given the land in his lifetime. We know when his wife Sarah died, that he had to ask for a piece of land to bury his wife and he said; "I am a sojourner in your land" (Genesis 23:4)

Wrong on all accounts. I have shown why above. You are hung up on the word GIVE. It doesn't mean to give literally in Hebrew. To think otherwise is to ignore the bigger picture God was telling.


Everlasting I take to mean without end and that will ultimately happen. The land belongs to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob seeing as God made the same promise to them all and it is their descendants who with God's blessing have their entitlement to the land. As we know the Jews have been unfaithful and have been turfed out of the land, but that does not mean God has renaged on His promise; God has not. The unconditional promise is still in force.

Precisely David. God said all promises were fulfilled. That not one came true. For you to think otherwise is calling God a liar.


Unfortunately, you have not convinced me, and even though you can make your refutation.

Of course you aren't convinced. You are so indoctrinated in your beliefs that you can't accept what I am saying as the plain teachings of the Bible. It shows you aren't really open to any evidence one could present. You are stuck in a perpetual state of circular reasoning.



Above I have just shown that there is a future sense and for Abraham it is future as his inheritance which Abraham's seed whether singular or plural will have the benefit of starting when God brought the Children of Israel into the Promised Land. I don't see your evidence that Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob received the land in their lifetime and God has to fulfil his promise to them and not just their descendants.

You have shown no such thing. How can you not see me evidence? How can you call yourself a Christian David? You just called God a liar. David if there is God in heaven he just face palmed from your comment.

[B] Joshua 21:43-45 So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.


Joshua 23:14-15 "Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. "It shall come about that just as all the good words which the LORD your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. "



I agree that God kept His promise to Joshua and they built the six cities. This has nothing to do with God fulfilling His promise to Abraham within the lifetime of Abraham

He kept all his promises. Proof is in the Bible and what I have posted.



1948 has proved God has been true to His unconditional promise to restore God's chosen race to the land promised to Abraham. Even if Israel was overrun again and the people dispersed, God would have to restore them to their land again.

Already showed why this line of thinking is wrong.


I have no intention of appearing that way and I am surprised from what I said, you thought I was.

Fair enough. It's tough to judge someones true intentions from mere words on a forum. No hard feelings.


Unfortunately, your preterist view blinds you to what is going on in the world today and shows all the signs leading up to the great day of the Lord when God's judgments will be poured out on the nations. God is still saving people who turn to Him and believe. It is a pity that you have no hope of anything to look forward to.

No actually my view blends perfectly with what the Bible actually says. Your view takes scripture to say things it doesn't mean.

You have no proof that God is doing anything relevant in this world or has done anything.

You also might think you have something to look forward to, but you really don't. Because you have no way of knowing whether any of the Bible is true or not. You couldn't point to any hard evidence to support your belief.



I try to be reasonable and I will change my views when I am presented with irrefutable evidence, but you have failed to convince me. I have learned something from reviewing the passages referring to Coniah and I have given you the two articles to read in which what God said regarding Coniah did not stop Jesus being in line for the throne. It is marvellous that the Bible has a cohesive thread running through it and that the answers in scripture are to be found in scripture if there is the will to search and understand. I accept preterists also think in a similar fashion so once again, the only time will tell who is right and who is wrong. In the meantime, I will let the word of God be a lamp to my feet and guide me in the paths of righteousness as the way Jesus demonstrated. The world will eventually learn under the rulership of Christ that God's way is the best way. Those who get to God's kingdom will have accepted that.

Except for a huge problem David. I never said Jesus could not sit on the throne. I said he can't sit an earthly throne and the Bible supports my argument. If the Bible is true Jesus is on Davids throne now like God said he would.

[David M]

Hello L67


Ok, fair enough.
I do not propose to go round in circles. We are both using the same verses but interpret them differently based on the conclusions we have come to from considering the whole of scripture. Since you have not answered my one question; I will ask you again and I will just answer anything in your reply which had a question for me, although there were plenty of allegations I am refraining from replying to.

Please answer the following question:

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
I have explained what "the world" meant in the context of what Jesus meant. How do you explain that I am in this world, but I am not to be of this world? I cannot go to heaven, my place is on earth, yet I have to separate myself from this world that is "enmity with God". As you object to my explanation, then please let me have your explanation of these verses


There is one problem with a dating of AD90. If Revelation was written in 90AD, as you attest to, and we know by historical evidence that Titus and the Roman legion destroyed the city of Jerusalem in about 70AD, then why was most monumental event for the Jewish nation at that time, aside from the Resurrection of Christ, not mentioned?
The destruction of the temple is not mentioned because the Book of the Revelation is looking forward from the time the revelation was given and is not an historical record of what went before. Gods plan and purpose did not stop with the destruction of the temple and He has left on record things which must come to pass.


Since one of the express purposes of Revelation was "to show unto His servants the things which must shortly come to pass," and that there is still no mention of an event so imminent and so profound, is more astounding than if its mention were overlooked after the fact. Why didn't John mention any of this if Revelation was written after 70AD?
For the reason given above, the Book of the Revelation is not an historical account of what happened before. All the revelation given is future to the time it was given. Hence "things which must shortly come to pass" had nothing to do with the temple since (most likely) it had already been destroyed.
Incidentally, I have not determined the Revelation was given circa AD90, this is one date that is widely accepted. A date shortly before AD70 has it own problems in how could the message have been disseminated in time. The Revelation is looking at a time beyond the destruction of the temple.


Great. But how can you believe Jesus is now our spiritual king?
Spirit in the sense that Jesus is not physically reigning on earth and yet can reign in the lives of people for his influence is on people's minds from reading his words and retaining his words in their hearts so they influence a person's actions. I believe Jesus is with his Heavenly Father at this moment and is making intercession for the faithful.
"Seated at God's right hand" does not mean Jesus is sitting on his own throne in Heaven. Jesus is seated next to God next to God's throne. Jesus will reign on earth and on the continued throne of David when he returns.
I gave you evidence by way of someone else's explanation which I agreed with. If you would like further explanation, I recommend watching the whole series of videos for which I give the link dealing with the lines of genealogy and descendants of David leading to Jesus.

The Jonah Code - episode 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtorDqucXPo&list=PLLF_Ou7Sy4IA7nijDOXz6Yaw6mCyhyeh3)


Your explanation agrees with my position, so why are you trying to explain it?
I do not think you accept the point that if Jesus is referring to a future generation about future events, "this generation" applies to that generation.


How can you convinced you are dealing with "truth"?
I am not claiming to have the truth perfectly, but I am comparing all explanations and I have to settle for what I believe the best Bible scholars have determined. By "best" I mean that Bible scholars have been able to refer to both Greek and Hebrew languages and compared the ancient scripts and taken into account all possible meanings of words and their application to the verses under consideration. I know my understanding is based on the work of others, but like the Bereans were commended for comparing everything against what is written in the scriptures, we ought to do the same. I am finding the videos of Michael Rood informative and I am learning new facts and having some facts confirmed and I am prepared to modify some of my thinking about some accepted facts which I might have taken on trust without doing my research and which are not important as fundamental doctrines are not changed.


David why do you ignore my rock solid evidence?
I have not ignored your evidence, I do not accept it is "rock solid". Such expressions need not be said, if the evidence is that strong. Stating "rock solid" is to try and win your argument by using such phrases. People should not be convinced purely by such assertions. If you want to convince me you not only have to give passages of scripture, you have to explain them word by word. I trust by now, you have answered my question of what is meant by the term "the world" used by Jesus since I have already given my definition in an earlier reply.


Do you have any proof of those assertions? Nope. Plenty of verses that contradict you.
Once again mere words without support from your point of view. I explained how "some" applied to the few disciples of the group of disciples Jesus was speaking to.


You have shown no such thing. How can you not see me evidence? How can you call yourself a Christian David? You just called God a liar. David if there is God in heaven he just face palmed from your comment.
I think it is ripe to be called a liar from someone who now does not believe. I am sorry that you are now a disbeliever and the fact that you have lost your faith says to me that your faith was not strong enough in the first case. I might have got some things wrong and I must stand before God and be judged and I trust He will not find me a deliberate liar and that in sincerity I am explaining His word the best I can.
Once again, I recommend you watch the videos of Michael Rood who admits that he believed the lies put out by the mainstream churches. He has now seen his error and has now made up for that. I find his teaching refreshing and I like his method of study. I can only hope, you can open your mind to at least admit you might be wrong and that you will deal with the facts that Michael Rood presents.



Fair enough. It's tough to judge someones true intentions from mere words on a forum. No hard feelings.
I have no hard feelings, I appreciate the challenge. If you can provide the proof and give explanations such as Michael Rood is giving, then I will give equal credence to your evidence. I do not know everything Michael Rood believes and I expect there might be at least one fundamental doctrine that we will have our difference on, but so far, I am agreeing with his understanding of God's plan and purpose and the promises to Abraham and the way God is fulfilling those promises. Please, consider that you might have been misguided and at that you might be in the position Michael Rood was in. I like the fact that Michael Rood is a Rabi and yet has the Christian hope which is and should be the hope of Israel. That seems to have been missed by mainstream Christendom and yet it was the hope that the Apostle Paul had when he was taken in chains to Rome.

What was the faith Paul had? What is the faith spoken of by Jude that we should "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

(Jude)
21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.


David