A problem with premillennialism

[CrowCross]

You are taking it literally.

Yes I am. I also presented why

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.

I disagree. My post showed why.

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.

You replied with....So, perhaps the thousand years is not literal, but representative.

As I said the 1,000 years is presented as literal. Six times. If it was a representation John would have written it as such.

 

[CrowCross]

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

When one takes an allegorical approach as you indicated they can make it say pretty much what they need to say.

In the Epistle of Barnabus, he says something very interesting...(I understand This Epistll isn't in the Bible)....but a contemporary of that day who knew Jesus said...

In this epistle, Barnabas gives explanation of the time frame of these latter days. “For with Him one day is a thousand years; as Himself testifies, saying, Behold this day shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished. And what is it that He said, And He rested the seventh day: He means this; that when His Son shall come, and abolish the season of the Wicked One, and judge the ungodly; and shall change the Sun and the Moon, and the Stars; then he shall gloriously rest in that seventh day.” (Bar 13:5-6) Ref

Basically for each day of creation...six days then a day of rest...1,000 years is assigned to each day.
From creation to the flood is about 2,000 years...then from the flood to the cross another 2,000 years or 2 days...from the cross to now is about 2,000 years....which is 6 days...with 1 more day to be fulfilled which is the 1,000 year reign.

I'm not saying I have bought into this completely...that is I'm not dogmatic about it but do find it intersting.

Keep in mind the Epistle of Barnabus isn't the "Gospel of Barnabus". The Gospel is a work of the Muslims.

 

[Tambora]

When one takes an allegorical approach as you indicated they can make it say pretty much what they need to say.

NT writers allegorize OT writers all the time.
The one almost everyone knows about is "Out of Egypt I called my Son" which in the OT was literally about the whole nation of Israel, but the NT writer says differently.

In the Epistle of Barnabus, he says something very interesting...(I understand This Epistll isn't in the Bible)....but a contemporary of that day who knew Jesus said...

In this epistle, Barnabas gives explanation of the time frame of these latter days. “For with Him one day is a thousand years; as Himself testifies, saying, Behold this day shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, shall all things be accomplished. And what is it that He said, And He rested the seventh day: He means this; that when His Son shall come, and abolish the season of the Wicked One, and judge the ungodly; and shall change the Sun and the Moon, and the Stars; then he shall gloriously rest in that seventh day.” (Bar 13:5-6) Ref

Basically for each day of creation...six days then a day of rest...1,000 years is assigned to each day.
From creation to the flood is about 2,000 years...then from the flood to the cross another 2,000 years or 2 days...from the cross to now is about 2,000 years....which is 6 days...with 1 more day to be fulfilled which is the 1,000 year reign.

I'm not saying I have bought into this completely...that is I'm not dogmatic about it but do find it intersting.

Keep in mind the Epistle of Barnabus isn't the "Gospel of Barnabus". The Gospel is a work of the Muslims.

It is interesting.
But even Barnabus is using the number 1000 symbolically to mean something else besides a literal 1000 (ie. 1000 years is symbolically 1 day to the LORD).
Plus, Revelation says there is still time left for the LORD to do other things after the 1000 years and we are not told how much time that is.

We also have 1000 meaning something else in:

Psalms 50:10 ESV​

(10) For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.​

Can't take 1000 to be literal or the cattle on the 1001 hill is not His.
It was just a high number to represent that all the cattle are His no matter what the literal number of hills actually is.

So, to me, I cannot automatically take 1000 in Revelation to be literal, but must leave both options (literal or non literal) on the table and not try to force either into any particular doctrine.

 

[jeremiah1five]

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.

The centurion would have to be the seed of Abraham and the seed of non-Hebrew. The covenant is with Abraham and his seed. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in any of the Hebrew covenants. The covenant is with the Hebrew people, and like the Samaritan (half-Jew/half-Gentile.)
He would most likely be a God-Fearer since half-Jews were not well received by the Jews.
And God did not reveal Himself to the world. He revealed Himself to the Hebrews. Intimately. If He revealed Himself to Gentiles, it was through their own destruction by Joshua or by God over the Egyptians. Gentiles were being destroyed by God left and right under Moses and Joshua, king Saul and David. ANYONE God reveals Himself becomes saved.
And yes, the centurion knew the Hebrew Scripture which is what he knew and used to identify Israel's Messiah.

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?

The half-Jew/half-Gentile Samaritan was still seed of Abraham and God blessed and eventually saved the woman at the well since she was the seed of Abraham and it most likely happened on Pentecost or soon thereafter. Same with the centurion.

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.

The problem you have is that you think the Hebrew Scripture from Genesis to Revelation is written to Gentiles. I don't. They were written to the Hebrew people in covenant with God. It's their Scripture. And it was Jewish Christians and apostles that wrote their letters and gospels to the Hebrew people so that they may believe and by believing receive eternal life. Even Revelation is Jewish in history, culture and religion.
God wrote no Scripture (prophecies, letters, nothing) to Gentiles. None.

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.

Adam didn't do anything to mankind. He was created sinful which is why he sinned for sin comes from sinners.

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.

Galatians 4:4-5 is clear. There is no interpretation necessary.
But you go ahead as Gentile and twist and interpret the oracles of God to include Gentiles in business they are not involved it.

 

[Arial]

Yes I am. I also presented why

Right. Because you say John is using it literally. What you need to do is demonstrate that he is. Otherwise it is not a reason why,except that you say so.

I disagree. My post showed why.

You did not even address the Scriptures I gave that I am saying contradict the dispensational view of Christ's return. So don't tell me again that you showed me why you take the 1000 years literally. If you do, it contradicts those scriptures I gave that describe the second coming of Jesus and even what Jesus said about it. Go back to post #381 and address its full content. Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels.

You replied with....So, perhaps the thousand years is not literal, but representative.

Why did I say that? Post #381. You never responded to it. Did you read it? Or just that one sentence?

As I said the 1,000 years is presented as literal. Six times. If it was a representation John would have written it as such.

How do you know it is presented as literal? Show me! Why do you think he wasn't presenting it as representative, when in the first part of the letter he records the angel that what he was going to hear and see would signify (be a sign of) things that are, were, and are to come. And then he told John what those lampstands in the first vision signified. It is more likely that if something became literal in the midst of all this signfing, John would have said so. Numbers are signifying throughout the entire Bible---most of which goes unnoticed by the majority.

 

[Arial]

The centurion would have to be the seed of Abraham and the seed of non-Hebrew. The covenant is with Abraham and his seed. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in any of the Hebrew covenants. The covenant is with the Hebrew people, and like the Samaritan (half-Jew/half-Gentile.)
He would most likely be a God-Fearer since half-Jews were not well received by the Jews.
And God did not reveal Himself to the world. He revealed Himself to the Hebrews. Intimately. If He revealed Himself to Gentiles, it was through their own destruction by Joshua or by God over the Egyptians. Gentiles were being destroyed by God left and right under Moses and Joshua, king Saul and David. ANYONE God reveals Himself becomes saved.
And yes, the centurion knew the Hebrew Scripture which is what he knew and used to identify Israel's Messiah.

All proven lies. I know that by now you know better. You know from Scripture that these things you say are not true. Yet you keep saying them. It isn't ignorance of what the Bible says or of what it means---these things that expose the lies you present. So what is your real reason? I don't expect you to tell us, and I suppose I will speculate about it for a couple of minutes, but I will not air my speculations.

Just know. God really is watching.

 

[Musicmaster]

Right. Because you say John is using it literally. What you need to do is demonstrate that he is. Otherwise it is not a reason why,except that you say so.

That sounds so very much like the teaching style of so many of the liberal scholars I had ever studied under, and to hear it all again here...wow!

You demand that someone else prove it's literal, which is to imply that you have some sort of proof that the author didn't say what he meant, but to try and place the burden of proof on someone else that the author actually said what he meant! Man, that's just plain nasty!

Where did you ever learn that unwritten rule that someone else has to prove that an author said what he meant? Was that the school of Gnostic Insanity you got that from, or the School of Ethereality...?

MM

 

[CrowCross]

NT writers allegorize OT writers all the time.
The one almost everyone knows about is "Out of Egypt I called my Son" which in the OT was literally about the whole nation of Israel, but the NT writer says differently.

Matt 2:13-15?

 

[jeremiah1five]

All proven lies. I know that by now you know better. You know from Scripture that these things you say are not true. Yet you keep saying them. It isn't ignorance of what the Bible says or of what it means---these things that expose the lies you present. So what is your real reason? I don't expect you to tell us, and I suppose I will speculate about it for a couple of minutes, but I will not air my speculations.

Just know. God really is watching.

The Abraham covenant is between God, Abraham and his seed. Am I right about this? Yes, I am. Scripture cannot be broken. It cannot be changed, added to, subtracted from, for it is God's Word spoken/given to His prophets, in this case, Moses, and Moses wrote down what God wanted him to write down. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in ANY of the three Hebrew covenants. NONE. But you keep wanting to ADD non-Hebrew Gentiles to God's covenant with Abraham and his seed. I receive Scripture as written. You don't. You want to add to the bible or re-interpret passages that lie about what God has said. This is inconsistent of true, biblical Christianity, but then again, Gentiles DO NOT practice true, biblical Christianity. They practice a whole new religion unmoored from its Hebrew roots. Everything God gave to Abraham and his seed, a people later to be identified as the children of Israel and the House of Israel and the House of Judah Gentiles have stolen and made those things belong to Gentiles. And you support this.

God doesn't have to "watch" me. He knows I left alone stand for His Word and His existence.

 

[Arial]

The Abraham covenant is between God, Abraham and his seed.

Only partly. You are confusing the Abrahamic covenant with the Sinai covenant and leaving out the covenant made with all creation, that was made with Abraham. Gen 22:15-18 ANd the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

Paul makes reference to this in Gal 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

Verse 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.

Ring a bell? Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

WHat did Jesus come to do? I marked the clue in red.

But you keep wanting to ADD non-Hebrew Gentiles to God's covenant with Abraham and his seed.

Non-Hebrew Gentiles is a redundancy. It is not me who is adding Gentiles to the covenant with Abraham. It is God who, in Christ, inaugurated the new covenant, making the Sinai covenant obsolete. And it is God who tells us in HIS word, as opposed to yours, that both Jew and Gentile are brought into it, BY Him, through faith in the atoning work of Christ. In the new covenant He tells us through Paul, there is no Jew and Gentile, slave or free, male or female. All have one Lord, all were adopted the same way by the same Spirit.

I receive Scripture as written.

That is the funniest thing I have heard all week.

You want to add to the bible or re-interpret passages that lie about what God has said.

No, that would be you, the one who flat out ignores every scripture given to you that exposes your lies. You treat them as though they don't exist. YOu say I misinterpret them but then you do not even attempt to "correctly" interpret them for me.

This is inconsistent of true, biblical Christianity, but then again, Gentiles DO NOT practice true, biblical Christianity.

In biblical Christianity there is no such thing as a Gentile or a Jew among the redeemed. "In Christ," Paul says in Galatians,"there is neither Jew nor Greek---"

Everything God gave to Abraham and his seed, a people later to be identified as the children of Israel and the House of Israel and the House of Judah Gentiles have stolen and made those things belong to Gentiles.

You must have a Bible in which most of the pages are torn out. You are the attempted thief, trying to rob God of His sons and daughters. Trying to keep them from entering the kingdom when God welcomes them.

God doesn't have to "watch" me. He knows I left alone stand for His Word and His existence.

Okey dokey.

Listen---no more of this in this OP. The repetition is tiresome and distracting from the OP.

 

[Arial]

That sounds so very much like the teaching style of so many of the liberal scholars I had ever studied under, and to hear it all again here...wow!

You demand that someone else prove it's literal, which is to imply that you have some sort of proof that the author didn't say what he meant, but to try and place the burden of proof on someone else that the author actually said what he meant! Man, that's just plain nasty!

Where did you ever learn that unwritten rule that someone else has to prove that an author said what he meant? Was that the school of Gnostic Insanity you got that from, or the School of Ethereality...?

MM

This whole post is an example of not knowing or not using critical thinking. It starts and ends with logical fallacies.

First fallacy: The poster being responded to is impugned with "what something sounds like." Then then you present yourself and your experience as the basis for doing so.

Second:The poster is again impugned for asking that someone support their own case.

Third: It assumes that the poster's pov of a literal thousand years is right, when it declares that I am asking him to prove that the author didn't say what he meant.

Fourth: It claims that asking how someone who says they know it is literal to explain and show how they know that, is putting the burden of proof on someone else to show that the author actually said what he meant. It also again asserts its own pov is accurate---that the thousand years is literal. When all I am asking, is how he knows it is literal----something that neither he nor you feel the need to explain. It is enough that you believe it.

Fifth: it resorts to ad hominem by calling the poster nasty.

Sixth: It uses the straw man of me asking him to prove that John said what he meant. I ask him how he knew that was what John meant. I wasn't asking about John at all.

Seventh: Closing with more ad hominem

 

[Musicmaster]

This whole post is an example of not knowing or not using critical thinking. It starts and ends with logical fallacies.

First fallacy: The poster being responded to is impugned with "what something sounds like." Then then you present yourself and your experience as the basis for doing so.

Second:The poster is again impugned for asking that someone support their own case.

Third: It assumes that the poster's pov of a literal thousand years is right, when it declares that I am asking him to prove that the author didn't say what he meant.

Fourth: It claims that asking how someone who says they know it is literal to explain and show how they know that, is putting the burden of proof on someone else to show that the author actually said what he meant. It also again asserts its own pov is accurate---that the thousand years is literal. When all I am asking, is how he knows it is literal----something that neither he nor you feel the need to explain. It is enough that you believe it.

Fifth: it resorts to ad hominem by calling the poster nasty.

Sixth: It uses the straw man of me asking him to prove that John said what he meant. I ask him how he knew that was what John meant. I wasn't asking about John at all.

Seventh: Closing with more ad hominem

The problem with your tirade is that I was not impugning the poster, but rather to what he was responding.

Therein is what causes your accusatory house of cards for logical fallacies in my part to come crashing down.

MM

 

[Arial]

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.

Do you know what apocalyptic prophecy is?

Is Revelation presenting its message in symbolic language? Does it not state at the beginning, that it is going to signify what is about to be said?

Then why would one not interpret it in that way, finding the meaning of the symbolic language from within the Bible itself?

And why do dispensationalist claim they interpret it literally but only do so when it fits what they want to believe?

To say those who interpret Revelation according to the type of literature (the genre) that it is, do so because they have a desire to conform scripture to their personal interpretations and then to make it say what they want, is to be more about the other side of that equation than the one you place the accusation on. YOu won't even address the scriptures that have been given that show your view of Christ's second coming is in direct contradiction to Scripture itself.

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.

Anyone who disagrees with you hates the word of God? That's a doozy of a fallacy.

 

[Arial]

The problem with your tirade is that I was not impugning the poster, but rather to what he was responding.

Therein is what causes your accusatory house of cards for logical fallacies in my part to come crashing down.

MM

Pot kettle, though you will never admit it. Nothing new under the sun.

It was impugning the poster. You know it and I know it and God knows it too.

Let's see you address post #381 line by line. That would actually pertain to the OP.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Only partly. You are confusing the Abrahamic covenant with the Sinai covenant and leaving out the covenant made with all creation, that was made with Abraham. Gen 22:15-18

No, I haven't. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are two separate covenants made between God and Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant) and between God and his seed the children of Jacob/Israel. Two separate covenants at two different times with the Mosaic Covenant building upon the Abrahamic Covenant. Each have everything to do with Abraham's seed, whether through his seed and the inheritance falling to Jacob and to his children (of Israel) or to the One seed in whom the Promises were to finally rest (Jesus Christ), who fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant is several ways. One being the commands of God's righteousness found in the Moral Law as well as the Social and Ceremonial Law, all of it fulfilled by Christ.

There is nothing in Genesis 22:15-18 that identifies any non-Hebrew Gentile being included in these covenants and the mere mention that "all nations of the earth be blessed" does not translate to these nations - of which are identified as the descendants of Ishmael (twelve sons) and Esau's descendants through his wives and concubines - many nations of people that are the seed of Abraham but through which none of the inherited Promises of Abraham are passed on. The Promise went through Isaac the son of the free-woman and not through Hagar who was a slave, or bondwoman. Thus, the integrity of the Abrahamic Covenant being between Abraham and his seed, a seed that "comes out of thee" through Isaac, then Jacob, and resting on Jacob's twelve sons and their descendants finally being fulfilled by Christ. By being of the seed of Abraham (Ishmael and Esau) God blessed each and thus the "all nations of the earth be blessed" is fulfilled. Remember, the word "nations" also identified a people that would "come out of thee" (Abraham) and we know that biologically no non-Hebrew Gentiles can come out of two Hebrew parents for a covenant that is locally given with widespread blessings upon those that "come out of thee" (Abraham) in his descendants, a people of Hebrews also called the Jews.

Paul makes reference to this in Gal 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and foretold the gospel to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

True. But you deviate in your understanding by identifying "Gentiles" as non-Hebrew people when it is impossible for any non-Hebrew people to inherit the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants not being his seed. The covenants are with Abraham's seed and non-Hebrew people do not come from his seed through his union with another Hebrew also identified as his brother's daughter (his niece.) It is the Abrahamic Covenant that sets the foundation of any blessings towards any people because these covenants are limited to his descendants that "come out of thee" (Abraham) and from a biological standpoint it is impossible for a non-Hebrew to be born to two Hebrew parents. Even a half-Jew/half-Gentile would not be "non-Hebrew" but would take on the characteristics of the circumstance Abraham's seed had with the offspring between Jew and non-Hebrew Gentile such as those identified as the Samaritans, a group of people that were born from Jew-Assyrian, and later, Jew-Babylonian unions.

The one fact you keep overlooking is that the covenant and covenants are with Abraham and his seed and non-Hebrew "Gentiles" do not come from his seed. They were already in existence through Ham and Japheth, the other two sons of Noah.

WHat did Jesus come to do? I marked the clue in red.

Mark it in blue. I don't care. You still ignore exactly what Jesus came to do and that was to offer Himself in the place of the lamb sacrifice under the Mosaic Law which lamb sacrifice was slain for the sins of the children of Israel in covenant with God thus bringing meaning to Saul's words in his Galatian letter and elsewhere that Jesus was born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law and this identifies the children of Jacob/Israel who was the seed of Abraham and to whom the promise was inherited. The New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled in Christ and instituted at the Passover meal among His twelve disciples, and an effectual sacrifice that took away the sins of the Hebrew people in His blood, the blood of the animal sacrifice which under the Law of Moses was sprinkled upon the children of Israel just as the blood of the Lamb of God under the Law was sprinkled upon the children of Israel as commanded in the Law of Moses.

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.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal. 4:4–6.

THAT Holy Spirit of Promise was Promised to the children of Israel through covenant and prophecy and was fulfilled beginning on the day of the Feast of Harvest in which three thousand Jews were born-again and given their Holy Spirit of Promise as Promised to them by God.

Non-Hebrew Gentiles is a redundancy. It is not me who is adding Gentiles to the covenant with Abraham. It is God who, in Christ, inaugurated the new covenant, making the Sinai covenant obsolete.

There you go with your antinomian lies. How can the Law of Moses be obsolete when the apostles taught the people the Hebrew Scripture and used the Hebrew Scripture to identify Israel's Deliverer, Messiah, and King. How can the Sinai Covenant be obsolete when there are commands and instruction from God towards its existence and use?

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12.

The author of Hebrews is referring to the Word of God which is the Law, Psalms, and Prophets.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

Saul instructs a command of God that the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets IS PROFITABLE to the biblical Christian who are also Jewish Christians and through use of the Law, Psalms, and the Prophetic writings the righteousness of God is described in its 'pages' and is useful FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS so that the Jewish man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works. The Mosaic Covenant is definitely NOT "obsolete" as you erroneously believe but has now through the new birth has become an instruction in which the Jewish Christ can now obey just as perfectly as Christ because upon our new birth not only does the progressive sanctification take place daily in the lives of the born-again believer but that through Jesus' sacrifice and by His being our substitute we have been found justified by God and declared "NOT GUILTY!"
You need to bring your Constantinian Gentile beliefs into compliance with the Hebrew Word of God, the Law of Moses which is our instruction for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And it is God who tells us in HIS word, as opposed to yours, that both Jew and Gentile are brought into it, BY Him, through faith in the atoning work of Christ.

That's right and the "Gentile" he writes about are all half-Jew/half-Gentile offspring because they are still the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the Promise.

No, that would be you, the one who flat out ignores every scripture given to you that exposes your lies. You treat them as though they don't exist. YOu say I misinterpret them but then you do not even attempt to "correctly" interpret them for me.

I hold to the bible that states unequivocally that the Abrahamic Covenant is between God and Abraham and his seed. I hold to the bible that teaches that the animal sacrifices under the Law were made to and for the children of Israel every year the high priest sprinkled the children of Israel with the blood of the lamb.

You must have a Bible in which most of the pages are torn out. You are the attempted thief, trying to rob God of His sons and daughters. Trying to keep them from entering the kingdom when God welcomes them.

"Will a man rob God" (Malachi.) No. It's impossible. I am not robbing God of anything. I am instead identifying to whom God's redemption applies and it applies to Abraham and his seed, a seed that in time became the children of Israel.

16 All scripture [Law, Psalms, Prophets] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16–17.

You say the Law of God is obsolete. I don't. It lives in the lives of every born-again believer to whom Christ came to redeem.
He came to redeem those under the Law i.e., the children of Israel.

 

[Arial]

No, I haven't. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are two separate covenants made between God and Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant) and between God and his seed the children of Jacob/Israel. Two separate covenants at two different times with the Mosaic Covenant building upon the Abrahamic Covenant. Each have everything to do with Abraham's seed, whether through his seed and the inheritance falling to Jacob and to his children (of Israel) or to the One seed in whom the Promises were to finally rest (Jesus Christ), who fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant is several ways. One being the commands of God's righteousness found in the Moral Law as well as the Social and Ceremonial Law, all of it fulfilled by Christ.

There is nothing in Genesis 22:15-18 that identifies any non-Hebrew Gentile being included in these covenants and the mere mention that "all nations of the earth be blessed" does not translate to these nations - of which are identified as the descendants of Ishmael (twelve sons) and Esau's descendants through his wives and concubines - many nations of people that are the seed of Abraham but through which none of the inherited Promises of Abraham are passed on. The Promise went through Isaac the son of the free-woman and not through Hagar who was a slave, or bondwoman. Thus, the integrity of the Abrahamic Covenant being between Abraham and his seed, a seed that "comes out of thee" through Isaac, then Jacob, and resting on Jacob's twelve sons and their descendants finally being fulfilled by Christ. By being of the seed of Abraham (Ishmael and Esau) God blessed each and thus the "all nations of the earth be blessed" is fulfilled. Remember, the word "nations" also identified a people that would "come out of thee" (Abraham) and we know that biologically no non-Hebrew Gentiles can come out of two Hebrew parents for a covenant that is locally given with widespread blessings upon those that "come out of thee" (Abraham) in his descendants, a people of Hebrews also called the Jews.

True. But you deviate in your understanding by identifying "Gentiles" as non-Hebrew people when it is impossible for any non-Hebrew people to inherit the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants not being his seed. The covenants are with Abraham's seed and non-Hebrew people do not come from his seed through his union with another Hebrew also identified as his brother's daughter (his niece.) It is the Abrahamic Covenant that sets the foundation of any blessings towards any people because these covenants are limited to his descendants that "come out of thee" (Abraham) and from a biological standpoint it is impossible for a non-Hebrew to be born to two Hebrew parents. Even a half-Jew/half-Gentile would not be "non-Hebrew" but would take on the characteristics of the circumstance Abraham's seed had with the offspring between Jew and non-Hebrew Gentile such as those identified as the Samaritans, a group of people that were born from Jew-Assyrian, and later, Jew-Babylonian unions.

The one fact you keep overlooking is that the covenant and covenants are with Abraham and his seed and non-Hebrew "Gentiles" do not come from his seed. They were already in existence through Ham and Japheth, the other two sons of Noah.

Mark it in blue. I don't care. You still ignore exactly what Jesus came to do and that was to offer Himself in the place of the lamb sacrifice under the Mosaic Law which lamb sacrifice was slain for the sins of the children of Israel in covenant with God thus bringing meaning to Saul's words in his Galatian letter and elsewhere that Jesus was born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law and this identifies the children of Jacob/Israel who was the seed of Abraham and to whom the promise was inherited. The New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled in Christ and instituted at the Passover meal among His twelve disciples, and an effectual sacrifice that took away the sins of the Hebrew people in His blood, the blood of the animal sacrifice which under the Law of Moses was sprinkled upon the children of Israel just as the blood of the Lamb of God under the Law was sprinkled upon the children of Israel as commanded in the Law of Moses.

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.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Gal. 4:4–6.

THAT Holy Spirit of Promise was Promised to the children of Israel through covenant and prophecy and was fulfilled beginning on the day of the Feast of Harvest in which three thousand Jews were born-again and given their Holy Spirit of Promise as Promised to them by God.

There you go with your antinomian lies. How can the Law of Moses be obsolete when the apostles taught the people the Hebrew Scripture and used the Hebrew Scripture to identify Israel's Deliverer, Messiah, and King. How can the Sinai Covenant be obsolete when there are commands and instruction from God towards its existence and use?

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12.

The author of Hebrews is referring to the Word of God which is the Law, Psalms, and Prophets.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

Saul instructs a command of God that the Hebrew Scripture of Law, Psalms, and Prophets IS PROFITABLE to the biblical Christian who are also Jewish Christians and through use of the Law, Psalms, and the Prophetic writings the righteousness of God is described in its 'pages' and is useful FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS so that the Jewish man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto ALL good works. The Mosaic Covenant is definitely NOT "obsolete" as you erroneously believe but has now through the new birth has become an instruction in which the Jewish Christ can now obey just as perfectly as Christ because upon our new birth not only does the progressive sanctification take place daily in the lives of the born-again believer but that through Jesus' sacrifice and by His being our substitute we have been found justified by God and declared "NOT GUILTY!"
You need to bring your Constantinian Gentile beliefs into compliance with the Hebrew Word of God, the Law of Moses which is our instruction for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

That's right and the "Gentile" he writes about are all half-Jew/half-Gentile offspring because they are still the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the Promise.

I hold to the bible that states unequivocally that the Abrahamic Covenant is between God and Abraham and his seed. I hold to the bible that teaches that the animal sacrifices under the Law were made to and for the children of Israel every year the high priest sprinkled the children of Israel with the blood of the lamb.

"Will a man rob God" (Malachi.) No. It's impossible. I am not robbing God of anything. I am instead identifying to whom God's redemption applies and it applies to Abraham and his seed, a seed that in time became the children of Israel.

16 All scripture [Law, Psalms, Prophets] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16–17.

You say the Law of God is obsolete. I don't. It lives in the lives of every born-again believer to whom Christ came to redeem.
He came to redeem those under the Law i.e., the children of Israel.

Off topic of the OP.

 

[Musicmaster]

Do you know what apocalyptic prophecy is?

Is Revelation presenting its message in symbolic language? Does it not state at the beginning, that it is going to signify what is about to be said?

No, not all of Revelation is symbolic language entirely. Revelation starts out with John being told that he will be shown what was, what is, and what will be. The problem is when those people out there subjectively choose what is allegory and what is literal, and doing so on the basis of their pet doctrines. Even allegorical language most generally has some literal dynamics to it.

The rule of thumb that I follow as a result of my training is to first approach a scripture literally, and if that doesn't fit reality, then go to the symbolic, and if that doesn't work, go to the allegorical after searching for parallels in other contexts to see if they give clarity. If not, then it is something yet to be revealed by Yah in His own time.

Then why would one not interpret it in that way, finding the meaning of the symbolic language from within the Bible itself?

The revelation of the types and shadows are not always revealed in scripture. Sometimes translations corrupt the text in just a manner so that the parallels brought into the mix actually mislead. The 24 elders are just a case in point. The newer translations that rely more heavily on the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts, simply because they are older than most of the Textus Receptus, the understanding as to who those elders are is made more allegorical so that some interpret them as being the "Divine Counsel" rather than representative of the Church. The newer translations render them speaking in the second person rather than first, as if their praises of Yahshuah do not apply to them.

Anyway, the debates will go on until the end of this age given that most people don't seek the Lord for absolute Truth in all their beliefs so that we may all join together as being in one, unified faith. This all is the devil's playground. Many keep making appeals to the corrupt, early church fathers who are known to have been greatly influenced by Platonian and Aristotelian, rhetorical crap! Not even THEY agreed with one another on some essential things, and yet they are viewed as great doctrinal authorities on the basis of appeals to antiquity, which is...crap! It matters not at all that a couple of them were taught by John himself, what they wrote was STILL not inspired as were the hands of the apostles when they were under that inspiration that so many ascribe to the church fathers as a whole, simply because of their proximity to the living apostles.

And why do dispensationalist claim they interpret it literally but only do so when it fits what they want to believe?

I can't speak for all dispensationalists out there, but I can speak to the rhetorical garbage I've personally heard from the covenantalists, preterists, post millennialists, pre-wrath, mid-trib and post-trib types who tend to lean more and more into the direction of Replacement Theology tendencies. As an Israelite, I used to find that offensive, but now I just pitty those poor suckers who have given themselves over to some doctrines originating from that doctrinal framework, almost all of which originate right from the pits of Hell because of their direct opposition to what scripture actually teaches, and opposed to the things of the Spirit of the Lord who instructs those who dare make the effort to subordinate ALL their beliefs unto Yah and His Spirit, and take the time to seek Him for said Truth.

To say those who interpret Revelation according to the type of literature (the genre) that it is, do so because they have a desire to conform scripture to their personal interpretations and then to make it say what they want, is to be more about the other side of that equation than the one you place the accusation on. YOu won't even address the scriptures that have been given that show your view of Christ's second coming is in direct contradiction to Scripture itself.

Anyone who disagrees with you hates the word of God? That's a doozy of a fallacy.

Well, as much as you appear to have the skills of a screenwriter for Hollywood movies, creating scenarios out of thin air and such, what you failed to comprehend is that some scriptures offered in defense of other's position are not always valid representations. All who group together under that banner get all manner of laughter, whoops and hollers from their chums, which doesn't prove anything in relation to Truth, Who is a Person, not a collection of right and proper doctrines.

So, you're free to enjoy your manic, juvenile laugh-along with your chums, but that's nothing but the position of ridicule rather than textual and doctrinal conformance to what's actually written. My contention with gravitating toward the allegorical as the sole basis for interpretation is that they always make scripture out to say whatever they want it to say, even when the literal clearly goes against their pet doctrines. There is nothing allegorical about Yahshuah having been nailed to the cross, but there are some out there who will call just about anything into question on the basis of their position and rooting within allegory as their weapon of choice to defend their position.

So, yes, please do whoop it up, and enjoy remaining here on this earth for the tribulation to test your metal and see what you're made of, because within the tribulation, the Gospel of Grace is no longer active. Each one must "endure unto the end" in order to be saved. Go for it with gusto, if you wish. I prefer being saved by grace rather than my own strength for endurance unto the end of the most horrid years of the Lamb's wrath, worse than this world has ever seen. Make that allegorical, if you want, but it will avail you nothing.

MM

 

[Arial]

No, not all of Revelation is symbolic language entirely. Revelation starts out with John being told that he will be shown what was, what is, and what will be

And it says it will be signified. It began being signified with the lampstands. Are there elements that are not symbolic?

The problem is when those people out there subjectively choose what is allegory and what is literal, and doing so on the basis of their pet doctrines.

That is what you are doing, and what dispensationalists are doing. What makes you think you are not. Personally I don't have a pet doctrine. I want to find out what is being said by God, whether I like it or not.

Even allegorical language most generally has some literal dynamics to it.

It always does. It is representing something that is literal, in the economy of God. Usually it is representing something that is spiritual, in that it cannot be seen by us. Revelation is literally playing out iow, in the land of the living, but the powers behind it, both good and evil, are invisible to humans. In many places, Revelation is giving that view from the spirit realm, and given our finiteness, that can only be done symbolically, and representatively. But a'mil is not interpreting allegorically, but symbolically. The spiritual meaning behind the symbols. ANd when doing so it neither leave out the texts of both old and new testaments.

The rule of thumb that I follow as a result of my training is to first approach a scripture literally, and if that doesn't fit reality, then go to the symbolic, and if that doesn't work, go to the allegorical after searching for parallels in other contexts to see if they give clarity. If not, then it is something yet to be revealed by Yah in His own time.

The rule of thumb that I follow, is making sure that whatever my conclusions are, they do not contradict clear truths and historical facts in the rest of the Bible. I do not actually try to figure out what every single symbol and number means. It is too big a task for me, mainly because of all the dispensationalist interpretations that were fed by the majority of the church---and in my case 20+ years. (Before I began to question it and search.) And there are direct Scriptures from both Jesus and Paul that undo a return of Jesus with a 1000 year temporal reign to follow, I have given some of them. Which means the OT scriptures concerning a restored Israel are likely being misinterpreted by dispensationalists.

But even though I do not parse every symbol, I get the message. WHich is something that dispensationalists miss, at least in what they say. I asked you once, and you never answered. Is Revelation a "picture book" or a "puzzle book."

 

[Musicmaster]

And it says it will be signified. It began being signified with the lampstands. Are there elements that are not symbolic?

The problem with your diatribe is that the meaning of those lampstands was clearly defined in the text, so what's your point?

That is what you are doing, and what dispensationalists are doing. What makes you think you are not. Personally I don't have a pet doctrine. I want to find out what is being said by God, whether I like it or not.

When you people gravitate toward the broad brush strokes of all-inclusiveness, that's where you do err. I take into account that not all preterists believe the same thing, and not all covenentalists believe the same thing on all points. We all can see just how special you are compared to all others. That's ok. What I DO know is that Holy Spirit leads only along the path of Truth. If we both claim to be under the direction of Holy Spirit, and yet disagree, then one or both of us is a liar! I for one am willing to explore with those who seek to be honest, and find out where the error lies in one or both systems of thought. Long ago, I challenged you to that test, and you laughed it off, which is what I expect from those who lack spiritual depth.

It is what it is.

MM

 

[CrowCross]

The Abraham covenant is between God, Abraham and his seed. Am I right about this? Yes, I am. Scripture cannot be broken. It cannot be changed, added to, subtracted from, for it is God's Word spoken/given to His prophets, in this case, Moses, and Moses wrote down what God wanted him to write down. There are no non-Hebrew Gentiles in ANY of the three Hebrew covenants. NONE. But you keep wanting to ADD non-Hebrew Gentiles to God's covenant with Abraham and his seed. I receive Scripture as written. You don't. You want to add to the bible or re-interpret passages that lie about what God has said. This is inconsistent of true, biblical Christianity, but then again, Gentiles DO NOT practice true, biblical Christianity. They practice a whole new religion unmoored from its Hebrew roots. Everything God gave to Abraham and his seed, a people later to be identified as the children of Israel and the House of Israel and the House of Judah Gentiles have stolen and made those things belong to Gentiles. And you support this.

God doesn't have to "watch" me. He knows I left alone stand for His Word and His existence.

Here's your problem....when you write you write as if there is no salvation for the gentiles. Why?