Biblical Signs of the End Days.

[Arial]

Hebrews 9 is talking about Jesus on the cross.

Hebrews 9:11-24 is talking about redemption through the blood of Christ. It states quite clearly who Jesus is and what he did and his position as mediator of the new covenant which actually removes sin instead of just covering it over for a time. It states why he had to do what he did, why he had to be a priest of a different sort that the Aaronic priest.

You completely ignored Heb 8:1-5 which I also gave as support for Christ's present rule from heaven.


Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Christ is reigning as King in heaven.

If you read Hebrews, it tells you that that is the way to understand it. It isn't prophecy. Consider the part in Hebrews that speaks of the blood being placed on the mercy seat in heaven. If you are going to take that literally, then you can join those who believe that angels/people were sitting at the foot of Jesus cross, catching his blood in vials/bowls (whatever they believe) so it can be taken to heaven to be literally sprinkled on a mercy seat. And yes, there are people who believe that. They also believe in the Holy Grail. The believe that it is Jesus blood LITERALLY that saves us.

If you are going to keep arguing from logical fallacies instead of dealing directly with the content you quote from, there is no point in continuing. I have marked the fallacies in red. Everything in that quote is either a red herring or a straw man. Both are diversionary tactics.

Jewish sacrificial system shadow, Jesus death and atonement reality. The Jewish sacrificial system saved no one.

I am aware of that, but the sacrificial system was not the subject. The subject is Christ reigning now as King from heaven. And Heb11:22-24 says

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

It is contrasting the two Jerusalem's---the two Mt. Zions---the old and the new, not the sacrificial system.

• Jerusalem below--shadow
• Jerusalem above--reality

And here it is misstated.

That is what I said. You are the one who misstated it. Your question was misstated.

There is a Mosaic restriction on kings being priests, which is how we know that this has to be Jesus. As part of the line of Melchizedek, He faces no restriction.

Melchizedek had no lineage. Scripture states he was a type of Melchizedek---meaning that neither Melchizedek were of the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek was a king and priest in a time before the Mosaic restriction. Jesus was born under it. Jesus therefore is a different type of king and priest from the Aaronic kings and priests. He is more. He does more. He is the real King and Priest who conquers sin and death for his people.

 

[Josheb]

Speculation is not a sign of the end times.

Just saying.

 

[Arial]

No, it just reflects Christ's kingship. A kingdom is the reflection of the ruler. Hence Earth is a hellish reflection of the Satanic realm. Full of sin. Full of death. It reflects it's ruler. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father right? That is not the position of a King. It is a position of power, but the position of King is held by the Father in this setup. So sin is a contradiction to this being Christ's Kingdom, and not Satan's kingdom, and a reflection of the world system that God tells us not to be a part of, and to hate.

Your claim collapses under its own non-Trinitarian assumption. Scripture teaches one throne shared by the Father and the Son (Rev22:1). The Father reigns through the Son, not instead of it. Christ's kingdom is real now but not yet consummated.

Having responded to the whole quote, I will now break it down into its parts and show where there are invalid arguments and contradictions within itself.

it just reflects Christ's kingship. A kingdom is the reflection of the ruler.

That is a false premise of what a kingdom must look like. Scripture consistently presents Gods kingship coexisting with ongoing rebellion. He has always been King as creator over his creation. (Ps 110:1). The Messiah reigns while enemies still exist. (1 Cor 15:25-26) “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
A kingdom does not have to look perfect in order to be a true kingdom.

You present a contadiction when you say this in the very same paragraph.

the position of King is held by the Father in this setup.

You: the kingdom reflects it's king, there for Jesus is not King. The Father is King.

A kingdom is the reflection of the ruler

Assumes that then everything in his realm must reflect him. Christ's sovereign reign is objective and real however the realm of fallen creation remains in rebellion. You confuse "rule" with "realm". Jesus himsle;f affirms tis in the parable of the weeds in Matt 13. Sin is inside the kingdom now and it will be removed later.

Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father right? That is not the position of a King

This is biblically false. In ancient Near Eastern and biblical theology

• Sitting at the right hand is a royal enthronement formula
• Psalm 110:1 is the most-cited OT verse in the NT and is explicitly messianic and royal
• Daniel 7:13–14 (ESV)
  
  

  “To him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom…”

Jesus applies this directly to himself (Matt 26:64).Peter explicitly says Christ is enthroned on David's throne now (Acts 2:30-36).

So sin is a contradiction to this being Christ's Kingdom, and not Satan's kingdom, and a reflection of the world system that God tells us not to be a part of, and to hate.

Again, this confuses reign and realm. It presumes that everything in a kingdom must reflect the king when it never did so even with the earthly kings in Israel or anywhere else. The Bible consistently depicts God/Christ's kingship coexisting with ongoing rebellion. It is that rebellion that Jesus is dealing with from heaven (see the book of Revelation).

Satan has limited authority (John 12:31). Christ has supreme authority Matt 28:18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”

Satan rules as a usurper not as rightful king. Col 1:13
“He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

The two kingdoms exist simultaneously, but only one is legit.

 

[Arial]

When did I say it had to be political. I mean, as a theocracy, sure, political.

Right. So, you did say it.

. The disciples asked a question of Christ in matthew 24. What will be the sign of your coming? Understand, they didn't know Jesus was leaving. Not a clue.

If they didn't know he was leaving, why would they ask about his coming? He was standing right there in front of them. So wrong start (premise).

Hence the final question, the signs of the complete end/consummation. (In the Greek, the term used basically means the end of everything. So past Jesus setting up His Kingdom, to the consummation of all. The closing out of this creation, and all of it passing away. That word for coming, the term in the Greek, is used to speak of king's making a royal visit. So what they were asking was, when will you be fully revealed as Messiah, and come in as King? What will the signs be?

And? How does that make the kingdom a visible political entity?

God promised Abraham, PROMISED and sealed in a covenant he made with Abraham that his people would inherit all the land of Canaan. Did God forget?

His descendants did inherit it. Is that the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ? Scripture also tells us who true Israel is. Who are truly Abraham's descendants. Romans 9:6-8
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Gal 3:29 further clarifies. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

The NT interprets the OT. Those things that had not yet been fully revealed in the OT. Now, do the Gentile believers inherit the land of Caanan? What do they inherit? The kingdom of God. Just like Jewish believers.

Consider that Israel has already been brought back from the dead. No one expected it. People were shocked. Those who were against it were writing that it would never happen, right up to the very day it did. A regathering... to judgment. There will be one more ingathering, but that will be before the millennial kingdom, and that will be for redemption/reconciliation between God and His people. (

Consider that confirmation bias and a very shaky one at that. Every bit of it is presumptive and a very poor handling of God's word. But I am not inclined to post paragraphs so long each paragraph needs to be handled in two or three postings, so decline to go about the process of correcting all the presumptions and contradictions with scripture.

 

[Arial]

I forgot the most important question of all. The disciples asked Jesus "Will you now restore the Kingdom to Israel". Jesus didn't say no. He didn't say that it isn't going to happen. He didn't even say wrong question. He just said it isn't for them to know when. So Jesus answered their question DIRECTLY. They asked if it will be NOW, He answered and said it wasn't for them to know when. to know when about what? Jesus returning the Kingdom to Israel. Something Jesus says the Father Himself has established by His power. So when will Jesus be able to go to the disiples and answer "Yes"?

Do you think maybe by that time he was a bit exasperated with them. He spent all those years with them, teaching them about the kingdom, then spent forty days likely revealing those things we find in the epistles since they for sure would not understand it prior to his resurrection. And here they were---still not getting it.

 

[Arial]

Spiritualizing is arbitrary. There is no way it cannot be. Unless there is a specific reason given to believe that, say, apocalyptic writing has not encased a LITERAL prophecy in imagery/figures/speech, see what is going on?

Only according to your definition of spiritualizing, whatever that is,, would be great if you would give a definition, since I told you exactly the basis on which the symbolic images are interpreted. The source is always the Bible's use of them within itself. Patterns are observed, culturural aspects are considered etc. That is the opposite of arbitrary. Maybe you need to give your definition of arbitrary also.

Spiritualizing in that aspect is not saying that the symbols are not depicting literal events or truths. It is saying the symbols are expressing something that is invisible to us and are being represented through things we can understand. If you read Revelation more carefully you will find the judgments are repeating the same events from different perspective, all ending in the appearance of Christ and the judgement.

 

[Arial]

The fulfillment WAS another human king. Jesus came in the flesh. THAT is what makes it literal. See, you are spiritualizing it away already.

Jesus isn't just king of Israel. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. It was Israel that was mistaken and you who are carrying on their same mistake.

 

[EarlyActs]

Hebrews 9:11-24 is talking about redemption through the blood of Christ. It states quite clearly who Jesus is and what he did and his position as mediator of the new covenant which actually removes sin instead of just covering it over for a time. It states why he had to do what he did, why he had to be a priest of a different sort that the Aaronic priest.

You completely ignored Heb 8:1-5 which I also gave as support for Christ's present rule from heaven.


Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Christ is reigning as King in heaven.

If you are going to keep arguing from logical fallacies instead of dealing directly with the content you quote from, there is no point in continuing. I have marked the fallacies in red. Everything in that quote is either a red herring or a straw man. Both are diversionary tactics.

I am aware of that, but the sacrificial system was not the subject. The subject is Christ reigning now as King from heaven. And Heb11:22-24 says

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

It is contrasting the two Jerusalem's---the two Mt. Zions---the old and the new, not the sacrificial system.

• Jerusalem below--shadow
• Jerusalem above--reality

That is what I said. You are the one who misstated it. Your question was misstated.

Melchizedek had no lineage. Scripture states he was a type of Melchizedek---meaning that neither Melchizedek were of the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek was a king and priest in a time before the Mosaic restriction. Jesus was born under it. Jesus therefore is a different type of king and priest from the Aaronic kings and priests. He is more. He does more. He is the real King and Priest who conquers sin and death for his people.

The "in heaven" and "from heaven" is not as direct as it could be. The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ, in which he rules in an imperative sense; his reign is what is supposed to happen. All people and rulers are being asked to honor the Son, lest they be smashed by him. Ps 2 and 110 establish this, and are interpreted in early Acts that way. The apostles were trying to reach all the nations who were cursed at Bab-El with the message of Christ, and more. The gift of tongues signified this and made quick work in some cases.

Dwelling on a location makes it detached or makes it belong to those Rubic cube theology puzzles about who is where and when.

 

[TMSO]

Hebrews 9:11-24 is talking about redemption through the blood of Christ. It states quite clearly who Jesus is and what he did and his position as mediator of the new covenant which actually removes sin instead of just covering it over for a time. It states why he had to do what he did, why he had to be a priest of a different sort that the Aaronic priest.

You have seen to have forgotten. Hebrews is not intended for Gentiles. The book of Hebrews was written to Jews. Three/four groups of Jews to be precise. Those who believe, those who are on the fence, those who are apostate, and those who do not believe at all. The only way to understand what Hebrews is saying, is to have full understanding of the Old Testametnt and the Law. (All 631. Don't worry, I won't toss in the over 10,000 from the Mishna and other rabbinical teachings.)

You completely ignored Heb 8:1-5 which I also gave as support for Christ's present rule from heaven.

Actually... it does not. He isn't sitting in the throne, which is the position of the one who rules. The Father is. The Father has yet to make everything subordinate to Jesus, so the Kingdom has not yet begun. It actually speaks to Jesus place as High Priest.

Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister [a]in the sanctuary and in the true [c]tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are [d]those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses [e]was warned by God when he was about to erect the [f]tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.”

There is NOTHING in here that gives any support for Christ's present rule. Why does it speak of majesty in the heavens sitting in the throne and not Jesus?

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Christ is reigning as King in heaven.

Well, since I missed you quoting it, I will ask again. This passage clearly only speaks of Jesus as High Priest, and says that He is seated at the right hand of the king. If He is sitting at the right hand of the king, then are you saying that there was a coup and he stole the throne from the Father? You are adding a lot to the passage that is not even assumed. This is the danger of spiritualizing passages. I can't say much right now, but I am waiting on a commentary on Hebrews written by a messianic Jew. I believe it will be VERY enlightening, considering the audience for this book is not Gentiles, but Hebrews/Jews.

If you are going to keep arguing from logical fallacies instead of dealing directly with the content you quote from, there is no point in continuing. I have marked the fallacies in red. Everything in that quote is either a red herring or a straw man. Both are diversionary tactics.

Listen, John MacArthur Jr. has passed on. Can you not be attacking him? All I did was write what he had to say on the subject. And it is true. There are crazy people out there who believe that one can only be saved by the LITERAL blood of Jesus. And they believe that his blood was caught at the base of the cross by people/angels whatever it was, for this purpose. John MacArthur's response is for people who attacked him saying he doesn't believe the blood means anything.

I am aware of that, but the sacrificial system was not the subject. The subject is Christ reigning now as King from heaven. And Heb11:22-24 says

The sacrificial system was very much the subject. You seem to think that Hebrews was written to Gentiles. It was written to the Jews, and one of the subjects is how Jesus is greater then the Jewish sacrificial system, and is in fact, the END of that system. All of it points to Him.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

So where odes it say that Jesus is reigning as king in heaven, following a successful coup?

It is contrasting the two Jerusalem's---the two Mt. Zions---the old and the new, not the sacrificial system.

• Jerusalem below--shadow
• Jerusalem above--reality

That is what I said. You are the one who misstated it. Your question was misstated.

Melchizedek had no lineage. Scripture states he was a type of Melchizedek---meaning that neither Melchizedek were of the tribe of Levi. Melchizedek was a king and priest in a time before the Mosaic restriction. Jesus was born under it. Jesus therefore is a different type of king and priest from the Aaronic kings and priests. He is more. He does more. He is the real King and Priest who conquers sin and death for his people.

Sorry, I should have said in the order of Melchizedek, though that basically says the same thing.

" 17 For it is attested of Him,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

 

[Josheb]

You have seen to have forgotten. Hebrews is not intended for Gentiles. The book of Hebrews was written to Jews.

Does that mean its words do not apply to Gentile converts, nor has any meaning or significance for them? You do understand the title of the epistle, "Hebrews" is NOT the title the author provided, yes? Early Christian scribes assumed the book was written to Jews because of its heavy emphasis on scriptural history that was conflated as Jewish history. That assumption is faulty. One reason is the fact there were no Jews until after the Hebrews conquered and divided the promised land.

Three/four groups of Jews to be precise.

While Hebrews may (or may not) have been intended (strictly) for Jews, there's not a single word in the entire book that's not relevant to Gentile converts (then or now).

He isn't sitting in the throne, which is the position of the one who rules.

Whoa! Scripture says otherwise.

The Father is.

False dichotomy.

The Father has yet to make everything subordinate to Jesus, so the Kingdom has not yet begun. It actually speaks to Jesus place as High Priest.

While it is true God has not yet subjugated all Christ's enemies in the temporal sense, God being God axiomatically makes everything in creation subject to Christ.

• Are you Trinitarian?
• Do you think there is a distinction between sitting at God's right hand as God's right hand is different than sitting enthroned as King?

If the answer to the first question is yes (and a perusal of your posting history indicates you'd answer in the affirmative) and the second question is no (and a perusal of your posting history suggests you'd answer that negatively), then a substantive inconsistency within your own viewpoint exists. If either answer is different, then the viewpoint(s) asserted is heretical. Don't think the book of Hebrews was written (solely) to Jews because post-scriptural copiers of the text assigned a title to it based on a faulty assumption.

Hebrews is not intended for Gentiles. The book of Hebrews was written to Jews.

According to the text of Hebrews the inference of verse 2 is that the epistle was written to "us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." That "us" is not limited to Jews. There is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, and all who are in Christ are heirs to the promises made by God - whether Jew or Gentile.

You have seen to have forgotten.

Yeah.... No.

The text of Hebrews states what it states, and it does NOT state the letter was written to Jews. It's not a matter of something "forgotten," but one due to either a lack of exegesis or of prior bad teaching.

 

[TMSO]

Jesus isn't just king of Israel. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords. It was Israel that was mistaken and you who are carrying on their same mistake.

NOTE: When reading this, understand that I am speaking within the boundaries of the creation. I am not speaking of after the end of time. I am not talking about the eternal age that comes after this world ends. It is all within the bounds of Old Testament prophecy and what we have in the New Testament. I believe that when we enter the eternal age, we are all one, and distinctions of any sort are done away with. That can still be wrong, but that is what I believe.

The below comes from my most recent foray back into looking for God. This comes from reading a book that is solely about the Jewish view of Jesus and the gospels, written by a Messianic Jew. It will be a little long, but I hope some of it catches your interest. I found it mind blowing just how much the Jews actually understood. The only place where they got lost was in the parables. (For blatantly apparent reasons.) For instance, the reason why Nicodemus asked Jesus about being born again and said that he is old and what is he to do, crawl back into the womb, is because, in Judaism, he had already been born again four times. [Stages in life and achievement were said to be being born again. Mostly a Jewish concept I believe. If I gave a for instance, when a teacher becomes a professor, the top of the education world, one could say they have been born again into it. For Nicodemus, that was the concept for when he went from being simply a rabbi, to being the head of a school. His final "born again" experience. Jesus then explained it was a spiritual rebirth, not physical. It was beyond what Nicodemus had been through already. This whole discussion is probably what set Nicodemus on the path of salvation.

Jesus is only the Messiah of Israel, and King of Israel. He will rule over the whole world, but it is from/for Israel. Consider the Syro-Canaanite woman, the Gentile. A story that came up often for me. It seemed to say that Jesus wasn't here for Gentiles. However, a quick note... Jesus apparently specifically went to the Gentiles on four different occassions. Galilee was not solely Jewish/Israel territory. Parts of the Sea of Galilee were in Gentile lands, and He went to those Gentile cities. Jesus had no problems with Gentiles. However, the Syro-Canaanite woman approached Jesus as Messiah. Jesus response? He ignored her. Why? He was not Messiah to the Gentiles. He was making a point. When she cried out again, she dropped that pretense and came in faith. He responded to that. He also tested her understanding. (It also may have been something meant for the Jews/Gentiles watching.) He said that He was sent solely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That was His messianic role. His role as king. He then further pressed with his next statement. For terminology sake, when Jesus compares Gentiles to dogs... He isn't comparing Gentiles to dogs. His story has two groups... basically. A family/children, and their puppies... family pets. The Jews are the family/children, and the Gentiles are the family pets. The food on the children's table is not for the family pets. Jesus statement on His mission as Messiah. However, the woman understood exactly what Jesus was saying, and basically said, while that is true, the family pets eat the crumbs that fall from the table. Her answer was in full understanding, and she had full faith that Jesus not only recognized, but spoke to directly. She understood exactly where Jesus stood, and Jesus answered that faith by healing her daughter.

An interesting point made. If you recall, when Jesus named Peter as Peter, he said that he was giving Peter the keys to open doors that cannot be shut. A misunderstanding in the church is believing that that means Jesus gave the keys to the church. Jesus did not. The keys belonged ONLY to Peter. And the keys had to do WITH the church. On the day of Pentecost, who spoke and by whose action were the people saved and added to the church? Peter. And that door will never close. While Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, that was not possible until after... Peter went to Cornelius. It was through Peter that the Holy Spirit came to the Gentiles, an open door that will never be shut. How about the Samaritans? It was Philip and others who brought them the gospel and they responded. However, it wasn't until after Peter came that they received the Holy Spirit, with Peter opening the door that would never be closed.

The power of loosing and binding was also not given to the church, but was given to the disciples and the apostles. The church has no claim. The authority being present is made clear with Paul. Consider Ananias and Sapphira. Paul used the authority given to the apostles (he was an apostle) to pronounce a death sentence. And it happened. That is an example of what was meant by the power/authority given to the disciples/apostles. The belief that this authority belongs to the church is wrong. That does not mean the church doesn't discipline, but that the authority that God gave to Peter, and the authority God gave to the disciples/apostles, was solely for them in the establishing of the church.

There is a lot we don't understand. Understand this. Jesus is solely the Messiah of the Jews. He is their King. We partake of the blessings given to Israel because of Abraham's faith. That is the promise God made to Abraham after he was told to sacrifice Isaac. By his (Abraham's) seed (Christ) all the nations of the world will be blessed. We (Gentiles) have no covenant with God. We are blessed by the promises God made to Abraham. We are made partakers by faith.

This belief seems to stand in the middle, between those who believe that all Gentiles are going to hell, and the belief that Jews have no part in Christ. If you read Ephesians (I know you have), Jesus put to death this emnity that stands between the Gentiles and the Jews, put it to death in His body. So, I kindly request that you reconsider your position on Jews and Israel in God's plan. You see, AD 70 was not a part of the end times. It was a judgment brought upon Israel for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. What Jesus meant when He said that this sin would not be forgiven, is that God's judgment would not be swayed. It would happen, and even if the whole nation repented and accepted Jesus as Messiah, AD 70 would still happen. This is not the first time that Israel faced such judgment. Consider Mannasseh. He dragged Israel into the worst sin ever, and God... had enough. He proclaimed His judgment, and it remained in place even after Mannaseh repented and became a believer, and after Josiah basically removed everything Mannaseh did from Israel. The only thing God did was show mercy to Josiah in having the judgment take place after Josiah's lifetime.

There is a lot we can learn if we consider what seems to be the Jewish program that is global in impact through Jewish lenses. It is VERY enlightening. The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was saying when He said He was the Son of God. Why? In Jewish society, the first born son is equal to the dad/father. So Jesus was proclaiming Himself to be equal with the Father, that is, to be God.

 

[TMSO]

Your claim collapses under its own non-Trinitarian assumption. Scripture teaches one throne shared by the Father and the Son (Rev22:1). The Father reigns through the Son, not instead of it. Christ's kingdom is real now but not yet consummated.

So, basically throw out Hebrews because of your belief and use Revelation 22:1 as support? Your statement sounds like modalism, or some sort of non-trinitarianism. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all distinct identities of the God head. Co-existing, co-eternal, and they are not the same by title. When it comes to substance, it is the Father and the Son who are said to be of the same substance. And, using the Jewish understanding as Jesus spoke to the Jews about this this, the first born son is considered the same, and equal, as their father. In this way, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed equality with God on that basis of Jewish understanding. The Jews understood EXACTLY what Jesus was saying, which is why they accused Him of blasphemy. Jesus picked His words precisely for this reason.

Having responded to the whole quote, I will now break it down into its parts and show where there are invalid arguments and contradictions within itself.

That is a false premise of what a kingdom must look like. Scripture consistently presents Gods kingship coexisting with ongoing rebellion. He has always been King as creator over his creation. (Ps 110:1). The Messiah reigns while enemies still exist. (1 Cor 15:25-26) “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”
A kingdom does not have to look perfect in order to be a true kingdom.

This shows a misunderstanding on your part of what I am saying. God is the Creator of the universe and as such is always above it. King, ruler, Creator, all say the same thing. God is sovereign and above it all. However, in scripture, by prophecy, when it speaks of the coming messianic Kingdom, it is dealing with EARTH, which is the domain of Satan, God having allowed Satan to rule over the system of the world. Paul had a bit to say on this subject. So any Kingdom that is spoken of, must take into account that the Old Testament speaks of a specific form. A messianic Jew I read says that the kingdom is presented in five forms over history. For instance, the parable of the mustard seed speaks to Christendom, which is the unversality of, I don't know, the message. This kingdom is made up of saved and unsaved who profess belief in God. The birds are said to be satanic agents, and christendom is divided in three parts. The orthodox (Eastern was specifically mentioned, but that may include Russian and Greek), the Catholic Church, and Protestants.

You present a contadiction when you say this in the very same paragraph.

You: the kingdom reflects it's king, there for Jesus is not King. The Father is King.

You should ask what I mean, because, somehow you missed it. Earth at this time, over which even Daniel said the kingdom would be over, and not invisible, is the place for the promised messianic king in the Old Testament. You make it invisible, but the prophecies still say it is over the Earth from Jerusalem. When you look at Earth, and you consider the aspects of a kingdom here, with a kingdom, it reflects the ruler. Well, this world appears to be a reflection of Satan in aspect, not Christ. As such, I am saying the Kingdom has not come yet. When it does come, it will, as even the Old Testament shows in prophecy, reflect the nature of Christ. The Father is king over all creation as the Creator. The Father gave dominion over creation (aspects/whole, read Genesis and see as I'm not sure all it entaiiled) to Adam. When Adam sinned, Satan took that dominion, and God let him have it until a time when Satan would finally be defeated. Hence Satan is the prince of the power of the air for Earth. Jesus undoing all of that with His kingdom, is the stone not made by hands that destroys the statue which represented the four great empires/governments of the Gentiles. The last of which is said to devour the whole Earth. And what Daniel saw of this in his visions, he says it is horrible. Imperialism, which did devour the whole Earth, was not very civilized about it.

Assumes that then everything in his realm must reflect him. Christ's sovereign reign is objective and real however the realm of fallen creation remains in rebellion. You confuse "rule" with "realm". Jesus himsle;f affirms tis in the parable of the weeds in Matt 13. Sin is inside the kingdom now and it will be removed later.

It is just understood that if you go to a kingdom, and it is poor, one can point the finger at the king. Either he knows nothing about economics, or he is incapable of controlling his people. (For instance, in case it is corruption that has them poor.) If a kingdom is rich, that is a reflection of the capabilities of the king. A big reason that a kingdom is evil is because... the king allowed it, or is at the head of it. If it is the kingdom of the king, and not a domain given to someone, it is because the king is the head of it. If it is a domain, it falls on the leadership there and the king allowed it. These things are very cut and dry. The modern mind likes to put a spin on things, but the ideas of government, monarchies and kingdoms are not modern concepts. Consider all the things the Jewish religious leaders changed over time.

This is biblically false. In ancient Near Eastern and biblical theology

• Sitting at the right hand is a royal enthronement formula
• Psalm 110:1 is the most-cited OT verse in the NT and is explicitly messianic and royal
• Daniel 7:13–14 (ESV)

Psalm 110:1. True. He must be king because He is taking all action right? Then why is it the Father who is taking action, and that Jesus is sitting not in the throne, but at the right hand UNTIL something happens?
"The Lord says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”"

“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 And to Him was given dominion,
Honor, and [a]a kingdom,
So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed."

You have here an explicit definition of the kingdom He was given dominion over, and given honor. A kingdom so that everyone on Earth might serve Him. Please point out how everyone on Earth today is serving Him. If all parts do not fit, don't change anything. It is kind of like walking through a shop and they tell you, don't touch anything.

Jesus applies this directly to himself (Matt 26:64).Peter explicitly says Christ is enthroned on David's throne now (Acts 2:30-36).

Again, only sitting on the right of the king. It is recognized as a seat of power. The reason I stress this is because there is a very specific prophecy in the Old Testament that speaks to this. To change things as you do, throws out that prophecy, a direct statment by God.

Again, this confuses reign and realm. It presumes that everything in a kingdom must reflect the king when it never did so even with the earthly kings in Israel or anywhere else.

One should already know that this is false. I will some examples, though there are plenty. King Herod (since Christmas is near.) When the wise men came to King Herod and asked about the one born king of the Jews, Herod was distured... and all Jerusalem with him. King Manasseh. God considered all Mannaseh did against Israel, not just Manasseh. What Mannseh did even God Himself reflected upon Israel. What King Josiah did reflected upon Israel, however, judgment which God refused to rescind was on the way. Why? King Manasseh. It did not matter that King Mannaseh repented and became a believer. A kingdom reflects the ruler. A wise ruler will have a kingdom that matches. See King Solomon. Things went downhill once Solomon drifted from God and Israel followed. Why? They follow the king.

The Bible consistently depicts God/Christ's kingship coexisting with ongoing rebellion. It is that rebellion that Jesus is dealing with from heaven (see the book of Revelation).

Satan has limited authority (John 12:31). Christ has supreme authority Matt 28:18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”

Don't drop the context. Jesus used this statement and then made the disciples His ambassadors to the world.

Satan rules as a usurper not as rightful king. Col 1:13
“He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son.”

And right there it says NOTHING about Satan being a usurper and not a rightful sovereign. Satan is not king, or even a king. He has a dominion, which is what Paul calls "the world" and the systems of the world. It is Satan's domain that God has given Satan right to... for a time. You really should consider looking at creation and thinking sovereignty, sovereignties, dominions, etc. Satan usurped his dominion from Adam. The scroll of seven seals marks the beginning of Jesus taking it back.

The two kingdoms exist simultaneously, but only one is legit.

Both are legit because, at this time, they do not overlap. God does have supreme authority, however, he has given Satan a time through which Satan has dominion. While Jesus shook things up, He never attacked Satan. He even allowed Himself to be tempted by Satan. To better understand the "arrangement" God made with His plan that existed before He ever said "let there be light", see at the beginning of Job that while Satan has dominion, He still has to ask the King for permission for some things. (I say some things because he may/does have rights that don't require permission. I mean demons were possessing a lot of people, and I'm sure Jesus wasn't neceessarily pleased...)

 

[TMSO]

Do you think maybe by that time he was a bit exasperated with them. He spent all those years with them, teaching them about the kingdom, then spent forty days likely revealing those things we find in the epistles since they for sure would not understand it prior to his resurrection. And here they were---still not getting it.

If He was, it would be because He had spoken to them on eschatology, and believed it was clear that it would be in the future. Hence His answer. However, He didn't say it would never happen. Instead, He said the Father has planned it, but it isn't for them to know when. So eventually, Jesus would answer yes, He is now returning the kingdom to Israel. I highly recommend you look at the New Testament in a Jewish light. Since it was written to the Jews, it was written in a way they would not have trouble understanding. I have been reading a book, and soon others, written by a Messianic Jew, and it is quite enlightening. I grew up and what I remember from what I was taught is that the Jews were clueless as to what was happening. They absolutely were not. They knew exactly what was happening. The only thing they could not understand is when Jesus switched to parables. They understood His actions, they were watching Him. The religious leaders were investigating Him from just before He healed the paralytic man dropped through the ceiling. Why? He checked all the right boxes to be the Messiah, so they had to investigate. Two tier investigation. First tier, observe. They didn't speak to Jesus when He healed the paralytic man, because the first step is just to watch and observe. No questions. No conversations. They would then consider whether this was a strong case, or a weak one. If they decide there is something there, then the next phase, they ask questions, they converse.

However, Jesus did everything He could to upset them at every turn. To frustrate them. They had their oral Mishna Laws, and Jesus did His best to violate those whenever He could. (I almost laughed at just how specific Jesus was. He didn't do things that could be seen as violating the Mishna. He picked specifically stated laws, and blatantly violated them. The Pharisees couldn't do anything to Jesus because Jesus never once broke Mosaic Law, but He left their oral traditions, their Mishna Laws in shambles.

The sin of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was a national sin, not individual. Jesus had just performed a miracle that was known to be a miracle that can only, and would only be performed by the Messiah. Well known. He cast out a mute/dumb spirit. There was not an exorcist on Earth in Judaism, who cast out many demons, but not one could cast out a mute/dumb demon. Never happened... until Jesus did it. Why couldn't they? The performance of exorcism by Jewish leadership required the exorcist to ask the demon for its name. Once they had the name, they could cast out the demon. However, it is impossible to get the name of a demon from a mute/dumb spirit. It doesn't talk. Jesus didn't need that. He just commanded them to leave. He used His authority as the Son of God. (For those unitarians who don't understand. In Jewish society, the first born son is considered EQUAL to the father/dad. The same. So Jesus really was declaring equality with God when He called Himself Son of God. (Obviously, trinitarians already know this.)

 

[TMSO]

Only according to your definition of spiritualizing, whatever that is,, would be great if you would give a definition, since I told you exactly the basis on which the symbolic images are interpreted. The source is always the Bible's use of them within itself. Patterns are observed, culturural aspects are considered etc. That is the opposite of arbitrary. Maybe you need to give your definition of arbitrary also.

If cultural aspects were considered, you wouldn't be an amillennialist. Well, I'll know why because I am waiting on a book that deals with the Jewish cultural aspects of prophecy and all. Spiritualizing is when you take a prophecy that specifically states one thing (literally), but then say it means something else that isn't even related to what the prophecy says literally. And there are multiple takes. There isn't multiple takes on the literal understanding, as there can't be. It's either literal... or it is not literal. When it is not literal, it can be because of this, except that isn't actually what that means, but it means this... etc. Changes with the wind based on what one believes, not based on what was actually said.

Spiritualizing in that aspect is not saying that the symbols are not depicting literal events or truths. It is saying the symbols are expressing something that is invisible to us and are being represented through things we can understand. If you read Revelation more carefully you will find the judgments are repeating the same events from different perspective, all ending in the appearance of Christ and the judgement.

My question has always been that ALL prophecy which has been fulfilled has NEVER needed to be understood as expressing something that is invisible to us. Just because you don't understand something, does not mean that the Jews didn't understand (for instance). If you consider Revelation with Zechariah, you would see that there is a millennial Kingdom that comes with Jesus being recognized as the one they had pierced in Zechariah. What comes after that in Zechariah? God reconciling with and redeeming all of Israel. What follows that is Revelation 20, the Millennial Kingdom. It fits in perfectly without changing anything, and without talking about some invisible kingdom that is never spoken of in scripture, without spiritualizing prophecy. If everything fits together perfectly as literally written, WHY would there by a need to spiritualize? The aspects are not invisible. That is why the premier belief of the first century was premillennialism, with a kingdom in Israel. They understood it. John the apostle, his disciples Polycarp and Ignatius, Polycarps disciples/students Papias and Irenaeus, etc. There is a church father who said that that was the ORTHODOX belief of the day.

For instance, one church father found it ironic that Rome stood between them and Jesus second coming, but the apostles were telling them to pray for the leadership. That would prolong it. (This is probably due to Daniel's prophecy of the statue, where Jesus Kingdom, the stone that was not made by human hands, destroys all the Gentiles accomplished throughout history, hitting the part of the statue considered to be Rome, and destroying the whole statue.