A problem with premillennialism

[Arial]

1 Thes and 1 Cor speak of the rapture....the 1000 year reign comes later on.

1 Thes 4:13-18

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[d] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
It is very difficult, if the idea of a rapture before or in the middle of, a seven year tribulation is so ingrained in a person, having heard nothing else since conversion; and having had it presented as absolute fact with no other possibilities even mentioned, let alone discussed; to read this passage any other way than as a removal of the church from pending disaster. As a consequence it is made to fit with the presuppositions in its placement---as you did. Things are read into it that are not there, and crucial words and ideas are passed over unnoticed.

There is a resurrection of the dead in Christ, and a glorification of those who remain alive. Paul is speaking of the coming of the Lord---His return. These resurrected dead and those who are alive, meet Him in the air, and will always be with HIm, as He is descending.
When that is put together with 1 Cor 15 the entire chapter, but for the sake of space, I will quote 50-55



50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

We see Paul expounding on the condition of mankind at Christ's return, those who have already died in Christ and those who remain at His coming; imperishable and immortal . They have inherited the kingdom of God, their salvation has reached the promised fulfillment. Not will, but have. And, again it says nothing, not so much as a hint, of being removed from the earth, or a thousand years to follow this event.

So, if a literal thousand years did follow this, one which is populated by perishable, mortal, even those who remain in their sins; one that has Jesus returned and ruling; a temporal Temple; and people living just as the did in the days of Noah, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage; there is a problem with what Jesus said about His second coming and the end of the age. He said that is when He will come. Matt 24:37-39 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the SOn of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

So, perhaps the thousand years is not literal, but representative. That is not out of the question for two reasons. One, certain numbers in OT Scripture are used repeatedly as representative, and sometimes also literally because they are representing something. John, at the very outset records the saying of the angel, that what he was about to see was going to be signified. Rev is apocalyptic prophecy. Meaning it is revealed through symbolic language. A thousand, and multiples of a thousand, can represent an uncountable number of persons or an indeterminate long period of time. Given the accounts of both Jesus and Paul, it could represent this age (the age since His first advent) until the age to come, when He returns.

And if we do not read Revelation as a chronological account of only future events, but rather what it is, was, and is to come as it says----; and if we recognize that it is sometimes showing the same events from different perspectives; and if we recognize the heavenly view point of things that happened even before Christ came, and what was happening on earth, from heavens view, during His time on earth, and those things that are yet to happen; all in the context of this age, and the age to come; we see this glorious closing book of the Bible in a whole different way.

Many novels and movies do the same thing as Revelation is doing. The present will be presented from one point of view. The same events and time period may also presented from the pov of a different character. It may slip backwards is time to disclose things that were hidden but pertinent to, the story taking place in the present. It may pause to give backstory on people or events. Eventually it touches the future by bringing the past into the future, or conclusion. Revelation is doing the same thing but with a different genre of literature. The first is narrative. The second is apocalyptic prophecy. And prophecy is not exclusive to foretelling, but includes forthtelling.

Sorry that got so long. I do hope you are able to take the time to read it and comment.

 

[Tambora]

It's about Christ and His relationship with the Hebrews.

It's about Christ and His relationship with His creation, mankind.
Christ is called the last Adam (mankind), not the last Hebrew.

 

[Arial]

Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews came to redeem the Jews and to give them eternal salvation in His Name.
Hallelu-JAH! Amen and Amen.

The Faith of a Centurion​

5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[c] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[d] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Scripture cannot be broken.

 

[jeremiah1five]

It's about Christ and His relationship with His creation, mankind.
Christ is called the last Adam (mankind), not the last Hebrew.

Not in that passage. But He is called the Lion from the tribe of JUDAH for a good reason. He is the prophesied Deliverer, Messiah, Savior, and King of Israel.

God has covenant with Abraham and his seed. His seed is Isaac, and Jacob and the children born from Jacob called the children of Jacob/Israel.

Scripture cannot be broken. The Scripture that cannot be broken is the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets. Any Gentile interpretation that contradicts the Word of God given to the Hebrew people is to be rejected. The Gentile teaching that Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant is a lie. The teaching of Gentiles that Gentiles are "spiritual Israel" or that Gentiles have replaced Israel is a lie and should be rejected.
God has no covenant with Gentiles.
God has covenant with Abram the Hebrew and his seed, and his seed are Isaac and Jacob and the children of Israel.
The Mosaic Covenant is through Moses with the children of Israel. The animal sacrifices were made yearly (Yom Kippur) to atone for the sins of the children of Israel. There is no Scripture that says the animal sacrifices were made to atone for the sins of Gentiles. Neither did the sacrifice of Jesus Christ atone for Gentiles but for the children of Israel under the Law.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:4–5.

Jesus Christ was sent by God to atone eternally for the sins of His Chosen people, the children of Israel.

Any teaching that Jesus Christ died for the sins of Gentiles is a lie.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The Faith of a Centurion​

5 When he had entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, 6 “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” 7 And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” 8 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant,[c] ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel[d] have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.

Scripture cannot be broken.

The faith of the centurion was based on the gospel found in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.
He was able through the Hebrew Scripture and witness the acts and words of Jesus of Nazareth to recognize Him as ISRAEL'S SAVIOR and KING. The centurion was seed of Abraham for the covenant of salvation began with the Abrahamic Covenant, implemented through the Mosaic Covenant, and fulfilled by the lamb of God sent to die for the sins of the Hebrew people under the Law.

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:45.

There is NO SCRIPTURE that says Jesus Christ came to redeem Gentiles. None.

Any interpretation of the New Covenant writings including the four gospels written to the Jewish people, and the letters written by Saul, Peter, James, John, which contradicts what is written in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets should be rejected, including the interpretation that Gentiles are in the Hebrew covenants or that Gentiles are spiritual Israel or replace Israel. These teachings contradict the Word of Truth found in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.

 

[Musicmaster]

I would say t's more than that...
Jesus said it would be like the times of Noah....there was a party going on....people giving in marriage...eating and drinking...

Personally I don't think people will be partying just before a post-trib rapture. Now a pre-trib rapture, different story.

There's also the white horse issue.

Well said, my friend. Well said indeed. It is indeed incomprehensible that there will be so much partying when the world economy is in total disarray, the earth is a smoldering ruin, and more than half the earth's population has been obliterated. These strange doctrines of the Church allegedly going through the tribulation, it makes no sense when we're told that the Church is not "appointed unto wrath."

You know, it's also interesting that the Thessalonians were so disturbed over a letter or message from a false teacher, or a spirit...whatever or whomever it was, that told them that the tribulation was already at hand, was upon them. If Paul had ever taught them that silly doctrine of the Church allegedly having to endure half, most or all of the tribulation, why were they so upset? If Paul had taught them that they would go through any part of the tribulation, why would they have been upset over the idea of it already being upon them? They would have long since been prepared for the onset of it, but they weren't.

The nay-sayers out there will argue all manner of argumentation against this, coming up with all kinds of kooky and downright stupid arguments against what is rationally the only avenue of reason as to explaining the worry over this that was bothering the believers in Thessalonica. Paul had obviously taught them that the Church "...is not appointed unto wrath...," and will therefore be delivered before the man of sin is even revealed, as stated in 2 Thessalonians 2. The nay-sayers like to claim that the topic is the Second Coming. Well, those are the members of the First Church of the Masochists who obviously WANT to be here to see how tough they are at withstanding the wrath of the Lamb being poured out upon the whole earth. It's almost as if they're shaking their fists at the Lord, daring Him to pour out upon the earth what they will not be able to endure with laughs and giggles any better than anyone else...

They also like to claim "day of the Lord" is the "second coming" rather than to admit the entire period, including the Second coming, is the "day of the Lord." We ALL use language of that type to refer to entire periods of time, sometimes encompassing decades and even centuries. We've ALL used phraseology such as, "Well, back in the day...," and that not literally referring to just one day, but some people out there will pretend that such is not the case, and that people of other languages could not possibly have utilized the same style looseness in language since this was allegedly an invention of English speaking people only.

Additionally, the Greek word translated "falling away" ALSO means "departure," which is exactly how almost ALL the Bibles translated that term around the time of the KJV first publication in 1611. The 1599 Geneva Bible did so, and long with almost all the others in existence at that time. Departure is the word of choice based upon a common understanding of the pre-trib rapture.

What this means is that Paul was not referring to a departure from the faith, but rather the departure from this earth. It's ONLY those who believe such nonsensical crap that someone allegedly can become "unborn again," because people who have only given lip service to following Christ Jesus, but were never truly born again, who have fallen away, that's been going on for centuries. Because that's been going on for centuries, there's nothing new about that at all, no matter how one plots the graph with peaks and valleys in the plot.

So that crap about Darby allegedly being the one who invented the "pre-trib rapture theory" is nothing more than the lazy cow cud they chew while totally abandoning critical thought and research into historic doctrines and who held that belief LONG before Darby was ever a twinkle in his daddy's eye.

MM

 

[CrowCross]

Well said, my friend. Well said indeed. It is indeed incomprehensible that there will be so much partying when the world economy is in total disarray, the earth is a smoldering ruin, and more than half the earth's population has been obliterated. These strange doctrines of the Church allegedly going through the tribulation, it makes no sense when we're told that the Church is not "appointed unto wrath."

You know, it's also interesting that the Thessalonians were so disturbed over a letter or message from a false teacher, or a spirit...whatever or whomever it was, that told them that the tribulation was already at hand, was upon them. If Paul had ever taught them that silly doctrine of the Church allegedly having to endure half, most or all of the tribulation, why were they so upset? If Paul had taught them that they would go through any part of the tribulation, why would they have been upset over the idea of it already being upon them? They would have long since been prepared for the onset of it, but they weren't.

The nay-sayers out there will argue all manner of argumentation against this, coming up with all kinds of kooky and downright stupid arguments against what is rationally the only avenue of reason as to explaining the worry over this that was bothering the believers in Thessalonica. Paul had obviously taught them that the Church "...is not appointed unto wrath...," and will therefore be delivered before the man of sin is even revealed, as stated in 2 Thessalonians 2. The nay-sayers like to claim that the topic is the Second Coming. Well, those are the members of the First Church of the Masochists who obviously WANT to be here to see how tough they are at withstanding the wrath of the Lamb being poured out upon the whole earth. It's almost as if they're shaking their fists at the Lord, daring Him to pour out upon the earth what they will not be able to endure with laughs and giggles any better than anyone else...

They also like to claim "day of the Lord" is the "second coming" rather than to admit the entire period, including the Second coming, is the "day of the Lord." We ALL use language of that type to refer to entire periods of time, sometimes encompassing decades and even centuries. We've ALL used phraseology such as, "Well, back in the day...," and that not literally referring to just one day, but some people out there will pretend that such is not the case, and that people of other languages could not possibly have utilized the same style looseness in language since this was allegedly an invention of English speaking people only.

Additionally, the Greek word translated "falling away" ALSO means "departure," which is exactly how almost ALL the Bibles translated that term around the time of the KJV first publication in 1611. The 1599 Geneva Bible did so, and long with almost all the others in existence at that time. Departure is the word of choice based upon a common understanding of the pre-trib rapture.

What this means is that Paul was not referring to a departure from the faith, but rather the departure from this earth. It's ONLY those who believe such nonsensical crap that someone allegedly can become "unborn again," because people who have only given lip service to following Christ Jesus, but were never truly born again, who have fallen away, that's been going on for centuries. Because that's been going on for centuries, there's nothing new about that at all, no matter how one plots the graph with peaks and valleys in the plot.

So that crap about Darby allegedly being the one who invented the "pre-trib rapture theory" is nothing more than the lazy cow cud they chew while totally abandoning critical thought and research into historic doctrines and who held that belief LONG before Darby was ever a twinkle in his daddy's eye.

MM

You make many good points MM. I had heard about "falling away" ALSO means "departure," (2 Thes 2:3).
The idea is that the RC Church changed it from departure to the common usage of apostasy in reference to the reformation.
Even 2 verses prior we read...our being gathered together to Him....

There is also Jesus returning on a white horse where He didn't ascend on a white horse.....coupled with the angels in Acts saying Jesus would return the same way He left.

 

[CrowCross]

So, perhaps the thousand years is not literal, but representative. That is not out of the question for two reasons. One, certain numbers in OT Scripture are used repeatedly as representative, and sometimes also literally because they are representing something. John, at the very outset records the saying of the angel, that what he was about to see was going to be signified. Rev is apocalyptic prophecy. Meaning it is revealed through symbolic language. A thousand, and multiples of a thousand, can represent an uncountable number of persons or an indeterminate long period of time. Given the accounts of both Jesus and Paul, it could represent this age (the age since His first advent) until the age to come, when He returns.

1,000 years is mentioned six times....in a very literal sense.
Some say it's simply an undefined long period of time...so why didn't the bible present it that way? Well, becaue it means 1,000 years. Literally. Tha's my take on it.

 

[Arial]

The faith of the centurion was based on the gospel found in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.
He was able through the Hebrew Scripture and witness the acts and words of Jesus of Nazareth to recognize Him as ISRAEL'S SAVIOR and KING. The centurion was seed of Abraham for the covenant of salvation began with the Abrahamic Covenant, implemented through the Mosaic Covenant, and fulfilled by the lamb of God sent to die for the sins of the Hebrew people under the Law.

Once again, you just make stuff up. The Centurion did no doubt learn of God and the Messiah through the Law and Prophets because that is where God revealed Himself, to the world. That is where He revealed His acts with man through history. He is still doing so today through His word. The Law and Prophets were the only Scriptures when that centurion went to Jesus. He recognized Him as who He was, whereas the Jews for the most part did not---mainly because He was not doing what they expected Messiah to do.

But to then just make up, oh he believed because he was the natural seed of Abraham---had Abraham's DNA---is juvenile. Think about it. If what he knew was that Jesus was only Israel's Savior, why did he, a Roman, expect anything of Him?

There is NO SCRIPTURE that says Jesus Christ came to redeem Gentiles. None.

Even Gal 4 does so. You only make it say what you want it to say, by isolating verses 4 and 5 and ignoring everything else. And yet you claim to be a serious student of the Bible who never breaks Scripture. This is a clear break and a failure to even know HOW to study the Bible. You have had the chapter, and the previous chapter, put through proper hermeneutics and exegesis and exposition, on a number of occasions, as well as other passages that clearly say "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the WORLD!" The mud you are wallowing in is a result of not knowing what Jesus came to do, or who He is. Much the same way as those Jews who rejected Him when He walked the earth. You still think that He came to restore the geopolitical rule of physical Israel, and that He is not the God of the universe, but the God of Israel only.

Jesus came to turn what Adam did to mankind and creation on its head. He came to destroy sin and death. That is why He is called the second Adam.

Any interpretation of the New Covenant writings including the four gospels written to the Jewish people, and the letters written by Saul, Peter, James, John, which contradicts what is written in the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets should be rejected, including the interpretation that Gentiles are in the Hebrew covenants or that Gentiles are spiritual Israel or replace Israel. These teachings contradict the Word of Truth found in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.

Those writings that you say have been misinterpreted, when they are given to you, you do not even bother to offer their "correct" interpretation. All you do is create a contradiction by isolating scriptures as you do with Gal 4:4-5, and using that as your defense. What it does is divide the word of God, as in its English definition, "separate". When the word was translated as rightly divide in the KJV, the word that was translated that way in the culture meant to cut a straight line. It is better rendered "rightly laying out the word of truth," or "accurately handling the word of truth."

That cannot be done by ignoring everything you don't want to be true, and only making proof texts out of a Scripture, hiding its true meaning by isolating it from any and all context---including the entire word of God. And in this case, the very work and purpose of Christ.

 

[Arial]

1,000 years is mentioned six times....in a very literal sense.
Some say it's simply an undefined long period of time...so why didn't the bible present it that way? Well, becaue it means 1,000 years. Literally. Tha's my take on it.

You are taking it literally. That does not mean it is meant literally. And if taking it literally contradicts what I presented both Paul and Jesus saying about this age and the end of the age, and His return, then probably literal is not the way to interpret it.

You made this response without ever addressing anything but that, in my post. Until you can and do do that, you have not supported your view, but only adhered to it.

 

[Musicmaster]

1,000 years is mentioned six times....in a very literal sense.
Some say it's simply an undefined long period of time...so why didn't the bible present it that way? Well, becaue it means 1,000 years. Literally. Tha's my take on it.

CC, as you can see, and as is usually the case, those who routinely apply the allegorical approach, because of a desire to conform scripture to their personal interpretations to then make it say what they want, they will gainsay anything and everything the passages clearly state. They hate the word of God for what it says, so the next best thing is to speak in such a manner that what they say doesn't align with what's actually stated.

Nothing new to any of that, is there? The RCC does the same thing in order to try and bolster their pagan doctrines rooted in "tradition" and traceable paganism.

MM

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You are taking it literally. That does not mean it is meant literally. And if taking it literally contradicts what I presented both Paul and Jesus saying about this age and the end of the age, and His return, then probably literal is not the way to interpret it.

You made this response without ever addressing anything but that, in my post. Until you can and do do that, you have not supported your view, but only adhered to it.

God means His days are 1000 years in length literally. I have shown many ways to prove this.

 

[Arial]

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. Gal. 4:45.

Let's go over those verses again and once again put them into the context in which they were pulled out of. I will touch on a couple of points I may not have touched on before. I will use proper hermeneutics for Bible interpretation. Included in that are the cultural and historic aspects that come into play, as well as who the letter is written to and why it is being written, and the rest of the content of the letter that pertains to this issue. Remember it is a letter, and it is addressed to specific Christians, and in the original it had neither chapters or verses. Which of course would make it much more difficult to do what you do with it.

In chapter 1 Paul is defending his apostleship because others had come in to try and discredit him in order to teach a different gospel. One that required things other than faith in th the person and work of Jesus. In the course of this defense he says in verses 15-16 "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles---"

This is our first internal clue that the letter is possibly written to Gentile Christians. He mentions proclaiming the gospel to Gentiles a second time in 2:2 and 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),

He reminds them of his encounter with Peter when Peter was insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised to be in the new covenant. This gives us a clue as to what these false teachers might have been adding to faith and who they were. Judaizers.

Chapter 3 begins "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" And he then preaches the gospel of faith in Christ through the Spirit apart from works. Verses 4-9 DId you suffer so many things in vain---if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith---just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."

This is another internal clue that Paul is writing to Gentiles. The Judaizers would not be troubling circumcised Jews to be circumcised, which was one of the issues being addressed.

In verses 13-14 Paul says the very thing you deny. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us---for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"---so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Paul goes on to point out the purpose of the law, as holding us captive and a guardian. But when Christ came, we were no longer under a guardian, but in Christ all are sons of God through faith. And he would not have said this to Jews who already thought they were sons of God, but to Gentiles who were being told if they did not come under the law, they were not sons of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek," Paul says, "there is neither slave nor nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ANd if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." Again, something that would not be said to the natural descendants of Abraham.

And then we come to chapter 4:1-3 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slavem though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and manages until the date set by his father. In the same way we also when were were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons.

Is it the least bit logical, given all that Paul as already said concerning Gentiles, and the fact that the recipients are at least predominantly Gentile, he would now say, as you claim, that Jesus came only to redeem Jews?

Another internal evidence that this is true follows: 8. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. Is this something Paul would be saying to Jews?

In verses 21-26 he specifically calls the children of the slave woman as being from Mt Sinai, bearing children for slavery, and that the present Jerusalem is corresponds to Hagar, and her children are in slavery. But the Jerusalem above---spiritual Jerusalem that will one day come down to earth--is free and she is our mother.

In verses 28-31, he writes to these Gentiles: Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Adoption into God's kingdom is not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, for Jew and Gentile alike. Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, frees the slave, through faith.

In chapter 5, Paul begins to address the issue that was plaguing the Galatians---that of circumcision for salvation. He would not have been saying those things to Jews who were already circumcised.

I doubt you bother to read this as it would destroy your ungodly premise. But this is not the subject of this OP, and it has gone on far to long. So take your anti-Gentile assertions into the appropriate OP

 

[Arial]

God means His days are 1000 years in length literally. I have shown many ways to prove this.

God doesn't actually have days or years.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

God doesn't actually have days or years.

LOL. God created time for human use. So not the issue.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Let's go over those verses again and once again put them into the context in which they were pulled out of. I will touch on a couple of points I may not have touched on before. I will use proper hermeneutics for Bible interpretation. Included in that are the cultural and historic aspects that come into play, as well as who the letter is written to and why it is being written, and the rest of the content of the letter that pertains to this issue. Remember it is a letter, and it is addressed to specific Christians, and in the original it had neither chapters or verses. Which of course would make it much more difficult to do what you do with it.

In chapter 1 Paul is defending his apostleship because others had come in to try and discredit him in order to teach a different gospel. One that required things other than faith in th the person and work of Jesus. In the course of this defense he says in verses 15-16 "But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles---"

This is our first internal clue that the letter is possibly written to Gentile Christians. He mentions proclaiming the gospel to Gentiles a second time in 2:2 and 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),

He reminds them of his encounter with Peter when Peter was insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised to be in the new covenant. This gives us a clue as to what these false teachers might have been adding to faith and who they were. Judaizers.

Chapter 3 begins "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" And he then preaches the gospel of faith in Christ through the Spirit apart from works. Verses 4-9 DId you suffer so many things in vain---if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith---just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."

This is another internal clue that Paul is writing to Gentiles. The Judaizers would not be troubling circumcised Jews to be circumcised, which was one of the issues being addressed.

In verses 13-14 Paul says the very thing you deny. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us---for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"---so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

Paul goes on to point out the purpose of the law, as holding us captive and a guardian. But when Christ came, we were no longer under a guardian, but in Christ all are sons of God through faith. And he would not have said this to Jews who already thought they were sons of God, but to Gentiles who were being told if they did not come under the law, they were not sons of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek," Paul says, "there is neither slave nor nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ANd if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." Again, something that would not be said to the natural descendants of Abraham.

And then we come to chapter 4:1-3 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slavem though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and manages until the date set by his father. In the same way we also when were were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world.

4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons.

Is it the least bit logical, given all that Paul as already said concerning Gentiles, and the fact that the recipients are at least predominantly Gentile, he would now say, as you claim, that Jesus came only to redeem Jews?

Another internal evidence that this is true follows: 8. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. Is this something Paul would be saying to Jews?

In verses 21-26 he specifically calls the children of the slave woman as being from Mt Sinai, bearing children for slavery, and that the present Jerusalem is corresponds to Hagar, and her children are in slavery. But the Jerusalem above---spiritual Jerusalem that will one day come down to earth--is free and she is our mother.

In verses 28-31, he writes to these Gentiles: Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Adoption into God's kingdom is not of the flesh, but of the Spirit, for Jew and Gentile alike. Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, frees the slave, through faith.

In chapter 5, Paul begins to address the issue that was plaguing the Galatians---that of circumcision for salvation. He would not have been saying those things to Jews who were already circumcised.

I doubt you bother to read this as it would destroy your ungodly premise. But this is not the subject of this OP, and it has gone on far to long. So take your anti-Gentile assertions into the appropriate OP

A very careful reading of Galatians show quite plainly Paul was talking to believing Jews. Not Gentiles.
[Gal 2:2-4 LSB] 2 And I went up because of a revelation, and I laid out to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but [I did so] in private to those who were of reputation, lest somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But [this was] because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.

 

[Arial]

A very careful reading of Galatians show quite plainly Paul was talking to believing Jews. Not Gentiles.
[Gal 2:2-4 LSB] 2 And I went up because of a revelation, and I laid out to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but [I did so] in private to those who were of reputation, lest somehow I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But [this was] because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us.

That is not a careful reading of Galatians. There is also external historical evidence that the Galatians were Gentile. But you, like @jeremiah1five, are isolating something from the whole. ANd even this isolated scripture is not saying that Paul was writing to Jews. It is an aside, so to speak, as Paul makes his defense of his apostleship. It is not who Paul is writing to.

So what about the portions of Galatians I pointed out as something that would not have been said to a Jewish audience?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

That is not a careful reading of Galatians. There is also external historical evidence that the Galatians were Gentile. But you, like @jeremiah1five, are isolating something from the whole. ANd even this isolated scripture is not saying that Paul was writing to Jews. It is an aside, so to speak, as Paul makes his defense of his apostleship. It is not who Paul is writing to.

So what about the portions of Galatians I pointed out as something that would not have been said to a Jewish audience?

Comprehension. It's a skill. Not interested in arguing with people who can't get it.

 

[Arial]

God means His days are 1000 years in length literally. I have shown many ways to prove this.

Well, if your Scripture used to support Galatians as being written to Jews, is any example, I wouldn't give much credence to your "proof." It only means that if that is how it is being used.

The biblical meaning of 1000 holds significant symbolism and importance in the sacred scriptures. In several instances throughout the Bible, the number 1000 is mentioned, representing strength, abundance, and completeness.





One of the most notable references to 1000 can be found in Psalm 84:10, which states, “Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere.” This verse highlights the immeasurable value and blessings of being in the presence of God. It emphasizes that even a single moment spent with the Lord surpasses the abundance and pleasures of worldly pursuits.

Additionally, in Revelation 20:4, the concept of a thousand-year reign is described, known as the Millennial Kingdom. This period signifies the ultimate victory of Christ over evil and the establishment of His righteous rule on earth.
from johnbaptistchurch.org

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Well, if your Scripture used to support Galatians as being written to Jews, is any example, I wouldn't give much credence to your "proof." It only means that if that is how it is being used.

The biblical meaning of 1000 holds significant symbolism and importance in the sacred scriptures. In several instances throughout the Bible, the number 1000 is mentioned, representing strength, abundance, and completeness.





One of the most notable references to 1000 can be found in Psalm 84:10, which states, “Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere.” This verse highlights the immeasurable value and blessings of being in the presence of God. It emphasizes that even a single moment spent with the Lord surpasses the abundance and pleasures of worldly pursuits.

Additionally, in Revelation 20:4, the concept of a thousand-year reign is described, known as the Millennial Kingdom. This period signifies the ultimate victory of Christ over evil and the establishment of His righteous rule on earth.
from johnbaptistchurch.org

Yes, there's about 25 proofs that I've listed in my videos and book about this exact topic.