The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[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.

Please show a future of the race -nation of Israel that matters in either Heb 11-13, or 2 P 3

 

[TMSO]

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.

But you say that it is two programs, because two different peoples. The remnant of Israel are the elect of the Jews, who God has chosen to become believers, just as there are elect in Gentiles chosen to be believers. However, if you deny that the Jews and Gentiles did not take two different roads to where we are today, where the Jews are the chosen people of God with a special meaning in the OldTestamen, and the Gentiles were not, that is a problem. However, both roads for believers (Jews and Gentiles) feed into the church. Yes, I believe there is a remnant of the Jews who will be personally saved by Jesus in the end, who then join the rest of us as one, but that has more to do with how the whole plan of creation works out. They aren't saved any differently then us, but come in late, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

 

[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.

The illustration Paul used of Elijah’s prophets was there is a difference between the whole nation and the remnant. It has always been.

 

[TMSO]

Please show a future of the race -nation of Israel that matters in either Heb 11-13, or 2 P 3

Perhaps you should start wiht why the race-nation of Israel is important. If the race-nation of Israel ceases to exist, God loses against Satan, and Satan wins. Salvation comes out of the race-nation of Israel, as that is where the Messiah comes from. That doesn't mean everyone is saved, that is just how God chose to run the plan of salvation. He chose the race-nation of Israel to be His chosen people outside of all the nations of the world that exist today. A place to establish His name. Then we have David, from whom God planned for the Messiah to come from the seed of David. Then Jesus is born and He tells the Cushite woman that the Father has sent Him to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and thus He had nothing to do with her. Is it because this was not part of the plan of salvation? No, it was a later part of the plan that required Israel's rejection first. Consider the reason why Jesus responded the way He did. He basically shamed Israel by saying, this person, for whom I did not come [at this time], has more faith and understanding then anyone in all Israel. She understood what you seem to be missing (as a point.) She said that the dogs feed from the crumbs that come off of the master's table. The Jews are the masters, and the dogs are the Gentiles. (It is just a statement that explains how salvation will go. The Jews will reject, and the Gentiles will reap the blessings. More faith than anyone in Israel ever had, to believe that the Gentiles are not left out, even if it is technically leftovers.

Again Jesus spoke of "another flock" that was not His own, that was to be part of His flock. Sheep, but not of the house of Israel. There is one flock in the end, but at this time, it is Israel and Gentiles. (Not ALL of Israel, just the remnant. The ones that are sheep that are lost.)

 

[TMSO]

The illustration Paul used of Elijah’s prophets was there is a difference between the whole nation and the remnant. It has always been.

I don't think that was the point. It was that there is always a remnant of the house of Israel in all times. So just as there was a remnant of Israel (elect) in Elijah's time, so there was a remnant (elect) at the present time (Paul's time), but we can understand that there will always be a remnant (elect) of Israel until this world ends. It ties into Paul saying that God has not cast out Israel. Not only has He not cast them out, Paul can tell us that there is a remnant, as there was in Elijah's time, set aside by God's grace.

 

[EarlyActs]

But you say that it is two programs, because two different peoples. The remnant of Israel are the elect of the Jews, who God has chosen to become believers, just as there are elect in Gentiles chosen to be believers. However, if you deny that the Jews and Gentiles did not take two different roads to where we are today, where the Jews are the chosen people of God with a special meaning in the OldTestamen, and the Gentiles were not, that is a problem. However, both roads for believers (Jews and Gentiles) feed into the church. Yes, I believe there is a remnant of the Jews who will be personally saved by Jesus in the end, who then join the rest of us as one, but that has more to do with how the whole plan of creation works out. They aren't saved any differently then us, but come in late, after the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Of course it is 2 programs if there are distinct ways to be saved, if one has to have a holy land, if there are 2 final locations.

It is good you have the Jews and Nons joining each other but there is no reason this must wait to the end, and the few saved at the end are only a part of the whole “Israel” that is being saved.

 

[EarlyActs]

Perhaps you should start wiht why the race-nation of Israel is important. If the race-nation of Israel ceases to exist, God loses against Satan, and Satan wins. Salvation comes out of the race-nation of Israel, as that is where the Messiah comes from. That doesn't mean everyone is saved, that is just how God chose to run the plan of salvation. He chose the race-nation of Israel to be His chosen people outside of all the nations of the world that exist today. A place to establish His name. Then we have David, from whom God planned for the Messiah to come from the seed of David. Then Jesus is born and He tells the Cushite woman that the Father has sent Him to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and thus He had nothing to do with her. Is it because this was not part of the plan of salvation? No, it was a later part of the plan that required Israel's rejection first. Consider the reason why Jesus responded the way He did. He basically shamed Israel by saying, this person, for whom I did not come [at this time], has more faith and understanding then anyone in all Israel. She understood what you seem to be missing (as a point.) She said that the dogs feed from the crumbs that come off of the master's table. The Jews are the masters, and the dogs are the Gentiles. (It is just a statement that explains how salvation will go. The Jews will reject, and the Gentiles will reap the blessings. More faith than anyone in Israel ever had, to believe that the Gentiles are not left out, even if it is technically leftovers.

Again Jesus spoke of "another flock" that was not His own, that was to be part of His flock. Sheep, but not of the house of Israel. There is one flock in the end, but at this time, it is Israel and Gentiles. (Not ALL of Israel, just the remnant. The ones that are sheep that are lost.)

I do not want your theories. I want you to comment on exact texts like Heb 11-13.

 

[TMSO]

I do not want your theories. I want you to comment on exact texts like Heb 11-13.

I don't see anything to comment on.

 

[TMSO]

Of course it is 2 programs if there are distinct ways to be saved, if one has to have a holy land, if there are 2 final locations.

It is good you have the Jews and Nons joining each other but there is no reason this must wait to the end, and the few saved at the end are only a part of the whole “Israel” that is being saved.

There are not distinct ways to be saved. There is only one final location. How many times do I have to say that until you realize there is only one final destination.

There are Jews and Gentiles being saved all the time, however Paul is clear when he says that there has been a partial hardening of Israel that will not be lifted until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It is at that point that any of the elect/remnant of Israel remaining when Jesus finishes destroying the enemies of Jerusalem, will be saved. (And no, it is not a different way of being saved. It is no different then Saul's conversion was different. Paul's conversion was a showy presentation of what salvation is like.)

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't see anything to comment on.

Wow. Where is a hint of a future in Judea?

 

[EarlyActs]

There are not distinct ways to be saved. There is only one final location. How many times do I have to say that until you realize there is only one final destination.

There are Jews and Gentiles being saved all the time, however Paul is clear when he says that there has been a partial hardening of Israel that will not be lifted until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It is at that point that any of the elect/remnant of Israel remaining when Jesus finishes destroying the enemies of Jerusalem, will be saved. (And no, it is not a different way of being saved. It is no different then Saul's conversion was different. Paul's conversion was a showy presentation of what salvation is like.)

It would still not be all of the race-nation. It would be the other Israel. Nor does it have to be after, but it could be at the end.

They are already being made jealous now by seeing Gentiles saved, ch 11.

The weight is not on the end but on what is already occurring even then.

 

[Mr GLee]

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.

Was the first martyr as a prophet Abel who was sent as a apostle Jewish or Seth another born again son of God ? When did the idea of a Jews begin and what was the gospel purpose. Seeing God is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form ??

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

What was Abram, meaning the father of one nation before hIs name was changed to Abraham, meaning the father of all the nations as families of the world . Abram's father was a Amorite and mother a Hittite they became enemies of the gospel .

It takes two or that that gather under the hearing of His faith to make a nation.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

When they became unevenly yoked with another nation did they lose their salvation?

Can anyone trace the genealogy that ended with the Son of man, Jesus .If they could what would that mean? They have dying flesh and blood that could never profit?

Jesus said of his own dying flesh and blood it profit for zero.

The dying l flesh of mankind profits for nothing zero .God is not a dying man

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Peter the prophet was given words from the father to confirm dying flesh and blood has no power to rise to new spirit life . Peter did not say to whom can we go you have the flesh of eternal life

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life

 

[Mr GLee]

Wow. Where is a hint of a future in Judea?

I would suggest, It has to do with how one defines the word Judea and whether is it used as a metaphor in various parables as prophecy looking ahead to the new heavens and earth the eternal land

Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

The eternal land.

Possibly the future a inward Jew a born again of the Spirit of Christ a Christian. Previously called her Israel. God renamed her as a demonym according to location. Christian "resident of the unseen city of Christ prepared for his Christian wife" .Christian a more befitting name to name the bride of all nations

Romans 2:28-29King James Version28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; (death) whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The kind of Jew that thought a birth certificate was all that was needed. The non-Christian Jew .

Salvation is not about the dying flesh or mankind but a new born again Spirit of Christ that will never die or age . whosoever does not have the born again Spirit of Christ he is none of His.

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

 

[TMSO]

Was the first martyr as a prophet Abel who was sent as a apostle Jewish or Seth another born again son of God ? When did the idea of a Jews begin and what was the gospel purpose. Seeing God is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form ??

Abel wasn't a martyr. He was killed/murdered by Cain. He was not Jewish, as Jews are of the seed of Abraham.

Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Yes, Adam and Eve were probably crushed by the death of Abel, and Eve was overjoyed to have another son to fill in that hole left by the death of Abel.

What was Abram, meaning the father of one nation before hIs name was changed to Abraham, meaning the father of all the nations as families of the world . Abram's father was a Amorite and mother a Hittite they became enemies of the gospel .

It takes two or that that gather under the hearing of His faith to make a nation.

? Do you have a reference for that.

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Yes. It doesn't say it makes a nation. If two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, then He is there with them. He will hear them when they pray.

When they became unevenly yoked with another nation did they lose their salvation?

Can anyone trace the genealogy that ended with the Son of man, Jesus .If they could what would that mean? They have dying flesh and blood that could never profit?

Matthew did, and Luke did as well. Don't tell me you believe in the heresy that flesh is evil? Then why did the Logos take on flesh, and since He did, if flesh is evil, how can He be considered a perfect, unblemished sacrifice in the flesh?

Jesus said of his own dying flesh and blood it profit for zero.

The dying l flesh of mankind profits for nothing zero .God is not a dying man

John 6: 63 It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Context is everything:
"60 So then many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This statement is very [k]unpleasant; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, aware that His disciples were complaining about this, said to them, “Is this [l]offensive to you? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh provides no benefit; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit, and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was who would [m]betray Him. 65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”"

No one can come to the Son unless granted by the Father? The spirit of the natural man is dead. The flesh cannot come to Christ, and, as Jesus says, provides no benefit. One needs the spirit revived and regenerated in order to hear and understand the words of the spirit, and that is solely of the Father.

Peter the prophet was given words from the father to confirm dying flesh and blood has no power to rise to new spirit life . Peter did not say to whom can we go you have the flesh of eternal life

John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life

Words of eternal life. He did not confirm dying flesh and blood have no power. All Peter said is that he realizes that Jesus has the words that lead to/that are eternal life. Why in the world would we leave?

 

[Josheb]

You have to provide references.

I did. They've all been ignored. My time is being wasted.

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

Yes, but what is posted is eisegetically abused, made to say things it does not and cannot be made to say. This should have been obvious the moment you said Jesus does not descend. I do not know where you got that notion but scripture explicitly states he does descend. That is an obvious, notable, undeniable, and irrefutable place where you say one thing and scripture states another and you never correct your own post. You have done the exact same thing with me when claiming I believe Jesus is never returning. That was utter hogwash, never should have been posted, and you still haven't corrected it. You still have not acknowledged Revelation 19 and 20 never explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth. You have admitted the text in your opinion implies the physical earthly return but that just proves you will not acknowledge the facts of scripture and you read scripture with implications, ignoring what is and is not stated. You yourself argued for the "near" in Rev. 1:3 but nothing you've posted treats Revelation 19 or 20 as near to the time John wrote Revelation and you haven't once acknowledged the facts of Rev. 1:19. Over and over, again and again, claims are made about scripture, the claims are shown problematic, and nothing changes.

It's not just the content of what you post that is a problem, it is also the method.

I do provde references.....

Yes, references for implied reading, not references for literal reading. That is not okay. It's not something to boast about.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

You first.

 

[Josheb]

Israel is Israel. There are some of Israel who are not of Israel.

Those two sentences contradict one another.

However, Israel is still the chosen people of God.

But it has nothing to do with bloodline or geo-political nation-state status and the idea it does is a view invented in the 19th century by John Darby. All the rest of Christendom holds a completely different point of view. The Historic Premillennialist, the Amillennialist, the Postmillennialist, the Idealist ALL agree: bloodline Israel is irrelevant to Christian eschatology. Only the Dispensationalists say otherwise.

This is another place where you are the outlier, TMSO. Modern futurism is both normatively and statistically the outlier. It's very popular because Dispensationalists over-populate tv, radio, and "pop" theology in Christian bookstores, but it is not the historical or orthodox view of Christianity. This is another place where the matter is irreconcilable: if modern futurism is correct then every other Christians who has ever lived for the last 20 centuries is wrong. In other words, if modern futurism is correct then the Christianity from whence it sprung in the 19th century was never true and correct. It's a paradox: Dispensationalism sprung from a lie.

Either historic Christian thought, doctrine, and practice were correct for the first 18 centuries or they were not. Modern futurism claims it is Christian but repudiates or redefines some of the most historical core doctrines of the faith. They have a different Jesus, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology, and a different eschatology.


The Spirit regenerated and indwelt believer in Christ is the Israel that is Israel. It is they who are the nation of priests God prophesied, the seed with which God covenanted and to which God promised an inheritance.

 

[Josheb]

Actually, that is pulling three words out of context,...

No, it is not. This is just another example of you ignoring what is explicitly stated and NOT reading the text as written. The text states what it states and you prefer to change it and read into it implications not stated.

as I will show... So please consider....

Not interested. You twist and pervert scripture too much to be considered veracious.

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...

Not me. God.

, and trying to get around Paul specifically stating that God has not cast away His people.

His People are not bloodline Israel. They are the Israel that lives by faith.

No. I refuse to believe that Jews are incapable of being saved today...

Good! Now adjust your theology to the fact people are saved by grace through faith and not by works. Adjust your theology to the fact no Jew ever has to build a temple of stone to become the temple of God. The Jew does not have to have Israel's geographic land borders restored, an earthly monarch (apart from currently enthroned Jesus), an earthly Levitical priesthood, or animal sacrifices to find salvation in Christ.

The entire eschatology begets a very perverse soteriology and, while there are many reasons why modern futurism should be discarded, that alone is chief among them.

What John Darby and the other Dispensationalists did in the 1800s was profoundly corrupting. They instigated a theology that would pervert historical, mainstream, orthodox Christology. They have a different Jesus, a different soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and different ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), and a different eschatology (doctrine of end times) and their views are so radically different that members of their own sect disagreed and resisted. and so radically different from what has been held historically for the last 2,000 years that the two are irreconcilable.

 

[EarlyActs]

There are not distinct ways to be saved. There is only one final location. How many times do I have to say that until you realize there is only one final destination.

There are Jews and Gentiles being saved all the time, however Paul is clear when he says that there has been a partial hardening of Israel that will not be lifted until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. It is at that point that any of the elect/remnant of Israel remaining when Jesus finishes destroying the enemies of Jerusalem, will be saved. (And no, it is not a different way of being saved. It is no different then Saul's conversion was different. Paul's conversion was a showy presentation of what salvation is like.)

That's program 2: Israel as a race-nation. If you meant the Jerusalem above of Gal 4 or Heb 12, please let us know. Did you mean its enemies will be destroyed--sin, death, Satan? I hope so, but I can't tell, because 2 programs are very confusing.

 

[TMSO]

I did. They've all been ignored. My time is being wasted.

This explains why I haven't seen any, but a few?

Yes, but what is posted is eisegetically abused, made to say things it does not and cannot be made to say. This should have been obvious the moment you said Jesus does not descend.

Your misunderstanding was fixed a long time ago. I left out "to earth" because I figured that it was understood. He was in the air. Obviously He did not descend to Earth.

I do not know where you got that notion but scripture explicitly states he does descend.

Not to Earth. That isn't until Revelation 19. In Revelation 21, He is already on the ground, because He has been on Earth since the end of Revelation 19. The bride comes to Him. The city of Jerusalem descends, and Jesus is already here. Again, because He has been here since Revelation 19.

That is an obvious, notable, undeniable, and irrefutable place where you say one thing and scripture states another and you never correct your own post. You have done the exact same thing with me when claiming I believe Jesus is never returning.

You say it is Revelation 21. The very first verse makes it clear that this isn't so. So if He doesn't return in Revelation 21 (since He is arleady here), and you deny that He actually came to Earth in Revelation 19, then wouldn't that mean He doesn't come back at all, if you continue to say He didn't return in Revelation 19? (Since it clearly doesn't say He returns in Revelation 21.)

That was utter hogwash, never should have been posted, and you still haven't corrected it. You still have not acknowledged Revelation 19 and 20 never explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth.

How does He fight them on Earth then? I mean, He is either fighting on Earth, which means He is physically on Earth, or Satan has successfully pulled a coup on God and successfully invaded heaven from Earth, with a bunch of mortal humans. I mean, just saying mortal humans should make it clear that this did not happen. They are on Earth. Therefore, since they are personally slaughtered by Jesus using melee combat of a sword coming out of His mouth, He has to be on Earth. That should be clear.

You have admitted the text in your opinion implies the physical earthly return but that just proves you will not acknowledge the facts of scripture and you read scripture with implications, ignoring what is and is not stated. You yourself argued for the "near" in Rev. 1:3 but nothing you've posted treats Revelation 19 or 20 as near to the time John wrote Revelation and you haven't once acknowledged the facts of Rev. 1:19. Over and over, again and again, claims are made about scripture, the claims are shown problematic, and nothing changes.

I would go with imminent, because imminent just means it is ready to occur at any time. It could be a million years from now, but it is imminent, because it is ready to occur at any time. And it will happen quickly. That is, once it starts, it will be over quickly. It isn't going to take long for the end to come, once the signs are seen. The final judgement has obviously not happened yet. However, Jesus is clear when He says that the end (complete end in greek) will come quickly. It hasn't, because the quickly is from the time the tribulation starts to its end, seven years later. The 70th week.

It's not just the content of what you post that is a problem, it is also the method.

I know. You say that we need to read it literal and use the natural reading, and then you don't.

Yes, references for implied reading, not references for literal reading. That is not okay. It's not something to boast about.

No. You see I do not stray from the reading, though I do stray from your interpretation, and stick with what the words say. And I stick with the context. The reason why I usually don't post the single verse you give in reference, is because your interpretation of the single verse violates the context, so I post the context of the reference to show the violation.

You first.

Um...your eye... 2x4, it's...okay, whatever.

 

[TMSO]

No, it is not. This is just another example of you ignoring what is explicitly stated and NOT reading the text as written. The text states what it states and you prefer to change it and read into it implications not stated.

I thought I had fixed that. You pulled four words out of context, not three. It does not simply say at this present time. In context it says that in the same way as there was a remnant in the time of Elijah, so there is ALSO a remnant at the present time. If you read Jeremiah, you will see why Paul says this.

35 This is what the Lord says,
He who gives the sun for light by day
And the [n]fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—
36 “If [o]this fixed order departs
From Me,” declares the Lord,
“Then the descendants of Israel also will cease
To be a nation before Me [p]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.

Since God has not rejected all the descendants of Israel, as He is clear here, then there must always be a remnant. The moment that stops, then God has rejected all the descendants of Israel that remain. He has not, and will not. He has rejected part/most? of the descendants of Israel, but not all. He has not caused the descendants of Israel to cease to be a nation before Him forever. It continues on. Again, there are those who are of Israel who are not Israel, whose circumcision is solely in the flesh and they rejected the Messiah, and there are those who are of Israel, whose circumcision is of the heart. They are the true Israel. Saved by the grace of God through Christ. (Which I wasn't aware was a different soteriology. So if you don't believe that, what do you believe?

Not interested. You twist and pervert scripture too much to be considered veracious.

I love this. I took the time to consider what you said, and you just kick dust on everything. You really are a hypocrite. Do as you say, but not as you do. Very good. I should have listened to Proverbs when it says we should argue with some people.

Good! Now adjust your theology to the fact people are saved by grace through faith and not by works.

No adjustment required. That is what I have always believed. You want to know how the remnant is saved in the end?
"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.

How did you miss the word grace? Is that works? This is God's grace, and God's faithfulness, and Jesus pulling a Damascus Road encounter for the remnant of Israel that remains. Remember Saul's conversion. When did Saul break down? Once he recognized who he was talking to, he was broken. Broken by the grace of God in sending Jesus to personally bring Paul into the fold. There is no salvation by works here. God sends the Spirit of grace and pleading. (The Holy Spirit...) GRACE. Even John mentioned this prophecy in John at the crucifiction to show that the "Me whom they pierced" is Jesus. So for this Messianic passage, John draws the line straight to Jesus. That is the identity of this man.

Adjust your theology to the fact no Jew ever has to build a temple of stone to become the temple of God.

It's only stated in prophecy, so, do God's words fall flat?

The Jew does not have to have Israel's geographic land borders restored, an earthly monarch (apart from currently enthroned Jesus), an earthly Levitical priesthood, or animal sacrifices to find salvation in Christ.

The oath God made to Paul is that one of His descendants, Jesus, would sit on David's throne. Did David reign in heaven? Why would God specifically mention this oath if it doesn't mean anything?

The entire eschatology begets a very perverse soteriology and, while there are many reasons why modern futurism should be discarded, that alone is chief among them.

Since I'm not a dispensationalist, I don't remember what all the problems were. Progressive dispensationalism took care of a number of the problems. I know about that, because even though I am not a dispensationalist, I read Ryrie's book on the subject. That was some time ago. You claim there are reasons, but I have yet to see a valid reason from you. I mean, besides mishandling scripture and stating you do not. Have I done that? Yes, you can ask Carbon. I told him I screwed up when he pointed it out. Why? I didn't cover the entire context of the passage, so the bit I pulled out was not properly handled. When expanded to the full context, the error is clear. (Like with some of your passages, except you refuse to see it, because of your beliefs.) I have explained by "doesn't descend" many times, but you still abuse that, as though it means something after it has been clarified. Is that the only kind of argument you know?

What John Darby and the other Dispensationalists did in the 1800s was profoundly corrupting. They instigated a theology that would pervert historical, mainstream, orthodox Christology. They have a different Jesus, a different soteriology (doctrine of salvation), and different ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church), and a different eschatology (doctrine of end times) and their views are so radically different that members of their own sect disagreed and resisted. and so radically different from what has been held historically for the last 2,000 years that the two are irreconcilable.

So, can you explain the main tennants of dispensationalism, so I can tell you if you are correct? (I still have Ryrire's book here somewhere. I just saw it the other day.) I'll be honest, I am just saying this because I know you won't take me up on it, so I won't have to go back and read the book. I really don't want to. However, your understanding of history seems to be lacking when it comes to futurism. For instance, you say that a pretrib rapture is from Darby, when I showed that it came up in a sermon from the 4th/5th century. I didn't even mention Brother Dolcino, who taught some really weird things. He and his followers would preach the Anti-Christ for 3 1/2 years, and then they would be transferred to paradise, where Enoch and Elijah are, and will avoid the tribualtion in this way. Dolcino would then be the holy pope, and after the 3 1/2 years they would return to Earth as missionaries. Some really strange beliefs. This was the 14th century.

Pseudo Ephraim "Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? . . . For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins." (4th/5th century)

For most beliefs in the church, they have been present since perhaps the beginning, but not systematized or put together until a later time. Consider how many hated what Luther was doing. They fought him. Some protected him. The same with Calvin. I would say that your knowledge of history is lacking. (As is mine. However, I have gone looking at those who have studied the history. You, apparently, have not.)