The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[Mr GLee]

But He chose only One nation in which to place His name. Israel. And, knowing all, and knowing how they would act, He still did it. Why? The promises made to the forefathers/forebearers. The church is made up of Jews and Gentiles, but the foundation of the church is Israel.

Yes all israel is not born again Israel. Just like all Christians that say are but are not .

It can be seen in the name change twice. From Israel to Christian Previously as Jacob the deceiver one who grasps the heel of the first born. he had no power to become the first born . . . the things of men

Israel previously Jacob dead in his trespass and sin as Israel the bride of Christ he as given power with God and man . His names was changer again in isaiah 62 a new name promised to represent all the kingdoms of he world The father named Christin in Acts to fulfil his promises from Isiah 62 .He used the flesh of dying mankind but never attributed any power from it

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The first non Jewish member of the bride of Christ is Abel the prophet sent as a apostle . Abel was murdered by his unbelieving brother working with the father of lies, a murderer from that beginning.the first listed martyr

 

[TMSO]

Yes all israel is not born again Israel. Just like all Christians that say are but are not .

It can be seen in the name change twice. From Israel to Christian Previously as Jacob the deceiver one who grasps the heel of the first born. he had no power to become the first born . . . the things of men

Israel previously Jacob dead in his trespass and sin as Israel the bride of Christ he as given power with God and man . His names was changer again in isaiah 62 a new name promised to represent all the kingdoms of he world The father named Christin in Acts to fulfil his promises from Isiah 62 .He used the flesh of dying mankind but never attributed any power from it

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

The first non Jewish member of the bride of Christ is Abel the prophet sent as a apostle . Abel was murdered by his unbelieving brother working with the father of lies, a murderer from that beginning.the first listed martyr

Israel is Israel. There are some of Israel who are not of Israel. However, Israel is still the chosen people of God. (It should be understood that those who are of Israel fall under that to the fullest meaning. All the others are still under the umbrella, and would be affected by the blessing and the cursings simply for being part of Israel.)

Except... if you look it up in Hebrew, the word used is not murder. Which means, Cain never had the intention of killing his brother. So not a martyr. Not a prophet. not an apostle.

 

[TMSO]

What does that have to do with the 1000-year millennium? According to Jude Satan was bound long before the book of Revelation was written.

You have to provide reference. You saying it doesn't make it so. Should we put bets on whether I will find that explicitly stated in Jude, and not your inferences again?

The book of Revelation explicitly states some of its events had already happened. Given the fact the Bible elsewhere states Satan was already bound, why do you read chapter 20's binding to be a future event?

You want to know the event that had already happened. I can get you an explicit one. John had not written down what he had seen when it happened, so it was something that had happened. And then the person he was speaking to, took the time to explain what John saw (past tense). I know, a cop out for you, but you did say that I need to be explicit.

"17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I [n]was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. 19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, [o]and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

So John is to write EVERYTHING. Even those things he had already seen in the vision, but had not written down. (It's EXPLICIT.) He even speaks of the present as "things that are", which further shapes the explicit understanding that the things John has seen are those things that had already occurred in his vision. Since John was told to write things which he had seen, and this person knows John didn't understand what he had seen, this person explains it to John so John can write it down.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

John had already seen the binding of Satan.

No, John didn't see that until Revelation 20, and John himself had this to say about Revelation: "3 Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and [b]keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near." In other words, the things John has seen does not extend past the beginning of the vision. John had not already seen the binding of Satan, because, again, it is explicitly (as explicit as can be) mentioned in REVELATION 20, as... prophecy. As "the time is near." In other words, not the past.

Mark 3:27
But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

Why do you think the 1000 year "millennium" is in our future?

Well, Satan hasn't shown up as the AntiChrist, stood in a restored temple to declare himself God of the universe, and to call all worship to himself on penalty of death, has he? That occurs BEFORE the millennial kingdom. So, if it hasn't happened yet, then, obviously, that and the millennial kingdom are in the future.

Wait. People die in the resurrection? I thought the resurrection was when people are brought to life, not death. They are raised from the dead. Is that a typo?

Don't take this the wrong way, but this shows that your reading comprehension leaves a bit to desire. Perhaps I missed a comman, however, you are being disengenuous even so, because you know what I believe.

"Life will be restored to those saints who have died in the resurrection on the last day and they with those saints which are alive shall be taken up with the Lord."

Life will be restored to those saints who have died. What is life being restored to anyone who has died known as? RESURRECTION. However, the resurrection is an EVENT, so their life is restored in the resurrection on the last day. Why do you keep affirming my beliefs of you? It's not like I believe it, but sometimes I come away from these comments feeling that you really don't care to give God the due diligence in discussion/argument. That you really do feel that everyone is beneath you.

 

[Josheb]

You have to provide reference.

No I don't. This is your op. YOU have to provide references, not me. I already provided the references for my posts. Stop copping out. Stop trying to shift the onus.

You saying it doesn't make it so.

I completely agree. You saying stuff does not make it so.

Should we put bets on whether I will find that explicitly stated in Jude, and not your inferences again?

No, you should answer my question and not dodge it.

What does the opening of the opening post have to do with the 1000-year millennium? Just answer the question asked, please.

You want to know..

I want to know what the opening of the opening post has to do with the 1000-year millennium. Just answer that question and try doing so without ever mentioning me.

You want to know the event that had already happened.

No, I do not. I know Satan had already been bound because scripture elsewhere explicitly states that fact. I know much contained in the book of Revelation was not future because the text of Revelation itself explicitly states much of it had already happened or was happening at the time it was written. I do not need outside of scripture to tell me that and, if anything, any post that is contradictory to what is plainly, explicitly stated in scripture then it is the post that is wrong, not scripture.

I can get you an explicit one. John had not written down what he had seen when it happened, so it was something that had happened.

Yes, it was something that had happened. It was something that had happened and NOT something that would happen in his future.

No, John didn't see that until Revelation 20, and John himself had this to say about Revelation: "3 Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near." In other words, the things John has seen does not extend past the beginning of the vision. John had not already seen the binding of Satan, because, again, it is explicitly (as explicit as can be) mentioned in REVELATION 20, as... prophecy. As "the time is near." In other words, not the past.

No, that is hogwash. Verse 3 cannot and should not be read to contradict verse 19. Furthermore, verse 3 explicitly states the revelation of Revelation is about events that were "near." The time was near, not 20 or more centuries in the future. Furthermore, While John did not get around to writing about Satan bound in his vision until chapter 20, Jude makes it explicitly plain Satan had already been bound (long before the event appeared in John's vision). It was something John had seen. He and he alone was there at Calvary when Christ defeated sin and Satan. All the other apostles had abandoned Jesus. Only John was there. He'd seen it. He was there when Jesus told the disciples the strong man had to first be bound. He was there when Jesus reported Jesus' own witness to the casting down of Satan (Jesus' words were said in direct response to the disciples' amazement the demons fleed from them). John had seen it and heard it.

Well, Satan hasn't shown up as the AntiChrist

Changing texts. That has nothing to do with the text of Revelation 20. Please stay on topic.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this shows that your reading comprehension leaves a bit to desire. Perhaps I missed a comman, however, you are being disengenuous even so, because you know what I believe.

If you cannot discuss this op without attacking others, then it is your cognitive faculties that questionable. Just keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. If you cannot discuss this op without directly and immediately answering valid and op-relevant questions asked about your posts, then it is your cognitive faculties that questionable. Just answer the questions asked and do not ignore them obfuscate or dodge them. If you cannot discuss this op without become unnecessarily defensive and lashing out at others, then do not post in discussion board. Just discuss the op, speak for yourself about your own views, and do it without ever mentioning any other poster.

Don't take this the wrong way, but....

It is a simple question. Do you actually mean to say the resurrection is death, or was that a typographical error? If the former, then explain it and prove it. If the latter, then just say so and correct of clarify the typo so others do not misread what was mis-stated. I was trying to help you and you think evil of me. That is not okay.

"Life will be restored to those saints who have died in the resurrection on the last day and they with those saints which are alive shall be taken up with the Lord."

They did not die in the resurrection.

Life will be restored to those saints who have died.

Yes! That is what happens in resurrection. A person has already died, and having died they are resurrected (and resurrected is not the same as resuscitation). See, it was not difficult to correct and clarify the matter. It did not require a single snotty personal attack at all.




Now, can I get answers to the questions asked or not?

• What has the opening of the op to do with the 1000-year millennium?
• Jesus stated the strongman's house could not be plundered unless the strongman was bound. Jude explicitly states those angels who did not keep their proper abode had already been bound and the book of Revelation explicitly states the events described in the vision were near and some of them had already happened and some of them were conditions existing at the time when Revelation was written. Given the explicit statements of scripture both in and out of Revelation, how is it you think the binding of Satan is in the 21st century's future and not what scripture states?

Since the mistake with the deadly resurrection has been clarified that doesn't need to be further addressed. Just answer the questions asked, please. Try real hard to provide answers without ever mentioning me. At all.

 

[EarlyActs]

If any Jew is that way is destroyed, how will any be saved? Paul is clear God has not rejected Israel. The Old Testament and New Testament is clear that there is a remnant. When one isolates from context, a lot of damage is done. In this case, isolates from the context of scripture. Yes those who reject are destroyed, however, we even get in Romans 11 that if they come to believe, God will not destroy, but will take them back.

Wow, this is curious. You must be thinking the remnant is race-nation based. The remnant is those who have faith; there have always been some, Heb. 11. Gentiles factor into it too. By faith, Rahab the harlot. Paul always meant the remnant, always that there would be one. But "It is too small a thing for you to bring back the remnant of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations."--Isaiah.

The trouble starts when we do not distinguish between the remnant and the whole community of the race-nation.

 

[EarlyActs]

Israel is Israel. There are some of Israel who are not of Israel. However, Israel is still the chosen people of God. (It should be understood that those who are of Israel fall under that to the fullest meaning. All the others are still under the umbrella, and would be affected by the blessing and the cursings simply for being part of Israel.)

Except... if you look it up in Hebrew, the word used is not murder. Which means, Cain never had the intention of killing his brother. So not a martyr. Not a prophet. not an apostle.

The however in this quote's first line is 2 programs-speak, even if you don't acknowledge it.

 

[Josheb]

If any Jew is that way is destroyed, how will any be saved? Paul is clear God has not rejected Israel. The Old Testament and New Testament is clear that there is a remnant. When one isolates from context, a lot of damage is done. In this case, isolates from the context of scripture. Yes those who reject are destroyed, however, we even get in Romans 11 that if they come to believe, God will not destroy, but will take them back.

Hold on a minute. What the New Testament explicitly states is that "at the present time" there was a remnant. You even quoted the Romans 11 text (Post 381)! Paul said, "at the present time," NOT "in the far distant future 20 or more centuries from now. The remnant to which Paul was referring was a remnant that exist in his present time, present to the time of his writing the letter to the Romans.

Romans 11:1-6 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life." But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise, work is no more work.

"At this present time" has absolutely nothing to do with the 21st century two millennia after Paul wrote to the first century believers in Rome.


Furthermore, @EarlyActs is making a very good and valid point when he asks about race/ethnicity/national status, although I do not think he goes far enough because the Romans 11 text specifies the remnant in question is preserved by God by grace, and NOT other means. It is not by works that God preserves the remnant. It is not by bloodline, either. It's not by race, ethnicity, or geo-political nation-state status. It's not even by the promises He made! It is by grace. Romans 11 is about a remnant in the first century and a remnant set aside by grace.

So you will need to appeal to some other text beside Romans 11 if you are going to say there is a remnant of Jews preserved by God today, here and now in the 21st century.

This is important for another reason, and I'd like you to give this a sincere read and not be dismissive because it is very important. The modern futurisms like Dispensationalism, that teach a two-people, two-purposes, two-goals distinction that holds there is a separation between Israel and the Church have corrupted Christianity's doctrine of salvation. In Dispensationalism grace is said to be by grace through faith just as Ephesians 2 and most of Christendom believes BUT in Dispensationalism there is ALSO the belief the Jews in Israel will be brought to faith in Christ in the end after leading up to, during, and/or after the millennium in which Jesus physically reigns from Jerusalem for a fixed, finite, and literal 1000 years. In the process those Jews will rebuild the temple. They will reconstitute the Levitical priesthood and reinstitute the Mosaic Law and animal sacrifices. They will get all their land back.

If any of this are things you believe I want you to think very seriously about this because temple-building, Levitical priesthoods, Mosaic Law, animal sacrifices, and geographic boundaries are all works. That means modern futurism does not only have two-peoples, two purposes, and two goals. It also has two different means of salvation. One is purely by grace through faith and the other is grace plus works through faith. In fact, to be precise and accurate it is by grace and by works to bring them to faith.

Modern futurism does not just redefine ecclesiology it also redefines soteriology.


However, the one single specific point being noted is that Romans 11's remnant is a remnant of the first century, not one of the 21st century. Another text of scripture will have to be found to justify a 21st century remnant of Jews.

 

[TMSO]

No I don't. This is your op. YOU have to provide references, not me. I already provided the references for my posts. Stop copping out. Stop trying to shift the onus.

You have to provide references. I do provide references. In fact, I occassionally include the whole context, and not just the one verse reference.

I completely agree. You saying stuff does not make it so.

Look in the mirror when you say that. It is the same on both sides. You are saying stuff that I can tell you doesn't make it so. I don't, because this is supposed to be a discussion. I will point out obvious problems, but that is for sake of correcting error. This is supposed to be iron on iron, so please stop swinging for my head.

No, you should answer my question and not dodge it.

I read Jude again. Satan isn't mentioned even once.

What does the opening of the opening post have to do with the 1000-year millennium? Just answer the question asked, please.

I want to know what the opening of the opening post has to do with the 1000-year millennium. Just answer that question and try doing so without ever mentioning me.

No, I do not. I know Satan had already been bound because scripture elsewhere explicitly states that fact.

Again, if Satan's name is not mentioned, then it is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere that Satan has already been bound. His name has to be mentioned.

I know much contained in the book of Revelation was not future because the text of Revelation itself explicitly states much of it had already happened or was happening at the time it was written.

Except it has not stated that much of it had already happened, so it is not explicit. You do know that explicit means you will find it stated word for word, right? Explicitly stated. If I say that this paper explicitly states that Joe went to the store, and you take the sheet, read it and it says that Joan went to the train station, obviously I lied. You say that Jude says specifically and explicitly (synonymous) that Satan is already bound. What do I find?
"6 And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, these He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after [g]strange flesh, are exhibited as an [h]example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (You mention this below.)
What do I not see here? Satan. What do I see here? Angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper dwelling place. Now, how does Jude explain that? "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these angels indulged in sexual perversion and went after strange flesh. The angels here indulged in sexual perversion. Where do we see anywhere in scripture that Satan has indulged in sexual perversion? NOWHERE. So, where do we read in scripture about angels indulging in sexual perversion to the point that God says it is the same as in Sodom and Gomorrah where men sought to commit sexual perversion with the angels who were with Lot? (I hope that is a good enough hint.)

I Peter 3"18 For Christ also [m]suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the [n]spirit; 19 in [o]which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."

II Peter 2 "4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into [a]hell and committed them to [b]pits of darkness, held for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a [c]preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example [d]of what is coming for the ungodly;"

These are not demons. These are angels who sinned and were then cast into hell and committed to pits of darkness, held for judgement. What sin?

"Now it came about, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not [b]remain with man forever, [c]because he is also flesh; [d]nevertheless his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The [e]Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of mankind, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

Sons of God here is the term for angels. So the reverse of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here the angels went into the daughters of men and had children. (Sexual perversion). With Sodom and Gomorrah, the men of the city (all of them), attempted to commit sexual perversion with the angels staying with Lot.

So again. Where in Jude does it explicitly name Satan, and explicitly state that he is bound? Can I trust you in discussion, if you won't yourself do what you say I don't do. If you won't read scripture explicitly, without giving it your own meaning? (I bring this up only because you say you don't do this. No one is perfect. However you keep doubling down on how you don't bend scripture to your belief... while bending scripture to your belief. Can you take the correction and run with it? It would make this discussion that much more productive. We could then properly discuss the op at each point. That is not possible if scripture is continuously bent.

 

[TMSO]

The however in this quote's first line is 2 programs-speak, even if you don't acknowledge it.

I don't acknowledge it because it isn't. The however is stating that there is the Nation of Israel (secular) that is God's chosen people in general. Those part of the Nation of Israel are affected by God's blessings on Israel, to include the remnant, simply by being part of the Nation of Israel. However, it is only the remnant that are saved and part of the church. It is not two programs. Why does Paul have to say that not all who are of Israel are of Israel? He is making the differentiation between Israel the nation, and Israel His elect remnant of Israel. For the nation of Israel, circumcision is the sign. For the Israel that not all who are of Israel are of Israel, circumcision of the spirit, of the heart, is the sign. And that is from Paul, not me, so if you believe that is two programs, then Paul is the father of that belief as taught to him by God Himself.

 

[TMSO]

Yes, it was something that had happened. It was something that had happened and NOT something that would happen in his future.

It is future. Revelation 20. After Jesus return to Earth in Revelation 19, reversing His ascension, where heaven opens, and Christ is seen, and then comes to Earth to destroy His enemies. (Again, they did not successfully mount a coup in heaven.)

No, that is hogwash. Verse 3 cannot and should not be read to contradict verse 19. Furthermore, verse 3 explicitly states the revelation of Revelation is about events that were "near." The time was near, not 20 or more centuries in the future. Furthermore, While John did not get around to writing about Satan bound in his vision until chapter 20, Jude makes it explicitly plain Satan had already been bound (long before the event appeared in John's vision). It was something John had seen. He and he alone was there at Calvary when Christ defeated sin and Satan. All the other apostles had abandoned Jesus. Only John was there. He'd seen it. He was there when Jesus told the disciples the strong man had to first be bound. He was there when Jesus reported Jesus' own witness to the casting down of Satan (Jesus' words were said in direct response to the disciples' amazement the demons fleed from them). John had seen it and heard it.

Let's use the explicit nature of interpretation that you claim we must not use. "3 Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and [b]keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near."
What do we not explicitly see mentioned here? Events that have happened, or events that are happening. The only things we see explicitly mentioned here are "prophecy" (as in future), and "the time is near", which means future. It has not happened yet.

"17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I [n]was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. 19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, [o]and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." (I like to include context.)

In verse 19 John is told to write the things you have seen, the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. Jesus is speaking of the vision. John is to write what he has seen already, to which Jesus takes the time to explain what John has seen. "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lamstands:" and Jesus explains what they mean. (Something God does with most prophecy. He explains the symbols, so one can understand.) You see this in the Old Testament with Joseph's dream, Joseph's interpretation of the prophetic dreams of the baker and of the taste tester, Pharaoh's prophetic dreams of the famine, Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, and other dreams Nebuchadnezzar had. It is even seen in Jesus explanation of the parables to His disciples.

He is told to write the things that are. Hence John says that Jesus is talking to Him, and what Jesus is saying at the moment. Then John is told to write the things that come after what he has seen, and the things that are. That is "the things which will take place after these things." There is no contradiction between verses 3 and 19, because, if one considers their explicit context, they are talking about completely different things. Where do we see this mentioned explicitly again?

Revelation 4 "After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.”

Changing texts. That has nothing to do with the text of Revelation 20. Please stay on topic.

If you cannot discuss this op without attacking others, then it is your cognitive faculties that questionable

Ah, a hidden attack, right after... okay I'll stop there.

. Just keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

You should do the same. In every post to me, you have not actually discussed, but only attacked and spoken in condescension. It is palpable.

If you cannot discuss this op without directly and immediately answering valid and op-relevant questions asked about your posts, then it is your cognitive faculties that questionable. Just answer the questions asked and do not ignore them obfuscate or dodge them. If you cannot discuss this op without become unnecessarily defensive and lashing out at others, then do not post in discussion board. Just discuss the op, speak for yourself about your own views, and do it without ever mentioning any other poster.

It is a simple question. Do you actually mean to say the resurrection is death, or was that a typographical error? If the former, then explain it and prove it. If the latter, then just say so and correct of clarify the typo so others do not misread what was mis-stated. I was trying to help you and you think evil of me. That is not okay.

You know. I have done much to give you the shadow of a doubt. As you have not done the same, as have stopped doing so.

They did not die in the resurrection.

And I didn't say that they did.

Yes! That is what happens in resurrection. A person has already died, and having died they are resurrected (and resurrected is not the same as resuscitation). See, it was not difficult to correct and clarify the matter. It did not require a single snotty personal attack at all.

Why are you talking as though I am not explaining what I actually said.

Now, can I get answers to the questions asked or not?

• What has the opening of the op to do with the 1000-year millennium?
• Jesus stated the strongman's house could not be plundered unless the strongman was bound. Jude explicitly states those angels who did not keep their proper abode had already been bound and the book of Revelation explicitly states the events described in the vision were near and some of them had already happened and some of them were conditions existing at the time when Revelation was written. Given the explicit statements of scripture both in and out of Revelation, how is it you think the binding of Satan is in the 21st century's future and not what scripture states?

Jude is speaking of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6. Revelation is not saying that events already happened. Jesus is telling John to write what he has seen (of the vision), that which are (in the vision), and that which comes after "these things". (That which has been seen and that which are.) John is being told to write down everything, unlike Daniel who was told to seal up or not write down his visions, or that which he had seen, that which is, and that which comes after. There is a stark difference between how Daniel was told to handle the end times visions he had, and how John was told how to handle his visions.

Since the mistake with the deadly resurrection has been clarified that doesn't need to be further addressed. Just answer the questions asked, please. Try real hard to provide answers without ever mentioning me. At all.

Your mistaken understanding as a veiled attack on me. Perhaps if you were to discuss this instead of saying things like "No I don't. This is your op. YOU have to provide references, not me. I already provided the references for my posts. Stop copping out. Stop trying to shift the onus." This isn't my op. This is Hobie's op.

 

[TMSO]

Wow, this is curious. You must be thinking the remnant is race-nation based.

It is. What did God tell Elijah, which is where the idea of the remnant come from. He has kept a remnant in Israel from taking the knee to Baal. The remnant is race based, in that they are Jews. The 144,000 in Revelation are... Jews. However, the CHURCH, which is not Israel, is not race based. The remnant Paul refers to is not a part of the church, but is still within the Nation of Israel. They have not yet believed. They are the ones who will be reattached because they come to believe.

The remnant is those who have faith; there have always been some, Heb. 11. Gentiles factor into it too. By faith, Rahab the harlot. Paul always meant the remnant, always that there would be one. But "It is too small a thing for you to bring back the remnant of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations."--Isaiah.

Please don't mistake the remnant of Israel with the general elect. They are a part of the elect, but are specifically addressed by God as the remnant of Israel. So they are a part of the elect of the Jews, which have not become a part of the church due to unbelief. They are the one's who go from unbelief to belief, and as such are reattached to the tree as natural branches, not as foreign branches of which Paul describes the Gentiles. There is a reason why Paul says that salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile. That is literally the order in which it took place. To the Jew first, who rejected, and so it came to the Gentiles. (And that rejection was determined by God to happen, and would happen no matter what, for God is sovereign. Have you not considered that God decided to have the gospel go to the Gentiles by the rejection of Israel? This is something God determined before the foundation of the world. It isn't soemthing He threw together over a pot of coffee. It is a grand plan.

The trouble starts when we do not distinguish between the remnant and the whole community of the race-nation.

Wait. You said that it is two programs because I distinguish between the remnant and the whole community of the race-nation.

 

[TMSO]

Hold on a minute. What the New Testament explicitly states is that "at the present time" there was a remnant. You even quoted the Romans 11 text (Post 381)! Paul said, "at the present time," NOT "in the far distant future 20 or more centuries from now. The remnant to which Paul was referring was a remnant that exist in his present time, present to the time of his writing the letter to the Romans.

Actually, that is pulling three words out of context, as I will show below your posting the reference. (Good on you. That allows a discussion to be made directly on the passage.)

Romans 11:1-6 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life." But what saith the answer of God unto him? "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise, grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise, work is no more work.

"At this present time" has absolutely nothing to do with the 21st century two millennia after Paul wrote to the first century believers in Rome.

I will use the NASB, as it is easier to understand what Paul is saying. "In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s [d]gracious choice." Why does Paul say "in the same way, there has also come to be"? In your posting it is "Even so then..." It is because Paul is speaking of the one time that God said there was a remnant, which was when He spoke to Elijah. That is the true remnant. Paul is just saying that in the same way, there was at his time a remnant. To understand what Paul means, you have to understand what the remnant is. (Obviously.) Paul defines it using "according to God's gracious choice". Why? Paul is speaking of the elect in Israel. Those God has chosen before the foundation of the world, to salvation. (More specifically, those foreordained to the adoption of children through Christ to the Father.)

So, please consider what I write here, as I considered what you wrote below. To believe that there is no elect today of the Jews (that is, the remnant of Israel), is to believe that Jews cannot be saved any longer, and that they will not be saved, for they are not elect of God. This is the consequence of what you wrote above. You also deny what Paul said about Elijah by excising it from the context, by saying only the four words "at the present time" matter. Please, read the passage as it is written, and don't bend it to your belief. You don't seem to consider the consequences this has on the rest of scripture.

Furthermore, @EarlyActs is making a very good and valid point when he asks about race/ethnicity/national status, although I do not think he goes far enough because the Romans 11 text specifies the remnant in question is preserved by God by grace, and NOT other means. It is not by works that God preserves the remnant. It is not by bloodline, either. It's not by race, ethnicity, or geo-political nation-state status. It's not even by the promises He made! It is by grace. Romans 11 is about a remnant in the first century and a remnant set aside by grace.

You lost me the moment you said it is not by bloodline, race, ethnicity, or geo-political nation-state status. Why? Because you are trying to say that God has rejected Israel, and trying to get around Paul specifically stating that God has not cast away His people. If you are confused as to who His people are, Paul says that He too is an Israelite. Right there we have confirmation that Paul is stating that Israelites are God's people. It goes back to the Old Testament, just like Paul does. "I am an Israelites, of the seed of Abraham [all the way back to the beginning in the Old Testament], of the tribe of Benjamin [again, back to the beginning.] The people of God here is used as it was in the Old Testament. You had Israel, the chosen people of God, and then you have all the other nations who served any God except for the God of Israel. (As nations.) God has not forgotten this status, and has not cast them out. This is why Paul always maintains a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, while explaining why there is no such distinction within the body of the church. In the church, all are the same. Outside the church, the Jews are the enemies of the church for the sake of the gospel. (Unbelieving Jews.) These are the Jews for whom Paul says that he longs for, and would do anything to see them saved. It is among these Jews that there is a remnant.

So you will need to appeal to some other text beside Romans 11 if you are going to say there is a remnant of Jews preserved by God today, here and now in the 21st century.

No. I refuse to believe that Jews are incapable of being saved today, and that God has rejected them, since Paul is clear here that God has not. I will ask you this question straight. Do you believe that Jews are or that Jews can be saved today? If you keep your understanding of this passage, you must answer no. The remnant is synonymous with the elect. What I don't understand is why you believe this is important for eschatology. Would you damn all Jews for the sake of your eschatology? For your argument? For your beliefs? (I continue the other part in another comment, as I give it full consideration.)

 

[TMSO]

This is important for another reason, and I'd like you to give this a sincere read and not be dismissive because it is very important. The modern futurisms like Dispensationalism, that teach a two-people, two-purposes, two-goals distinction that holds there is a separation between Israel and the Church have corrupted Christianity's doctrine of salvation.

There is a separation between Israel and the church, and even Paul is clear on that.
Ephesians 2
"11 Therefore remember that previously you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [m]excluded from [n]the people of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who previously were far away [o]have been brought near [p]by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [q]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [r]by abolishing [s]in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [t]make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; 16 and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [u]by it having put to death the hostility. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the [v]saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy [w]temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."

Here it is explicitly clear that there are two groups. In Christ, the two groups become one. Outside of Christ, there are two groups. I think that is sufficient enough to show that there are two groups made one in Christ. (Do I need to repeat it again, or are you beginning to see where I am coming from?)

In Dispensationalism grace is said to be by grace through faith just as Ephesians 2 and most of Christendom believes BUT in Dispensationalism there is ALSO the belief the Jews in Israel will be brought to faith in Christ in the end after leading up to, during, and/or after the millennium in which Jesus physically reigns from Jerusalem for a fixed, finite, and literal 1000 years.

I guess that means I can't be in dispensationalism. Jews will be saved before the millennium, full stop.
Zechariah 12:
"10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem [h]the Spirit of grace and of pleading, so that they will look at Me whom they pierced; and they will mourn for Him, like one mourning for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

This speaks to Jesus second coming, and Him personally coming to Israel/Jerusalem, and personally saving them all, as in the case of Paul. This sounds very much like regeneration that precedes salvation. The regeneration is by the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of grace and of pleading mentioned here.

In the process those Jews will rebuild the temple. They will reconstitute the Levitical priesthood and reinstitute the Mosaic Law and animal sacrifices. They will get all their land back.

I do not believe this, and I am a futurist. This will happen before the millennium, and the sacrificial system will be halted by the AntiChrist during the tribulation, as stated about the 70th week of Daniel. Pseudo Ephraim says that the AntiChrist will have Israel rebuild the temple, and then the AntiChrist will enter the temple and will proclaim himself God, and demand that all worship him alone, on point of death. (Where those who are beheaded in the tribulation come from...)

If any of this are things you believe I want you to think very seriously about this because temple-building, Levitical priesthoods, Mosaic Law, animal sacrifices, and geographic boundaries are all works.

Again, I do not believe this is part of the millennium, outside of the feasts. While the millennial kingdom is perfect, this age has not yet come to an end. It doesn't end until final judgement. Life goes on as it did before the millennium, except that since the people who populate this world will be those who repented and turned to Christ during the tribulation, and survived, sin will be notably absent in that first generation (I believe). However, they are popping out kids who don't know about Jesus the way their parents do. I also am not sure, but I believe people die during the millennium, and enter the kingdom. (Again, I am not sure as I have not done any kind of deep dive on this.) It is the descendants who will be deceived by Satan at the end of the millennium, who will attempt to destroy Jerusalem and kill all the saints. The Levitical priesthood may exist simply to preside over the temple during the final stages of this age. No sin sacrifices. However, they will observe the festivals that God commanded. (If I recall, it isn't all the festivals, just a specific one or several. I don't remember off the top of my head.) The whole world will. This is in honor and worship of God.

That means modern futurism does not only have two-peoples, two purposes, and two goals. It also has two different means of salvation. One is purely by grace through faith and the other is grace plus works through faith. In fact, to be precise and accurate it is by grace and by works to bring them to faith.

This is patently false. However, since you don't seem to understand the differences between futurism and dispensational premillennialism, your confusion is understandable. It is the same when non-calvinists attempt to tell calvinists what they believe. They speak down to calvinists and tell them that they have no idea what they believe. There is one plan, one purpose, one goal. There may be multiple roads to get to them, but they are only one. For instance, Ephesians says there are two people, but it claims, as I do, that they are made one in Christ.

Modern futurism does not just redefine ecclesiology it also redefines soteriology.

I take it that it was your purpose to damn all modern futurists to hell because they don't agree with you? You do understand that according to Paul, redefining soteriology is a damnable offense, right? What is it if someone makes such a call, and it is false witness? What should the penalty be? As I considered what you wrote seriously (and I did, as I have every time someone brings this up), please take this seriously. You have to consider the consequences in everything you write. If you knew what I edit out of my comments because I weigh and balance everything I say, I'm pretty sure you would be surprised. When I write things that affect God, or how we view God, there is fear behind my eyes. I tread carefully. I occassionally spend an hour or more on my short commnets, I'm over two hours on this one, I believe. Don't think I don't take my time in answering you, because I do care.

However, the one single specific point being noted is that Romans 11's remnant is a remnant of the first century, not one of the 21st century. Another text of scripture will have to be found to justify a 21st century remnant of Jews.

I believe I have sufficiently explained why this is false. Consider the consequences of telling God that He is not allowed to save Jews anymore, since there is no remnant in the 21st century, since He did not choose anyone in grace.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is. What did God tell Elijah, which is where the idea of the remnant come from. He has kept a remnant in Israel from taking the knee to Baal. The remnant is race based, in that they are Jews. The 144,000 in Revelation are... Jews. However, the CHURCH, which is not Israel, is not race based. The remnant Paul refers to is not a part of the church, but is still within the Nation of Israel. They have not yet believed. They are the ones who will be reattached because they come to believe.

Please don't mistake the remnant of Israel with the general elect. They are a part of the elect, but are specifically addressed by God as the remnant of Israel. So they are a part of the elect of the Jews, which have not become a part of the church due to unbelief. They are the one's who go from unbelief to belief, and as such are reattached to the tree as natural branches, not as foreign branches of which Paul describes the Gentiles. There is a reason why Paul says that salvation is first to the Jew, then the Gentile. That is literally the order in which it took place. To the Jew first, who rejected, and so it came to the Gentiles. (And that rejection was determined by God to happen, and would happen no matter what, for God is sovereign. Have you not considered that God decided to have the gospel go to the Gentiles by the rejection of Israel? This is something God determined before the foundation of the world. It isn't soemthing He threw together over a pot of coffee. It is a grand plan.

Wait. You said that it is two programs because I distinguish between the remnant and the whole community of the race-nation.

Re two programs if distinguishing
Not quite. It is 2 programs if both are “saved” or if a restored land for the race-nation is equated with the grace of justification from sins in the kingdom of God. If those sound like 2 utterly disjunct things, that is exactly the point. D’ism says two utterly disjunct things are equated and intended and they say that is the unity of the Bible!

 

[EarlyActs]

Please explain how both Paul and Judaism in Acts 26 had the same belief about the resurrection of Christ as in Chs 2-4 and 13. That belief in 2-4 and 13 was that the Davidic son king was enthroned by the resurrection, which was also proof of justification from our sins. This is also found in the opening of Romans.

 

[Mr GLee]

Israel is Israel. There are some of Israel who are not of Israel. However, Israel is still the chosen people of God. (It should be understood that those who are of Israel fall under that to the fullest meaning. All the others are still under the umbrella, and would be affected by the blessing and the cursings simply for being part of Israel.)

What is born again Israel chosen for. ? Their dying flesh which Jesus of his own Jewish flesh says it profits for nothing??.

God is not a Jewish man. That's a wile of the father of lies

 

[EarlyActs]

Another very important feature of Acts 26 is the declaration by Paul that nothing (!) beyond the suffering of Christ and preaching him among the nations was to be preached from Moses snd the prophets.

What does that do to futurists who believe there is a separate plan for Israel?

 

[TMSO]

Re two programs if distinguishing
Not quite. It is 2 programs if both are “saved” or if a restored land for the race-nation is equated with the grace of justification from sins in the kingdom of God. If those sound like 2 utterly disjunct things, that is exactly the point. D’ism says two utterly disjunct things are equated and intended and they say that is the unity of the Bible!

Were both saved in Elijah's day? Paul is very clear with equating the idea of the elect of the Jews, of the remnant, with Elijah's day. You see, I am a futurist who just happens to line up with some of what dispensational millennialism teachs. And then there is you trying to tell me what I have to believe, because it is your understanding that I run against when I say, nuh-uh. What is the unity of the Bible? God Himself. God in the beginning and through the Old Testament. God the Son, the Messiah as the suffering servant, as seen at Kadesh with Moses. Moses struck the rock and water flowed. Later, Moses struck the rock again, and God responded in wrath. Why? You don't strike the King. You talk to the King. Then we have the church being drawn out of the shadows and into the light, with the ministry of the Holy Spirit. And then we come to the end, with the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to Jesus Christ by the Father.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. "

What is the whole context as the Bible as unified in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Redemption. A story of God's adopted children throughout history. It ends with God the Son receiving His inheritance from the Father, and literally taking it. This is what is seen in Revelation. The scroll with seven seals is the Father's inheritance for the Son, the Father's will and testament. (Not last, for... reasons.)

If it is two program to you, simply because God decided He wants to save both Jews and Gentiles, then I am guilty. You can keep your one program of only Gentiles being saved, since we must undersstand that Paul shut the door on generations of Jews, since the last of the elect was saved in Paul's time. The last of the elect of Israel was "at the present time" in Paul's day, so Paul/God shut the door on the Jews forever. No more remnant. No more elect. No more salvation for the Jews. What does this say when Paul clearly states that God has not rejected the Jews?

Jeremiah 31
36 “If [a]this fixed order departs
From Me,” declares the Lord,
“Then the descendants of Israel also will cease
To be a nation before Me [b]forever.”
37 This is what the Lord says:
“If the heavens above can be measured
And the foundations of the earth searched out below,
Then I will also reject all the descendants of Israel
For everything that they have done,” declares the Lord.

Is God faithful? Since there is no remnant, and God has cast them aside, what does that say about God? Now understand, I absolutely do not believe God has cast them aside. I believe there will be elect/a remnant within Israel until the day that Christ returns and this world is destroyed. I absolutely believe that when God said that He will not reject all the descendants of Israel for everything that they have done, since no one will ever be able to measure the heavens above, or search out the foundations of the earth below, that He stands by His words, even when His followers believe otherwise.

A unifying factor of scripture, that I am surprised so many reject... God's faithfulness. And why do they reject? It doesn't fit their program/their beliefs. My rock bottom, along with the nature and attributes of God, is God's faithfulness. There is nothing more sure, nothing more solid then God's Word. If He says it, you can bank it. "In God we trust, all other cash only." There is only one plan of redemption, that has played out through various "eras", "dispensations", "covenants", whatever you want to call them. Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness, but we have Christ. Yet, there is unity, for Abraham, by faith, looked forward to the coming of God's Christ. So it wasn't some second plan. Abraham was saved by Jesus death on the cross. That death, and the resurrection, had eternal ramifications, for it was the death of the Son of the eternal God. Sinless, perfect. The high priest/the Logos, and the flesh/the sacrifice, in one body. Holy, sinless and perfect. Unblemished and acceptable unto God. For willingly suffering and dying for the will of the Father, all blessing and all honor are heaped upon the Son by the Father. (Isaiah 53)

"
But the Lord desired
To crush Him, [g]causing Him grief;
If He renders [h]Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His [i]offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the [j]good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the [k]anguish of His soul,
He will [l]see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
For He will bear their wrongdoings.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the plunder with the strong,
Because He poured out His [m]life unto death,
And was counted with wrongdoers;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the wrongdoers."

So if I have to bear you saying that I believe in two programs, just so that the chosen people of God can see God, then so be it.

 

[TMSO]

What is born again Israel chosen for. ? Their dying flesh which Jesus of his own Jewish flesh says it profits for nothing??.

God is not a Jewish man. That's a wile of the father of lies

Jesus was Jewish. Why? David was Jewish, and in order to sit in the seat of David, He must have been of David. Now, if Jesus Jewish flesh profited nothing, then there is no forgiveness of sin. We are still lost. For it was the flesh of Christ, the humanity that bore the sins of the many. It was the flesh of Christ, the humanity, whose sacrifice was sanctified by the indwelling High Priest, the Logos. It was by His striped (or can God bleed?) that we are healed. The sanctified sacrifice of God's own Son.

 

[EarlyActs]

Were both saved in Elijah's day? Paul is very clear with equating the idea of the elect of the Jews, of the remnant, with Elijah's day. You see, I am a futurist who just happens to line up with some of what dispensational millennialism teachs. And then there is you trying to tell me what I have to believe, because it is your understanding that I run against when I say, nuh-uh. What is the unity of the Bible? God Himself. God in the beginning and through the Old Testament. God the Son, the Messiah as the suffering servant, as seen at Kadesh with Moses. Moses struck the rock and water flowed. Later, Moses struck the rock again, and God responded in wrath. Why? You don't strike the King. You talk to the King. Then we have the church being drawn out of the shadows and into the light, with the ministry of the Holy Spirit. And then we come to the end, with the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to Jesus Christ by the Father.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and [a]communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. "

What is the whole context as the Bible as unified in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Redemption. A story of God's adopted children throughout history. It ends with God the Son receiving His inheritance from the Father, and literally taking it. This is what is seen in Revelation. The scroll with seven seals is the Father's inheritance for the Son, the Father's will and testament. (Not last, for... reasons.)

If it is two program to you, simply because God decided He wants to save both Jews and Gentiles, then I am guilty. You can keep your one program of only Gentiles being saved, since we must undersstand that Paul shut the door on generations of Jews, since the last of the elect was saved in Paul's time. The last of the elect of Israel was "at the present time" in Paul's day, so Paul/God shut the door on the Jews forever. No more remnant. No more elect. No more salvation for the Jews. What does this say when Paul clearly states that God has not rejected the Jews?

Jeremiah 31
36 “If [a]this fixed order departs
From Me,” declares the Lord,
“Then the descendants of Israel also will cease
To be a nation before Me [b]forever.”
37 This is what the Lord says:
“If the heavens above can be measured
And the foundations of the earth searched out below,
Then I will also reject all the descendants of Israel
For everything that they have done,” declares the Lord.

Is God faithful? Since there is no remnant, and God has cast them aside, what does that say about God? Now understand, I absolutely do not believe God has cast them aside. I believe there will be elect/a remnant within Israel until the day that Christ returns and this world is destroyed. I absolutely believe that when God said that He will not reject all the descendants of Israel for everything that they have done, since no one will ever be able to measure the heavens above, or search out the foundations of the earth below, that He stands by His words, even when His followers believe otherwise.

A unifying factor of scripture, that I am surprised so many reject... God's faithfulness. And why do they reject? It doesn't fit their program/their beliefs. My rock bottom, along with the nature and attributes of God, is God's faithfulness. There is nothing more sure, nothing more solid then God's Word. If He says it, you can bank it. "In God we trust, all other cash only." There is only one plan of redemption, that has played out through various "eras", "dispensations", "covenants", whatever you want to call them. Abraham's faith was credited as righteousness, but we have Christ. Yet, there is unity, for Abraham, by faith, looked forward to the coming of God's Christ. So it wasn't some second plan. Abraham was saved by Jesus death on the cross. That death, and the resurrection, had eternal ramifications, for it was the death of the Son of the eternal God. Sinless, perfect. The high priest/the Logos, and the flesh/the sacrifice, in one body. Holy, sinless and perfect. Unblemished and acceptable unto God. For willingly suffering and dying for the will of the Father, all blessing and all honor are heaped upon the Son by the Father. (Isaiah 53)

"
But the Lord desired
To crush Him, [g]causing Him grief;
If He renders [h]Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His [i]offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the [j]good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11 As a result of the [k]anguish of His soul,
He will [l]see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
For He will bear their wrongdoings.
12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the plunder with the strong,
Because He poured out His [m]life unto death,
And was counted with wrongdoers;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the wrongdoers."

So if I have to bear you saying that I believe in two programs, just so that the chosen people of God can see God, then so be it.

Your posts are too long. Please organize your thoughts to one thesis at a time.

I do not have one program in ehichnonly Gentiles are saved. Only believers are saved, whether Jew or not.