The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[EarlyActs]

re rejection of Christ as Messiah
This is not so black and white. It must allow for Jews down through time to accept what the apostles were saying. The % of Israel that did not follow the Gospel was enough for the zealots to win the day and pursue the revolt and ruin the country by doing so, just as he said. Yet thousands believed (Acts 4) even though there was sabotage by Judaizers, Acts 15. On the % see M. Sanford THE COVENANT REVOLT, at Amazon.

 

[EarlyActs]

re the 70 weeks 'are set aside for Israel'
That should be past tense. That would be the normal reading of the succession of the weeks, which already have a break at 7. that break might merely be a literary emphatic device (way, way overdue). The events are remarkably locatible in the 1st century.

 

[EarlyActs]

Christ may two groups one in his church. It says so in the letters. I don't think there was two groups without Judaism thinking of two groups.

Corr: Christ made...

 

[TMSO]

Hi TMSO,
I think one of the really important things to know here is the trinity of Judaism, as explained by R. Prager. It is Yahweh--torah--'eretz (God, law, land). He says this is deduced from the torah.

The thing is that there are Messianic Jewish Christians and you can check their short list of doctrines, as a denomination, and 'eretz will be often be there. You must believe in the sacredness of the land just like you must believe in atonement for your sins in Christ.

There is no such thing in the NT, of course, but I mention this to clarify what 2 programs produces. D'ism is just a modern form that could only 'reconcile' the overall message of the Bible by having 2 programs. Then there is the problem sometimes of which one is to be considered as 'first' (this is actually what Jesus is getting at in Jn 3 when mentioning being born 'anothen'). To Messianics, you start with Israel. The Christian entity is a 2nd program. D'ism has adopted this.

['anothen' is more often 'from the beginning' or 'from above' or 'from the top (in the sense of reading an account). Nic needed to hear this because the prevailing belief held by Judaism was that the physical lineage was supreme. Jesus was saying the message at the beginning of Genesis was.]

But if you read the NT as is, the Christian entity is 1st, is 'anothen,' and the physical seed of Abraham, is not on that level, even though the narrative is located there. Gen 1-11 is for all nations, and provides a basis for the end of the OT transitioning to the NT: that the Servant would be gathering believers from all nations to Himself. The Pentecost miracle of actual languages heard from one speaker with one message is the 'answer' to the curse of Bab-El. That message was that the Davidic king had come and was enthroned.

You really do need to get this two programs out of your mind. I don't believe it. It isn't two programs. It is one program with two tracks, that culminate as one at the end of time. Paul treats the group as two. In the church they are one. Outside of the church, they are our enemies for the sake of the gospel. They are also God's people, in which He has a remnant. And prophecy is clear that this remnant will be saved personally by Jesus at the end of the tribulation. There is no difference in salvation. They are born again, just as we are. There is no difference. The message does not go back to Genesis, it goes back to Ephesians 1. We were foreordained to the adoption of children through Christ, and that before the foundation of the world. Salvation is first to the Jew, then the greek. (Romans 1:16.) Being the seed of Abraham meant something. However, the main premise was not understood. It was not being of the physical seed of Abraham, but the spiritual. The elect. The one's of Israel who are of Israel. The remnant. The first. Then the greek, who by God's mercy are part of the elect.

Where the hatred of the Jews comes from, I do not know. I know the historic reason that the church historically hates the Jews, but in this day and age. I just don't know.

 

[TMSO]

re the remnant in a tribulation
You are confining the meaning to what you suppose is a future event. I have already mentioned why this limit is unsatisfactory.

So, please explain to me which part of what God said is unsatisfactory to you. I mean, I am just sticking with what God has given us, which you are saying is unsatisfactory.

Why would the NT suddenly call one period located around Israel as 'the wrath of God' when the bulk of ordinary-language passages does not have this: Rom 2, 2 Pet 3, Heb 9, the several in Thess, and of course Mt 24B (after the things in Judea)? Even on the question of justice: why call one period the wrath of God when that is upon all mankind who ever lived?

You have heard of this prophecy of the 70 weeks right? The culmination of God's relationship with this people known as Israel? That happens to have fulfillment in Zechariah 12-13 to include the end of prophecy, as prophesies come to an end in both the prophecy of the 70 weeks, and the prophecy in Zechariah 12-13? Revelation is about both God's redemption of His creation, and his fulfillment of prophecies, covenants, and promises made to Israel. As Israel is THE CULMINATION of God's relations with all of mankind (God's promises to be the support of Israel, the fact that as long as no one can measure the size of the universe (we still can't), or survey the whole crust of the earth (below the surface) that God will never reject Israel (the nation); Israel is the center of Revelation, and God's dealing with not just humanity, but with Satan. God chose Israel to be His people, out of all the nations of the world. And through Israel, the world has been blessed, through the Son of God, Jesus.

Satan tried to destroy Jesus from the moment He was born (as is stated in Revelation). You have Herod killing all the children, the people ready to stone Jesus, but He walks calmly through, Satan trying to destroy His identity in the wilderness with His temptations, etc. Why? If Satan could end it, He wins. Up to Revelation, where Satan's attention is fully drawn to Israel, culminating with Armageddon, and the attempt to destroy Israel. If Satan does that, then God's promises/covenants fail. Another chance to win.

The wrath of God, of Revelation is poured out on man, however, the focus is on the antichrist, the beast, and all those who worship the beast and his image. The wrath is poured out on his kingdom. And this part is the last part of the tribulation. Once the Antichrist has come out of the closet as the one who demands worship from all mankind, and who seeks to destroy all the elect on Earth. When he makes himself out to be God, and stands in the place of God.

 

[TMSO]

The Zech reference here is exactly why the material should be read primarily about the 1st coming including the launch of the church. The apostles said so. It is not to be thought of as a 'puzzle' to figure out about the future.

You read too much into it. John did not say that Zechariah 12-13 was fulfilled this day. He identified the person in Zechariah 12-13, known to the Jewish people to be the Messiah, as Jesus. Here it is. Jesus has been pierced. He is the Messiah of Zechariah 12-13. He will save the Jews "that remain". I don't remember John saying that all of Israel took the day off so they could mourn, the families of each tribe on their own, and that these of the tribes who are mourning, are "those who are left". This is how God ends that part of the prophecy. These families of these tribes will mourn by themselves, and after mentioning them, it states that it is the "families that remain". Why? Jerusalem has been attacked, and the Messiah has come and rescued them.

" 2 “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of [b]drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. 3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. 4 In that day,” says the Lord, “I will strike every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness; I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem are my strength in the Lord of hosts, their God.’ 6 In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem."

"7 “The Lord will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. 8 In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the Lord before them. 9 It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."

After this God will open fountains of grace and supplication, and they will look upon Him whom they have pierced...

This is all part of the same prophecy. Why? This is just after Jesus shows up to destroy the armies attacking Israel/Jerusalem, from Megiddo. The armies of the antichrist. The beast, his image, his prophet, etc. Jesus saves Israel, both militarily, and spiritually, for all who remain are the remnant of Israel, saved by God's mercy, that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24.

 

[3 Resurrections]

These families of these tribes will mourn by themselves, and after mentioning them, it states that it is the "families that remain". Why? Jerusalem has been attacked, and the Messiah has come and rescued them.

These that "remained" of the Israelite tribal families were those who were left pleading on the other side of the closed "door" when Christ came in AD 70 to the Mount of Olives to resurrect and gather His saints, returning to heaven with them. These tribal families were left alive to remain in the city, mourning because they knew they had missed the resurrection and gathering of all the resurrected saints into the kingdom of heaven. Afterward, these mourning "families that remain" of Jerusalem's inhabitants were either dead of famine or pestilence or enslaved by the Romans when the city was finally taken.

All of Zechariah 12-14's predictions for "In that day" conditions were fulfilled in the first century.

 

[TMSO]

These that "remained" of the Israelite tribal families were those who were left pleading on the other side of the closed "door" when Christ came in AD 70 to the Mount of Olives to resurrect and gather His saints, returning to heaven with them. These tribal families were left alive to remain in the city, mourning because they knew they had missed the resurrection and gathering of all the resurrected saints into the kingdom of heaven. Afterward, these mourning "families that remain" of Jerusalem's inhabitants were either dead of famine or pestilence or enslaved by the Romans when the city was finally taken.

All of Zechariah 12-14's predictions for "In that day" conditions were fulfilled in the first century.

There is no record of Jesus coming in 70AD. Are you of the "He is here in the wilderness" crowd? And can you show a direct reference, historical or biblical that has the people saying they are mourning because the missed the first resurrection? And I mean direct. Exegesis, none of this eisegesis.

And for what you say about Zechariah 12-14, what you say speaks nothing of the salvation that is seen in Zechariah. And the Old Testament prophecies are rather literal, to the point that John points out that this one who was pierced is a pre Christ prophecy that speaks directly of Christ. Jesus is "the one whom they have pierced". Another one of the multiple fulfillment prophecies. Jesus will fulfill Zechariah 12-14 in the future.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is no record of Jesus coming in 70AD.

There is Jesus's own testimony that He would return before some of those He was speaking to during His earthly ministry had died. Plain speech that even a child could understand in Matthew 16:27-28. Either there are 2,000-plus-year-old people still around who haven't died yet, or Christ was lying, or He returned in that first-century generation. Take your pick. Trying to dodge this choice by saying that Christ came on the Mount of Olives is a joke that only the desperate will believe in trying to dodge Christ's obvious statement.

And can you show a direct reference, historical or biblical that has the people saying they are mourning because the missed the first resurrection? And I mean direct. Exegesis, none of this eisegesis.

Luke 13:25-30.
"When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets." (This is first-century Israelites from during Christ's earthly ministry).

"But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (This is those first-century Israelites seeing a bodily resurrection of the patriarchs and the righteous in that first century who witnessed Christ's return and were mourning because they were "thrust out" of participating in that resurrection with the fathers.)

"And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." (This is a bodily resurrection of those from all over the globe who were children of faith. And it was the second resurrection event in AD 70 - not the first resurrection, which was in AD 33 with Christ.)

"And behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last." (The first ones to be bodily resurrected, such as Lazarus, Dorcas, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, etc., who had remained on the earth in their glorified bodies - all these who had been bodily-resurrected first would not ascend to heaven with Christ until the rest of the saints were raised from their graves. These last ones resurrected would be the first to rise. Then those already made alive by a resurrection who had remained on the earth would be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air and return to heaven with Him, as Paul had described in 1 Thess. 4.)

Jesus will fulfill Zechariah 12-14 in the future.

This is not physically possible. That is because there are no intact tribes or families descended from David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei around anymore to do that mourning in Jerusalem. God got rid of the entire genealogical records of the tribes by the Zealots burning up all the archives in Jerusalem themselves during the AD 66-70 years. As Malachi 4 had predicted, they would be destroyed "both root and branch" (ancestral lineage and any records of tribal offspring in Israel). Any ethnic blood descent from the Israelite tribes was ultimately fulfilled in Christ who was the purpose for those tribes' existence.

 

[EarlyActs]

You really do need to get this two programs out of your mind. I don't believe it. It isn't two programs. It is one program with two tracks, that culminate as one at the end of time. Paul treats the group as two. In the church they are one. Outside of the church, they are our enemies for the sake of the gospel. They are also God's people, in which He has a remnant. And prophecy is clear that this remnant will be saved personally by Jesus at the end of the tribulation. There is no difference in salvation. They are born again, just as we are. There is no difference. The message does not go back to Genesis, it goes back to Ephesians 1. We were foreordained to the adoption of children through Christ, and that before the foundation of the world. Salvation is first to the Jew, then the greek. (Romans 1:16.) Being the seed of Abraham meant something. However, the main premise was not understood. It was not being of the physical seed of Abraham, but the spiritual. The elect. The one's of Israel who are of Israel. The remnant. The first. Then the greek, who by God's mercy are part of the elect.

Where the hatred of the Jews comes from, I do not know. I know the historic reason that the church historically hates the Jews, but in this day and age. I just don't know.

I’m only mentioning it bc you are exhibiting it. The main driver of millennialism is that the 2nd program, Israel, has unfinished benefits to receive.

 

[EarlyActs]

So, please explain to me which part of what God said is unsatisfactory to you. I mean, I am just sticking with what God has given us, which you are saying is unsatisfactory.

You have heard of this prophecy of the 70 weeks right? The culmination of God's relationship with this people known as Israel? That happens to have fulfillment in Zechariah 12-13 to include the end of prophecy, as prophesies come to an end in both the prophecy of the 70 weeks, and the prophecy in Zechariah 12-13? Revelation is about both God's redemption of His creation, and his fulfillment of prophecies, covenants, and promises made to Israel. As Israel is THE CULMINATION of God's relations with all of mankind (God's promises to be the support of Israel, the fact that as long as no one can measure the size of the universe (we still can't), or survey the whole crust of the earth (below the surface) that God will never reject Israel (the nation); Israel is the center of Revelation, and God's dealing with not just humanity, but with Satan. God chose Israel to be His people, out of all the nations of the world. And through Israel, the world has been blessed, through the Son of God, Jesus.

Satan tried to destroy Jesus from the moment He was born (as is stated in Revelation). You have Herod killing all the children, the people ready to stone Jesus, but He walks calmly through, Satan trying to destroy His identity in the wilderness with His temptations, etc. Why? If Satan could end it, He wins. Up to Revelation, where Satan's attention is fully drawn to Israel, culminating with Armageddon, and the attempt to destroy Israel. If Satan does that, then God's promises/covenants fail. Another chance to win.

The wrath of God, of Revelation is poured out on man, however, the focus is on the antichrist, the beast, and all those who worship the beast and his image. The wrath is poured out on his kingdom. And this part is the last part of the tribulation. Once the Antichrist has come out of the closet as the one who demands worship from all mankind, and who seeks to destroy all the elect on Earth. When he makes himself out to be God, and stands in the place of God.

The thing that is unsatisfactory is that it is our future. He was speaking directly to them about theirs, which is why it has so many similarities to Mt 10

 

[EarlyActs]

Re the 70 weeks
They came to completion in the 1st century without a break , though “the end” is extended to the generation.

It is not good to try to figure out the future when you don’t know the past completions. Things get very warped.

 

[TMSO]

I’m only mentioning it bc you are exhibiting it. The main driver of millennialism is that the 2nd program, Israel, has unfinished benefits to receive.

Paul says that Israel is the first program. Salvation is first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile. Jesus praised the Cushite for understanding this. Even the dogs feed of the crumbs that fall from the table. Is that how you want me to put it?

There is one program. Israel is the focus of the first part, the Gentiles the focus of the second, and then we come back to Israel at the conclusion. I wonder why you believe that if there are unfinished benefits from part one of the program, that the fulfillment would be a different program? Why do you push for two plans of redemption, when there is only one, but there have always been two groups of people who will be united at the end? From the beginning, Jews were to avoid the Gentiles. Holy, sanctified and set apart. This gets changed when Peter has his vision and then goes to Cornelius. Peter tells Cornelius and company that it has changed. Paul speaks of the division between church and Israel, stating that those of Israel are enemies of the church for the sake of the gospel, though still brothers/sisters in life. In the end, the remnant in Israel goes from being the enemy, to brothers and sisters in the gospel, in God's redemption. What promise did God make that is clear that God is not done with Israel. As long as no one can measure the expanse of the universe, or survey the depths of the Earth, God will not remove Israel from before Him. He will not reject Israel. God is not done with Israel. But again, Paul said that not all who are of Israel, are of Israel. So it is the remnant with whom God has unfinished business.

 

[TMSO]

These that "remained" of the Israelite tribal families were those who were left pleading on the other side of the closed "door" when Christ came in AD 70 to the Mount of Olives to resurrect and gather His saints, returning to heaven with them. These tribal families were left alive to remain in the city, mourning because they knew they had missed the resurrection and gathering of all the resurrected saints into the kingdom of heaven. Afterward, these mourning "families that remain" of Jerusalem's inhabitants were either dead of famine or pestilence or enslaved by the Romans when the city was finally taken.

All of Zechariah 12-14's predictions for "In that day" conditions were fulfilled in the first century.

That is not what happened. You are adding to what Jesus said, and adding a lot. And you don't seem to have any issue with doing that. Not an ounce of fear, that you may be corrupting what Jesus said and telling that to people.

 

[TMSO]

There is Jesus's own testimony that He would return before some of those He was speaking to during His earthly ministry had died.

I think you are the only person I have ever heard make an argument that it isn't John seeing the vision of Revelation. That has been the understanding for a VERY long time. And, according to Paul, he also saw the Kingdom.

Plain speech that even a child could understand in Matthew 16:27-28. Either there are 2,000-plus-year-old people still around who haven't died yet, or Christ was lying, or He returned in that first-century generation. Take your pick. Trying to dodge this choice by saying that Christ came on the Mount of Olives is a joke that only the desperate will believe in trying to dodge Christ's obvious statement.

Or... you are wrong, which is the correct fourth choice. Lazarus died again. These saints died again. They came back in their mortal bodies, so of course they died again. Only Jesus had a glorified body. Just like with Elisha, Paul, and others have done. They resurrected people, but they died again. Matthew 16: "24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”"

If Jesus has no idea when He is returning, how can He say this. He was clear in Matthew 24: "36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

However, John had the Revelation, where He saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. It was a vision, so John literally saw it. This has been understood for millennia.

Luke 13:25-30.
"When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets." (This is first-century Israelites from during Christ's earthly ministry).

"But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." (This is those first-century Israelites seeing a bodily resurrection of the patriarchs and the righteous in that first century who witnessed Christ's return and were mourning because they were "thrust out" of participating in that resurrection with the fathers.)


"And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." (This is a bodily resurrection of those from all over the globe who were children of faith. And it was the second resurrection event in AD 70 - not the first resurrection, which was in AD 33 with Christ.)

"And behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last." (The first ones to be bodily resurrected, such as Lazarus, Dorcas, the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, etc., who had remained on the earth in their glorified bodies - all these who had been bodily-resurrected first would not ascend to heaven with Christ until the rest of the saints were raised from their graves. These last ones resurrected would be the first to rise. Then those already made alive by a resurrection who had remained on the earth would be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air and return to heaven with Him, as Paul had described in 1 Thess. 4.)

And now, all of a sudden, you don't have a clue what a parable is. Jesus is speaking to the people. Jesus never spoke to the people without a parable, that seeing they won't see, and hearing they won't hear. Jesus answers the question of "are there so few saved?" He says, strive to enter the narrow gate. If you could show me where this literal narrow gate exists, that would be great. Or, do you understand that Jesus is speaking to the difficulty of salvation? You don't just walk up, open the gate and walk in. You must STRIVE to enter that gate. And you will fail.

He then talks about a door being closed (can you show me where this literal door is?), shut by the Master. Jesus is telling the people that it doesn't matter if they are Abraham's children, entrance to the kingdom is not a birthright. Metaphorically, death is the shutting of this door here, and the people are facing Him in final judgement. Being a parable, Jesus speaks in present terms. You are going to say, but we ate with the Master, and you taught in our streets. Depart from Me, He will say. These things do not matter. They do nothing. And they will see Abraham, their forefather, Isaac and Jacob, forefathers, and they will see all the prophets who warned them, and who charged them to follow God, who Jesus is using as a witness against them. This has nothing to do with resurrection. They are being thrust out, and they are weeping and gnashing teeth because they knew the truth, ate before Him, He taught them, and... they are thrust out. They see what they have missed.

Jesus is not speaking prophecy, but a parable. And you... missed it.

This is not physically possible. That is because there are no intact tribes or families descended from David, Nathan, Levi, and Shimei around anymore to do that mourning in Jerusalem. God got rid of the entire genealogical records of the tribes by the Zealots burning up all the archives in Jerusalem themselves during the AD 66-70 years. As Malachi 4 had predicted, they would be destroyed "both root and branch" (ancestral lineage and any records of tribal offspring in Israel). Any ethnic blood descent from the Israelite tribes was ultimately fulfilled in Christ who was the purpose for those tribes' existence.

Why? Is God as forgetful as you or me? Does God not know who is of what tribe? The two tribes of Judah are still around, it is Israel that was scattered to the winds.

 

[EarlyActs]

Paul says that Israel is the first program. Salvation is first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile. Jesus praised the Cushite for understanding this. Even the dogs feed of the crumbs that fall from the table. Is that how you want me to put it?

There is one program. Israel is the focus of the first part, the Gentiles the focus of the second, and then we come back to Israel at the conclusion. I wonder why you believe that if there are unfinished benefits from part one of the program, that the fulfillment would be a different program? Why do you push for two plans of redemption, when there is only one, but there have always been two groups of people who will be united at the end? From the beginning, Jews were to avoid the Gentiles. Holy, sanctified and set apart. This gets changed when Peter has his vision and then goes to Cornelius. Peter tells Cornelius and company that it has changed. Paul speaks of the division between church and Israel, stating that those of Israel are enemies of the church for the sake of the gospel, though still brothers/sisters in life. In the end, the remnant in Israel goes from being the enemy, to brothers and sisters in the gospel, in God's redemption. What promise did God make that is clear that God is not done with Israel. As long as no one can measure the expanse of the universe, or survey the depths of the Earth, God will not remove Israel from before Him. He will not reject Israel. God is not done with Israel. But again, Paul said that not all who are of Israel, are of Israel. So it is the remnant with whom God has unfinished business.

You fundamentally misunderstand me sir. Maybe that is your difficulty reading the Bible.

D’ism says there are two programs, not me. D’ism goes back to Israel bc it believes there is unfinished business, not me.

I don’t say we come back to Israel bc we never left it. Nor was Gen 12 “leaving” the Gentiles. The Bible starts with salvation for all men if they believe in the Seed, Gen 3, and resumes that after Israel’s mistaken twists. That salvation was declared by the stars to all nations.

This is why in Gal 3:17, it is the mistake of Judaism to think that the Law replaced promises to the Gentiles—which were actually continuations of Gen 3. Judaism had a replacement theology!

Christ has always been the way and object of man’s salvation. But that needs to be set angled from Judaism.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think you are the only person I have ever heard make an argument that it isn't John seeing the vision of Revelation. That has been the understanding for a VERY long time. And, according to Paul, he also saw the Kingdom.

Or... you are wrong, which is the correct fourth choice. Lazarus died again. These saints died again. They came back in their mortal bodies, so of course they died again. Only Jesus had a glorified body. Just like with Elisha, Paul, and others have done. They resurrected people, but they died again. Matthew 16: "24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”"

If Jesus has no idea when He is returning, how can He say this. He was clear in Matthew 24: "36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be."

However, John had the Revelation, where He saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. It was a vision, so John literally saw it. This has been understood for millennia.

And now, all of a sudden, you don't have a clue what a parable is. Jesus is speaking to the people. Jesus never spoke to the people without a parable, that seeing they won't see, and hearing they won't hear. Jesus answers the question of "are there so few saved?" He says, strive to enter the narrow gate. If you could show me where this literal narrow gate exists, that would be great. Or, do you understand that Jesus is speaking to the difficulty of salvation? You don't just walk up, open the gate and walk in. You must STRIVE to enter that gate. And you will fail.

He then talks about a door being closed (can you show me where this literal door is?), shut by the Master. Jesus is telling the people that it doesn't matter if they are Abraham's children, entrance to the kingdom is not a birthright. Metaphorically, death is the shutting of this door here, and the people are facing Him in final judgement. Being a parable, Jesus speaks in present terms. You are going to say, but we ate with the Master, and you taught in our streets. Depart from Me, He will say. These things do not matter. They do nothing. And they will see Abraham, their forefather, Isaac and Jacob, forefathers, and they will see all the prophets who warned them, and who charged them to follow God, who Jesus is using as a witness against them. This has nothing to do with resurrection. They are being thrust out, and they are weeping and gnashing teeth because they knew the truth, ate before Him, He taught them, and... they are thrust out. They see what they have missed.

Jesus is not speaking prophecy, but a parable. And you... missed it.

Why? Is God as forgetful as you or me? Does God not know who is of what tribe? The two tribes of Judah are still around, it is Israel that was scattered to the winds.

Christ says that comparison to the days of Noah bc of the unbelief.

The Rev doesn’t speak of him coming with his kingdom bc that is already in action. The power of the kingdom consists of the declaration made by the resurrection—that he deserves all honor. This language is used to start Rom 1. “Declared by the resurrection” is the same as Peter in Acts 2-4.

The distinct tribes no longer matter; Phil 3. He says his tribal descent is now rubbish.

 

[TMSO]

The thing that is unsatisfactory is that it is our future. He was speaking directly to them about theirs, which is why it has so many similarities to Mt 10

Why? What is wrong if it is our future? It is still "soon". As long as no one knows the time, it is always soon. It is their future, long removed. I don't even know if it is our future, or if it is hundreds or thousands of years away. Only God knows. All I know from looking around, is it is either very soon, or we are going to blow ourselves back into the stone age. There are events scheduled to occur within the next 5-10 years, that the Bible has stated will not happen. So either we run out of money, and can't afford to do it, or something happens and we lose all the technology and can't recover it. (Or Jesus returns before it can ever happen, or ever happen in the future.) They plan on having people living on the moon and mars within the decade. (or at least, on their way). The Bible is clear that Earth is our only home, and we will not dwell/have our habitation anywhere else. Visiting is different.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why? What is wrong if it is our future? It is still "soon". As long as no one knows the time, it is always soon. It is their future, long removed. I don't even know if it is our future, or if it is hundreds or thousands of years away. Only God knows. All I know from looking around, is it is either very soon, or we are going to blow ourselves back into the stone age. There are events scheduled to occur within the next 5-10 years, that the Bible has stated will not happen. So either we run out of money, and can't afford to do it, or something happens and we lose all the technology and can't recover it. (Or Jesus returns before it can ever happen, or ever happen in the future.) They plan on having people living on the moon and mars within the decade. (or at least, on their way). The Bible is clear that Earth is our only home, and we will not dwell/have our habitation anywhere else. Visiting is different.

The thing that is wrong is shoddy interp. A person has to explain why lines are borrowed from Mt 10 about 1st cent. Judea. Why he is so direct? Why the details of instructions are Judesn based.

It may be similar to today or to 1800. A world dictator was trying to seize it all at that time. In the late 1800s the N hemisphere had red sunsets for 2 years from Krakatoa.

But none of that is “that generation” in the normal sense.

 

[TMSO]

Christ says that comparison to the days of Noah bc of the unbelief.

The Rev doesn’t speak of him coming with his kingdom bc that is already in action. The power of the kingdom consists of the declaration made by the resurrection—that he deserves all honor. This language is used to start Rom 1. “Declared by the resurrection” is the same as Peter in Acts 2-4.

The distinct tribes no longer matter; Phil 3. He says his tribal descent is now rubbish.

Jesus is saying that in the days of Noah, life was life. They were living. They were marrying. All the things that are normal life. And then, without warning, it started to rain. Jesus is saying that life will be going on as usual, and then, judgement comes. Two will be out in the field, one will be taken, and the other left. (taken to judgement). Two in bed, one taken, the other left. No warning. No signs. (No warning outside of any preachers telling people to repent and be ready... for we know not the day or hour.)

That is not what Phil 3 is saying. He is saying in Christ these distinctions do not matter. And if they do, hey, he says he is better, right on top. Followed the line to the end. But in Christ, it does not matter. Outside of Christ, it matters. That is, it isn't speaking of gentiles, but of Israel, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac/Jacob. And then, it matters for the remnant the elect of Israel that remain in Israel, not yet in the church. That is what is important. They are saved at the end, and then the church and the remnant of Israel, simply ALL the elect, will be one fold of one Shepherd, our God. The lost sheep of the house of Israel, and the sheep of another fold/flock.