Dating of Revelation - Preterist

[LetsGoBravesfan]

China played no role in the book of Revelation. The book is full of symbolism that would have been eaisily recogonized by a Jewish believer of the first century, but is understandable hard to understand today. The tribulation lasted 3 1/2 years and was God's judgement upon non believing Israel for rejecting Messiah. Just as God judged the people in 586 BC through Babylon, so he judged them in 70 AD through Rome. We should not dispair at the judgement however, just as God restored his people after the Babylonial exile he restored them in Christ even today. The new Israel is made up of both Jews and gentiles united in Christ.

[John Beckett]

`

China played no role in the book of Revelation

First of all, welcome to CTZ. Very nice to have you, sir. Yes, it is :nod:

Secondly, China has appx. 1 and a half BILLION ppl living there, and a
100 million-man army would only be about 1/9 of its population.

you said China PLAYED no role in the Book of Revelation. Right there,
I believe you have already proven yourself wrong. Reason being ....

the Book of Revelation was written POST-70 AD, so there goes that
theory of yours that it has already happened. If it already happened,
then John the Revelator would not have said he was shown things to come.
He specifically declared it to be Prophecy, i.e. things to come, not things
which happened PRIOR to his writing about it.

Also, I don't know if there were even 100 million men ALIVE at the time
John wrote that!! Let alone be in one army.

And I won't even get into the NEW Israel you mentioned. CoreIssue, the man
who heads this awesome Site, has already gone over this with others who
believe as you do.

If I am coming off as haughty and argumentative, please excuse me.

NOT my intentions, Brother. However, I am a Yankees fan. LOL

[CoreIssue]

John is right.

Revelation was written approximately 96 AD.

And these things have been dealt with many times in a number of threads.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

Thank you for you kind words and welcome John. The only person to mention a late date for Revelation was Irenaeus and though he was a great apologist, he had some errors in his dating; he thought Jesus was 50 when he died. Also the city of Laodica was destroyed in the mid 60's by an earthquake and not rebuilt until the 300's. Since John addressed the 7 churches in Asia, it would be nearly impossible for the letter to be written after one of the churches no longer exsisted. Even if one holds to the church age veiw it would be impossible for John to have written late, since he wrote to an apostate church not a dead one. We should also take Matt. 16 into account.
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

[CoreIssue]

The only person to mention a late date for Revelation was Irenaeus and though he was a great apologist, he had some errors in his dating; he thought Jesus was 50 when he died.
Not true.
Also the city of Laodica was destroyed in the mid 60's by an earthquake and not rebuilt until the 300's.
The rich merchants of Laodicea rejected Roman aid and rebuilt the city with their own money. So, your statment is in error.
Since John addressed the 7 churches in Asia, it would be nearly impossible for the letter to be written after one of the churches no longer exsisted.
Again, not true. They rebuilt their city.
Even if one holds to the church age veiw it would be impossible for John to have written late, since he wrote to an apostate church not a dead one.
Rebuilt.

And even more so, these churches didn't exist until 55 AD or later. So, you are trying to assign a falling into error as immediate upon their founding.

Yet, the Apostles wrote to these churches in their epistles, indicating a different condition, in the 50 and 60 AD timings.

Also, in the early Church, there was still and association between church and synagoge. Tha this gone by the time of the 7 churches.

Plus, Iranius was an acquaintance of a disciple of John. Hardly likely to have gotten first hand knowledge wrong.

Hence, Revelation must be later.

Preterist claims rest with those from the 3rd century and later. 96 from contemporaries of John and the early 1st century.
We should also take Matt. 16 into account.
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
No bearing here.

Christ did come in his Kingdom (spiritual), at the resurrection. And they did see him before he ascended.

Christ has not come with the angels, yet.

Nor has anyone be rewarded, yet.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

I don't have enough time to properly prove what I have said about Laocidia now, but I will post on this in a few days. Irenaeus did believe Jesus was 50, he mentioned Jesus living a perfect life as a child, youth, young and old man and thus making up for Adam's fallen life. It was a unique position based on a false age of Christ. I think it would be very hard for Irenaeus to have known John, as he wasn't born until 130 AD (give or take a decade). He did know Polycarp however, but this would not have prevented him from making a mistake. I do not say that Laodicia fell into error immedietly, and we do not know the exact date of its founding. Jesus does not mention a herecy in Laodica, but he does mention the nicolations who were in error. He says it is lukewarm, the church had become complacient. An example of a church falling into error soon after being founded are found in Corithians and Galations.

Its pretty clear, some would not die before they saw Jesus come in glory. He came with his angels and rewarded those who rejected the covenant of grace with the judgement they asked for. Refuseing grace was accepting the curse of the law, and Jerusalem was judged according to the curses of Duet. 27 and 28.

[CoreIssue]

I don't have enough time to properly prove what I have said about Laocidia now, but I will post on this in a few days. Irenaeus did believe Jesus was 50, he mentioned Jesus living a perfect life as a child, youth, young and old man and thus making up for Adam's fallen life. It was a unique position based on a false age of Christ. I think it would be very hard for Irenaeus to have known John, as he wasn't born until 130 AD (give or take a decade). He did know Polycarp however, but this would not have prevented him from making a mistake.
But makes him more credible on dating than someon in 350 AD, which is when your dating claims begin.
I do not say that Laodicia fell into error immedietly, and we do not know the exact date of its founding.
Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.
Jesus does not mention a herecy in Laodica, but he does mention the nicolations who were in error.
The churches were addressed. Only the churches and those in them, when it came to the good and the bad.

He says it is lukewarm, the church had become complacient. An example of a church falling into error soon after being founded are found in Corithians and Galations.

He said he was going to spit out the church if it didn't change. That is the only church given total condemnation.

Not one good thing said about that church. Not one.
Its pretty clear, some would not die before they saw Jesus come in glory.
As the church spit out into the Trib, sure.
He came with his angels and rewarded those who rejected the covenant of grace with the judgement they asked for. Refuseing grace was accepting the curse of the law, and Jerusalem was judged according to the curses of Duet. 27 and 28.
Christ didn't come with the angels yet.

There are no rewards until he comes for his Church. But the Church is still here.

Again, splitting this into a new thread. The thread is about Pre-Trib beliefs. Not about challenging them.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

But makes him more credible on dating than someon in 350 AD, which is when your dating claims begin.
Actually John was the first pretersit, he addressed his letter to people of the 1st century and Rev. 1:1 says he writes of what must soon take place.

Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.

I don't see how archaeology can prove the year a church was founded other than someone writting the date of its foundation but I will take your word for it. It is a fast fall. Not all seven fell, several received no critsism.

The churches were addressed. Only the churches and those in them, when it came to the good and the bad.


Yes the churches were addressed. Jesus mentions the Nicolations, a heritical group in the letter to Ephesus. If Laodica were full of herecy he would have mentioned it, they were just luke warm and happy in their wealth instead of spreading he gosple.

As the church spit out into the Trib, sure.


I'm not sure what you mean here, so I will wait to comment.

Christ didn't come with the angels yet.

There are no rewards until he comes for his Church. But the Church is still here.


Christ did come with his angels. Just because we didn't see them doesn't mean they were not there. There are accounts of people seeing fiery chariots above Jerusalem in AD 70. David was told not to march on his enemy until he heard marching in the grove of trees, and a prophet, I think Elijah but I could be wrong, prayed for his servants eyes to be opened. When they were he saw the unseen realm and thousands of angels. Where is the scripture does it say there are no rewards until he came for his church? The context of this is judgement. A careful comparsion of scripture reveals that.

[CoreIssue]

[quote]But makes him more credible on dating than someon in 350 AD, which is when your dating claims begin.
Actually John was the first pretersit, he addressed his letter to people of the 1st century and Rev. 1:1 says he writes of what must soon take place.

That is a nonsense statement.

Soon in the prophetic sense. A thousand years is but a day to the Lord.

Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.

I don't see how archaeology can prove the year a church was founded other than someone writting the date of its foundation but I will take your word for it. It is a fast fall. Not all seven fell, several received no critsism.

Then you don't understand archaeology.

Digs leave behind datable artifacts and actual dated materials. Such and such year of such and such is a date.

The churches were addressed. Only the churches and those in them, when it came to the good and the bad.

Yes the churches were addressed. Jesus mentions the Nicolations, a heritical group in the letter to Ephesus. If Laodica were full of herecy he would have mentioned it, they were just luke warm and happy in their wealth instead of spreading he gosple.

Dodging.

Total condemnation for that church. Either heat up or I spit you out.

That is total rejection.

As the church spit out into the Trib, sure.


I'm not sure what you mean here, so I will wait to comment.

Totally rejected.

When the Rapture occurs, they don't go. The go into the Trib. They are totally Apostate.

Christ didn't come with the angels yet.

There are no rewards until he comes for his Church. But the Church is still here.


Christ did come with his angels.

Unbacked claim. Reality disproves it.

None got the crowns. Not were glorified. All remained on the earth.
Just because we didn't see them doesn't mean they were not there.
I repeat. None were rewarded, which does disprove it.
There are accounts of people seeing fiery chariots above Jerusalem in AD 70.
Link to documentation please. And not just a Preterist site stating it.

Plus, does not prove your case. Regardless, rewards were not given, as already proven, above.

Rewards come after the First Resurrection begins. No one but Christ has been resurrected to date.
David was told not to march on his enemy until he heard marching in the grove of trees, and a prophet, I think Elijah but I could be wrong, prayed for his servants eyes to be opened. When they were he saw the unseen realm and thousands of angels. Where is the scripture does it say there are no rewards until he came for his church? The context of this is judgement. A careful comparsion of scripture reveals that.
There has always been angelic and demonic activity. Extremely active right now, today.

Revelation 19:6-9 (NIV) Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. 7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) 9 Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" And he added, "These are the true words of God."
The Church is NOT complete yet.

The Wedding Supper has not happened yet.

But you say it has.

No fine linen, no crowns or marriage has happened.

Marriage was used to illustrate the union with Christ because the Jews, of the day, understood the custom, how it worked and what it mean.

It happened over 7 days. Thus the 7 years of the Trib, where there is zero mention of the Church in the Book of Revelation.

Read here. (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1698)

You have it already done. Cannot be. The Bride is still incomplete.
Revelation 22

12"Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-31081a)] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." 17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

This is talking about eternity, as in within the NJ and those outside.

This has not happened yet.

Inviting the Bride before the Bride is complete? No. Future. Prophetic. Includes everyone entering the Church.

The Bride/Church is complete at the Rapture. Not before.

He brings his rewards with him for the Church. Could not have happened in 70 AD. The Church was just beginning, not complete.

The damned have not yet been Judged at the White Throne. That is after the MK.

So, again, could not have happened in 70 AD because the damned were not yet complete.

Speaks of living in the NJ, which will be on the New Earth. Has not happened yet.

Revelation deals with events from the Rapture/First Seal all the way to eternity. Not happened yet.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

I forgot to mention before, since you appear to agree with me that the newer the doctrince is the less likely it is to be true: No one even thought of a rapture before Darby in 1830. No one. I do not mean a tribulation or premillienalism, I mean the doctrine of the rapture. (not to be patronizing but in the past when I have said this people have argued other points, I do not deny predarby scholars were premillionalists) If I am wrong quote a commentary or church father.

That is a nonsense statement.

Soon in the prophetic sense. A thousand years is but a day to the Lord.

If you say so.
Do you believe in a literal creation account? Its ok if you dont, it is nonessential, but if you always make that arguement that a day is a thousand years things can ge pretty rediculious. Hermenitucly that is obviously a figure of speech. The context of this is Peter assureing the readers that God will judge and to be paitent. There is no basis for applying this to revelation. It is written by a different apostle for a different reason.


Quote:
Quote:
Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.
I don't see how archaeology can prove the year a church was founded other than someone writting the date of its foundation but I will take your word for it. It is a fast fall. Not all seven fell, several received no critsism.
Then you don't understand archaeology.

Digs leave behind datable artifacts and actual dated materials. Such and such year of such and such is a date.

Dates as old as we are discussing are always debateable. You even contridict yourself when you allow a 7 year period for the founding of the churches. I know how it works.

Dodging.

Total condemnation for that church. Either heat up or I spit you out.

That is total rejection.

A total rejection would result in judgement. He was warning them lest they be judged. When I think of total rejection I think of a city being burned to the ground and its inhabitants being killed and sold into slavery.

Unbacked claim. Reality disproves it.

None got the crowns. Not were glorified. All remained on the earth.



Who said anything about crowns or being glorified? Jesus came and destroyed once and for all the physical temple and animal sacrifices. Hebrews says that that was a shadow of the glory of the New Covenant.


Quote:
David was told not to march on his enemy until he heard marching in the grove of trees, and a prophet, I think Elijah but I could be wrong, prayed for his servants eyes to be opened. When they were he saw the unseen realm and thousands of angels. Where is the scripture does it say there are no rewards until he came for his church? The context of this is judgement. A careful comparsion of scripture reveals that.
There has always been angelic and demonic activity. Extremely active right now, today.

You just proved my point. Also in many places in scripture God's coming is symbolic. Even many leading dispensationalists say Isaiah 19 is fulfilled and it uses similar language to Matthew 24. I am not going off topic, I am giving the context of my statement. The most important rule of Hermenutics is "contest determines meaning."


Revelation 19:6-9 (NIV) Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. 7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) 9 Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" And he added, "These are the true words of God."
The Church is NOT complete yet.

The Wedding Supper has not happened yet.

But you say it has.

No fine linen, no crowns or marriage has happened.

Marriage was used to illustrate the union with Christ because the Jews, of the day, understood the custom, how it worked and what it mean.

It happened over 7 days. Thus the 7 years of the Trib, where there is zero mention of the Church in the Book of Revelation.

Read here. (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1698)

You have it already done. Cannot be. The Bride is still incomplete.

No one says the church is complete, the second coming hasnt happened yet. Jesus came to judge Jerusalem, not meet us in the air. His final coming is still future.

I have often wondered how people can say the New Jerusalem is heaven. Think about this:
1.It is described as being a bride.
2.The walls are clear, unbelievers can see in
4. The gates are open, people can come in.
5. Just like the church, the foundation is the 12 apostles.
6.What will the leaves of the tree of life have to heal in heaven?
7. If sinners are outside heaven are they in torment? If so how can we enjoy the afterlife seeing others tortured?
8.The spirit and the church offer an invation.

When Jesus died he made everything new. The church is described as the new temple with Jesus as cornerstone. We are also he new Israel, no longer a nation but a spititual people made up of Jews and gentiles. We are no longer under the curse. In the same way we are redeemed now, but will not be made perfect until after the return of Christ, earth is no longer under the curse but still suffers until Jesus ends mends it fully.

[CoreIssue]

I forgot to mention before, since you appear to agree with me that the newer the doctrince is the less likely it is to be true: No one even thought of a rapture before Darby in 1830. No one. I do not mean a tribulation or premillienalism, I mean the doctrine of the rapture. (not to be patronizing but in the past when I have said this people have argued other points, I do not deny predarby scholars were premillionalists) If I am wrong quote a commentary or church father.
Quite wrong. Christ declared the rapture:

Matthew 24
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024&version=31#fen-NIV-23991f)] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Has not happened yet.

And Rome supressed Pre-Mill anything, because they were Amil.

But here is a teacher from the 3rd century.

"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" (On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, by Ephraem the Syrian, A.D. 373).

The early Christian writer and poet, Ephraem the Syrian, (who lived from A.D. 306 to 373)




"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" (On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World, by Ephraem the Syrian, A.D. 373).

The early Christian writer and poet, Ephraem the Syrian, (who lived from A.D. 306 to 373) was a major theologian of the early Byzantine Eastern Church.

If you say so.

Do you believe in a literal creation account? Its ok if you dont, it is nonessential, but if you always make that arguement that a day is a thousand years things can ge pretty rediculious. Hermenitucly that is obviously a figure of speech. The context of this is Peter assureing the readers that God will judge and to be paitent. There is no basis for applying this to revelation. It is written by a different apostle for a different reason.

Really? Since when?

I guess you reject the Week of Years Hebrews used because Daniel says 70 Weeks, not 490 Hebrew years.


Quote:
Quote:
Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.
I don't see how archaeology can prove the year a church was founded other than someone writting the date of its foundation but I will take your word for it. It is a fast fall. Not all seven fell, several received no critsism.
Then you don't understand archaeology.

Digs leave behind datable artifacts and actual dated materials. Such and such year of such and such is a date.

Dates as old as we are discussing are always debateable. You even contridict yourself when you allow a 7 year period for the founding of the churches. I know how it works.

Which destroys your assumptions as well, if you go with that.

You cannot have it both ways since your destruction theory depends on archaelogy as well.

Dodging.

Total condemnation for that church. Either heat up or I spit you out.

That is total rejection.

A total rejection would result in judgement. He was warning them lest they be judged. When I think of total rejection I think of a city being burned to the ground and its inhabitants being killed and sold into slavery.


Your thinking is wrong.

Since when does judgment always fall immediately?

How many will have to wait until the White Throne Judgement to be judged? All from all the history of Man, is who.

Unbacked claim. Reality disproves it.

None got the crowns. Not were glorified. All remained on the earth.

Who said anything about crowns or being glorified? Jesus came and destroyed once and for all the physical temple and animal sacrifices. Hebrews says that that was a shadow of the glory of the New Covenant.

It says REWARDS come with Christ in Revelation. You claim all of Revelation is fulfilled.

You have a problem.


Quote:
David was told not to march on his enemy until he heard marching in the grove of trees, and a prophet, I think Elijah but I could be wrong, prayed for his servants eyes to be opened. When they were he saw the unseen realm and thousands of angels. Where is the scripture does it say there are no rewards until he came for his church? The context of this is judgement. A careful comparsion of scripture reveals that.
There has always been angelic and demonic activity. Extremely active right now, today.

You just proved my point. Also in many places in scripture God's coming is symbolic. Even many leading dispensationalists say Isaiah 19 is fulfilled and it uses similar language to Matthew 24. I am not going off topic, I am giving the context of my statement. The most important rule of Hermenutics is "contest determines meaning."

I didn't prove your point. That is absurd.

Angels did not come with Christ, as they do in the Second Coming, where there is open, visible war with whole armies dying.

You are not reading literally. The context is literal, not figurative.

I can say it means little green men coming from Mars using your approach. Got just as much proof as you have offered, being nothing.

You are just making statements.

[QUOTE]
Revelation 19:6-9 (NIV) Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: "Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. 7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.) 9 Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" And he added, "These are the true words of God."
The Church is NOT complete yet.

The Wedding Supper has not happened yet.

But you say it has.

No fine linen, no crowns or marriage has happened.

Marriage was used to illustrate the union with Christ because the Jews, of the day, understood the custom, how it worked and what it mean.

It happened over 7 days. Thus the 7 years of the Trib, where there is zero mention of the Church in the Book of Revelation.

Read here. (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1698)

You have it already done. Cannot be. The Bride is still incomplete.

No one says the church is complete, the second coming hasnt happened yet. Jesus came to judge Jerusalem, not meet us in the air. His final coming is still future.

You said Daniel has been fulfilled. The 70th Week IS the Book of Revelation time period.

I have often wondered how people can say the New Jerusalem is heaven. Think about this:
1.It is described as being a bride.

Yes. Bride means union. God, Christ, Israel and Church will be united within its walls.

Currently it is in Heaven, unoccupied.

It will descend upon the New Earth, for eternity.
2.The walls are clear, unbelievers can see in
The unbelievers are in the Lake. And if they can see in from the Lake, so what? Just adds to their punishment seeing what they don't have.

4. The gates are open, people can come in.

And is guarded. But who is there to come in that isn't of God? No one.
5. Just like the church, the foundation is the 12 apostles.
And the gates are Israel. TWO covenant groups, together the Body of Christ. Wife of the Father and Bride of Christ.
6.What will the leaves of the tree of life have to heal in heaven?
Where does it talk about healing anthing. They just enjoy its fruit.
7. If sinners are outside heaven are they in torment? If so how can we enjoy the afterlife seeing others tortured?
NJ isn't in Heaven at that time. It is on the New Earth and all the lost are in the Lake, outside the gates. Not coming in.

And what problem is there in seeing other receive just punishment? Who says they will even look at them?
8.The spirit and the church offer an invation.
That is an invitation to join the Church. Not about being in the NJ.

The context has returned to speaking to the still living.
When Jesus died he made everything new.
False. Totally.

Only our spirits are made new. Our flesh will not be until glorification. These Heavens and this earth will not be made new. They will be destroyed and replaced.
The church is described as the new temple with Jesus as cornerstone.
False.

Christ said he was the foundation and the Church would be built upon him.
We are also he new Israel,
False. Replacement Theology.

Israel will be restored as covenant nation.
no longer a nation but a spititual people made up of Jews and gentiles.
Only during the Church Age. Which will end.
We are no longer under the curse.
Wrong. All Man still is.
In the same way we are redeemed now, but will not be made perfect until after the return of Christ, earth is no longer under the curse but still suffers until Jesus ends mends it fully.
Contradiction. Plain and simple.

Body of Christ has TWO heirs, not one. Israel and Church.

The New Covenant is future. We are not the Houses of Israel and Judah. In Hebrews Paul states it is future. Uses future tense in all references.

Post me one verse that ever calls Israel Church or Church Israel? You cannot do it.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGoBravesfan http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?p=24293#post24293)
I forgot to mention before, since you appear to agree with me that the newer the doctrince is the less likely it is to be true: No one even thought of a rapture before Darby in 1830. No one. I do not mean a tribulation or premillienalism, I mean the doctrine of the rapture. (not to be patronizing but in the past when I have said this people have argued other points, I do not deny predarby scholars were premillionalists) If I am wrong quote a commentary or church father.

Quite wrong. Christ declared the rapture:


I guess I am not wrong. You have nothing to quote. That is a baseless statement. Nothing in the Bible even comes close to mentioning a rapture.

Quite wrong. Christ declared the rapture:
Quote:
Matthew 24
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mat%2024&version=31#fen-NIV-23991f)] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Has not happened yet.

And Rome supressed Pre-Mill anything, because they were Amil.

But here is a teacher from the 3rd century.



It says taken, as in taken in judgement, not raptured. In Noah's day people sinned and God ordained judgement. He then gave the rightous a way to escape the judgement, he did not rapture them. Also in the days of Noah he saved the righteous and killed the sinners. Your problem is that you assume way to much based on your theology. Instead of looking at the Bible alone you bring your theology to the Bible and read it through theological glasses and therefore see only what you want.

Quote:
If you say so.

Do you believe in a literal creation account? Its ok if you dont, it is nonessential, but if you always make that arguement that a day is a thousand years things can ge pretty rediculious. Hermenitucly that is obviously a figure of speech. The context of this is Peter assureing the readers that God will judge and to be paitent. There is no basis for applying this to revelation. It is written by a different apostle for a different reason.
Really? Since when?

I guess you reject the Week of Years Hebrews used because Daniel says 70 Weeks, not 490 Hebrew years.

Since the Bible was written I think, but I cannot be sure. I think it is safe to say the basic rules of hermenutics have been around a long time. I don't reject the prophetic imagery of Daniel, the cultural understood what was meant. This does not prove that near meant far in the book of revelation. How do you explain the book of Daniel being sealed and Revelation not being sealed? If as you say both are unfullfilled and refer to the same time period why is this? Does the 400 years between Daniel & John make that big a difference?


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, archaeology has made many gains. Not earlier than 55 AD, probably 62 AD by accounts.

That is a fast fall into Apostacy. In fact, your doctrine has all 7 falling quickly.
I don't see how archaeology can prove the year a church was founded other than someone writting the date of its foundation but I will take your word for it. It is a fast fall. Not all seven fell, several received no critsism.
Then you don't understand archaeology.

Digs leave behind datable artifacts and actual dated materials. Such and such year of such and such is a date.
Dates as old as we are discussing are always debateable. You even contridict yourself when you allow a 7 year period for the founding of the churches. I know how it works.
Which destroys your assumptions as well, if you go with that.

You cannot have it both ways since your destruction theory depends on archaelogy as well.

I don't think so, Partial Pretersim does not depend on an exact date Jerusalem was destroyed, think about it, what proof from archeology would we have of a date, unless Titus wrote "I burned Jerusalem on this day..." That is silly. We have Josepus, Tactitus and others who say it was destroyed in AD 70; on the same day Nebecannezer destroyed the temple in 586 BC as a matter of fact.


Quote:
Quote:
Dodging.

Total condemnation for that church. Either heat up or I spit you out.

That is total rejection.
A total rejection would result in judgement. He was warning them lest they be judged. When I think of total rejection I think of a city being burned to the ground and its inhabitants being killed and sold into slavery.

Your thinking is wrong.

Since when does judgment always fall immediately?

How many will have to wait until the White Throne Judgement to be judged? All from all the history of Man, is who.

How is my thinking wrong? Stop bringing your own theology to the scriptures and veiw them at face value. No one said anything about always being immedietly judged, please don't put words in my mouth. Also I would hardly call waiting 40 years from the time the religious leaders killed Jesus to the Jewish war with Rome Immediete. But I suppose it is when one believes quickly means 2,000 years.


Quote:
Quote:
Unbacked claim. Reality disproves it.

None got the crowns. Not were glorified. All remained on the earth.
Who said anything about crowns or being glorified? Jesus came and destroyed once and for all the physical temple and animal sacrifices. Hebrews says that that was a shadow of the glory of the New Covenant.
It says REWARDS come with Christ in Revelation. You claim all of Revelation is fulfilled.

You have a problem.

I never once claimed all of Revelation was fullfilled, again you are putting words in my mouth.

You just proved my point. Also in many places in scripture God's coming is symbolic. Even many leading dispensationalists say Isaiah 19 is fulfilled and it uses similar language to Matthew 24. I am not going off topic, I am giving the context of my statement. The most important rule of Hermenutics is "contest determines meaning." I didn't prove your point. That is absurd.

Angels did not come with Christ, as they do in the Second Coming, where there is open, visible war with whole armies dying.

You are not reading literally. The context is literal, not figurative.

I can say it means little green men coming from Mars using your approach. Got just as much proof as you have offered, being nothing.

You are just making statements.

How does the context DEMAND literal reading? Where in the Bible does it ever do so? Will the woman that stands on the sun in Revelation be literal? I personally take the Bible at face value, reading it as the authors intended, not according to whatever theology I have. I do my best to make my theology fit the Bible, not the Bible fit my theology. I am making statements, I am also backing them up with facts.

You said Daniel has been fulfilled. The 70th Week IS the Book of Revelation time period.



Once again you are bringing your theology to the Bible. The 70th week was fulfilled 3 1/2 years after the death of Jesus, they have nothing to do with 70 AD or Revelation. The 70 weeks are a map of Jewish history from the time of the Declaration of Cyrus the Persian to after the death of Jesus put an end to God's acceptance of animal sacrifices.

I'm not even going to bother refuting everything you said about the church, it is just a collection of incomplete sentences with nothing to back it up.

We are also the new Israel, False. Replacement Theology.

Israel will be restored as covenant nation.

I did not say we replaced Israel. I said we are Israel. God has always had a people, from Abraham till today it has been those who lived by faith who were saved. There has always been one people of God. Romans 11 says.

17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!


The unbelieving Jews were cut off, and the gentiles were grafted into Israel! God in His mercy has saved us! God is also merciful to graft back in the unbelieving Jews of all ages if they repent and confess Jesus as Lord. Sadly the Jews of 70 AD did not repent.

Where does it talk about healing anthing. They just enjoy its fruit.



down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. Rev. 22:2-3

Body of Christ has TWO heirs, not one. Israel and Church.

The New Covenant is future. We are not the Houses of Israel and Judah. In Hebrews Paul states it is future. Uses future tense in all references.

Post me one verse that ever calls Israel Church or Church Israel? You cannot do it.

Does God have two brides? Is he an adulterer or the church a whore? Not at all the idea is profane. We did not replace Israel, we are Israel. God has had one people from the beginng.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews%208&version=31#fen-NIV-30085b)]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.
Hebrews 8:7-13

This explains itself. God judged the people because they broke His covenant. But he is just and renewed the covenant, but it was not like the old where there were sacrifices and the law. Jesus freed us from the law's curse, and made the final sacrifce. Any system that professes salvation outside of Christ is a false Gosple, and we all know what Paul has to say about that.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:26-29.
That proves it, all in Christ are the seed of Abraham. All Christians are one in Jesus.


25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=2&version=31#fen-NIV-27975c)] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

Gentiles are saved by Grace and enter into Israel. A man is not a Jew if he is one racially, he is one if he is a Jew spiritually through Christ.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations."[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=4&version=31#fen-NIV-28025c)] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. Romans 4:16-17

In the sight of God Abraham, who was justified through faith and not works is out father. We are Israel.

[CoreIssue]

Ephesians 3
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

One body composed of two heirs, together one body.

Heirs, not heir.

Sharers, not sharer.

Together, not the same.

Now, tell me how you get Church being Israel out of this passage?

No where is Israel called Church, in the Bible. No where is Church called Israel.

Answer this. No more you refuse to answer and go back to statements.

[CoreIssue]

Heirs WITH Israel, not Israel.

[CoreIssue]

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 (New International Version)
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

Strong's Number: 726 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=726&version=nas) Original WordWord Originarpazofrom a derivative of (138 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=138&version=nas))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=726&version=nas#Legend) EntryHarpazo1:472,80Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechhar-pad'-zo http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=0726g) Verb Definition
to seize, carry off by force
to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly
to snatch out or away NAS Word Usage - Total: 14carry off 1, caught 4, snatch 2, snatched...away 1, snatches 1, snatches away 1, snatching 1, take...away...by force 1, take...by force 2
Forcibly taken out of the way.

Has not happened yet.
1 Corinthians 15:51-53 (New International Version)
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

Instantly. Faster than the eye can see. Snatched away and changed.

Has not happened yet.
Matthew 24
The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23991f)] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Only the Father knows.

READ the Wedding Supper link.

Has not happened yet.

Church snatched away and changed, in the blink of an eye.

Church taken and the rest left behind.

Not removed as in the days of Noah. But the earth will be in the Apostate condition, of the days of Noah, going about normal life.

Noah WAS removed from the place of issue. No need to snatch him off of the earth.

God judged the dry earth and what was on it. Not the water and what was in it.

Revelation 3:10
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

Strong's Number: 5083 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=5083&version=nas) Original WordWord Origintereofrom teros (a watch, perhaps akin to (2334 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2334&version=nas)))Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5083&version=nas#Legend) EntryTereo8:140,1174Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechtay-reh'-o http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=5083g) Verb Definition
to attend to carefully, take care of
to guard
metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
to observe
to reserve: to undergo something
Strong's Number: 1537 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originejka primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or causeTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1537&version=kjv#Legend) EntryEkliteral or figurativePhonetic SpellingParts of Speechek http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537g) http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=1537gb) Preposition Definition
out of, from, by, away from
Keep from is an adverbial phrase.

It means to guard by keeping one out of or from the place of issue.

The WHOLE earth is the place trial and the Church is promised to be kept from the place of trial.

We cannot be on the earth and be kept from the trial, by definition, since all on the earth are subject to it.

Put it together. Very literal. We will not be here for the Trib, will be snatched up to Christ in the clouds and taken to the Wedding Supper.

Zero mention of the Church after the 7th church. Church lampstands are now gone, replaced by the Two Lampstand, the Two Witnesses.

Now is Israel, Woman Wife of God and mother of the 12 Tribes. OT literally describes her as the Wife of God adorned in fine raimant and jewels.

Revelation's description fits like a glove. Even further names the 12 Tribes.

Church is not the 12 Tribes. Period.

Physical nation of Israel is stated in Revelation. Not Church.

There is your Rapture.

This post is purely to show the Bible does deal state Rapture, a word from the Latin as theological short-hand for the event.

But answer the Body of Christ post. Let us deal with that first. Then we can come back to this and talk about it.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

Ephesians 3
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. One body composed of two heirs, together one body.

Heirs, not heir.

Sharers, not sharer.

Together, not the same.

Now, tell me how you get Church being Israel out of this passage?


First, I never quoted from that passage. By attempting to refute a passage I never used to support my position you are trying to confuse and mislead the people viewing this. Also I am greived that you would put preterism into its own section when people with a varity of beliefes quote on multiple threads. Is this because you do not want others to see and decide for themselves? The fact that it says we are together does not mean we are seperate. You plainly ignored the proof I gave you and have continually put random verses to support your position. Why not search the scriptures with an open mind and seek the truth in the name of the Lord with humility brother? I fear you are holding to your own theological beliefs instead of scripture and as such place the ideas of men over the Word of God, I am sure this is not your intention, but as your brother in Christ I must point this out. I believe that we can all work together in spite of our differences for the cause of Christ. As long as we remain Orthodox, our beliefs are less important that why we believe them. God is more honored if we humbly search the scripture for the truth than if we hold fanaticly to something because it is what we have been taught. Most people on here disgree with me and they were very polite when they posted in responce to me.

If what I posted was not enough proof for you I don't know what else I can say. All you do is angrily demand scripture and when I produce it you misquote me, pretend I didn't post, and demand more. Perhaps this will be enough to show you I am not just "making statements."

Matthew 21 says:

The Parable of the Tenants

33"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

35"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
38"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' 39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
41"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021&version=31#fen-NIV-23867h)];
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021&version=31#fen-NIV-23867i)]?
43"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."[j (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2021&version=31#fen-NIV-23869j)] 45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

God sent Israel prophets, all of whom suffered for the name of the Lord. He also sent his Apostles many of whom were killed and tortured. God Even sent His son, whom was killed. Therefore he brought those wretches to a wretched end. He took the Kingdom of God away from them and gave it to those who would produce fruit, the church, Jew and Gentile together in Christ. The pharisees knew he was talking about them, that is undeniable.

I do not expect you to agree with me, I pray you will have a mind open to the truth, and will be humble enough to admit that you may be wrong. I am. My theology is a result of much study, and I am continueing to study the word of God in all areas so I may honor him by doing my best to preach the truth. Like I said, why we believe what we believe is more important than why we believe them. God bless you. If anyone else would like to discuss this or any other beliefs please post or send me a message.

[CoreIssue]

I didn't quote you.

I refuted your Replacement Theology claim.

YOU failed to deal with it and launched into more spun claims.

TWO heir compose ONE body. Thus Church is not Israel.

Try using proper grammar.

And stop launching off into other verses as if that proves your position.

Now, this is a simple passage and you should have no problem dealing with it if your Replacement Theology is fact.

Give me a grammatical reading on it that justifies your Replacement Theology.

No one is interested in your ramblings on searching the scriptures to discover the so-called facts you claim.

We are interested in proofs.

You don't deal with the two word for prince, in Daniel. You don't deal with the meaning of 'after.' You don't deal with the meaning of covenant. You don't deal with the fact it says confirm a covenant with many, when Christ came to Israel, not Gentiles, and didn't confirm anything with them since they rejected him. You don't deal with the fact it does not say for 7 years HE, not THEY, confirmed a treaty, but says he confirmed a treaty of 7 years length.

You just spiritualize it all away. Total violations of grammar and word meanings.

So, deal with the grammar of the passage. Not launching off spinning the meaning of other verses and then try to change the meaning of other places.

Paul very clearly said one body of two heirs. He meant one body of two heirs.

Daniels said Christ died at the end of the 69th week. Not he died 3.5 years later.

Daniel listed TWO princes, one Jewish and one Gentile. And they are BOTH historical facts.

Daniel said a covenant of 7 years was confirmed. Has never happened. Not that for 7 years he confirmed a covenant. Especially when his ministry was only 3.5 years.

Daniels HE, not THEY, confirmed the Covenant.

And on and on.

You do not read literally. And you offer zero literal proof to back anything you claim.

That is why I did the Ephesians passage. To refute your claims on Replacement Theology, which destroys your claims about the Woman and Tribes of Revelation not being literal Israel.

You HAVE to have a provable claim. You don't.

Yes, the Bible uses figurative language. But it defines the meanings. Dragon = Satan, in example. Image both given and defined.

No where does it ever say Church is Israel. Never.

There is no justification for your claims against the 70th Week,

From the decree to the end of the 69th Week is 483 years. That is 27/8 AD. It says he died at that time, not 3.5 years later.

There is no way you can grammatically justify that claim.

No way you can grammatically back up the 70th Week to before his death, in any manner, partial or not.

No way you can make the two princes one prince.

No way you can change HE to THEY.

Either give some literal proof and justify your reading, grammatically, or stop preaching.

You guys come on and tell us how spiritually ignorant we are and how you have seen the Truth.

Well, prove it. Give us something literal.

And no. It is total nonsense to say literal will not work. It will and does, in perfect harmony.

Not our problem you don't like what it says and want to change it. Which you can only do by demanding it is fugurative, not literal.

And that is the whole basis for your theology, as in Replacement Theology and not liking the literal words.

[CoreIssue]

And I split it off because it was off topic.

The thread was Pre-Trib based.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

I didn't quote you.

I refuted your Replacement Theology claim.

YOU failed to deal with it and launched into more spun claims.

TWO heir compose ONE body. Thus Church is not Israel.


You made it seem like I used that verse to prove my position, which I did not, I think it was very dishonest. I dealt with it, you are just to set in your preconcieved theology and arragance to see that, or perhapes you do and all you can do to defend you claims is be bilerigent. I am not a replacement theologian, that is a term ignorant people use to stop Christians from studying the word of God, I say gentiles and Jews together make up Israel, not that the church replaced Israel. Stop making things up.


Try using proper grammar.

I understand the Greek grammer well but Im not sure exactly what you want. Speaking of grammer you hardly ever type in complete sentences.


And stop launching off into other verses as if that proves your position.

Now, this is a simple passage and you should have no problem dealing with it if your Replacement Theology is fact.

Give me a grammatical reading on it that justifies your Replacement Theology.


The verses I posted prove my position, saying Jews and gentiles together are heirs also works to prove my point. We are now together. Now it is your turn to answer a question. What verses do you have to prove God has two peoples. Your doctrine besmerches the character of God, by saying he is a pologimist and the church by saying she is but a concubine instead of a bride. Give me a verse, not an angry retort.


No one is interested in your ramblings on searching the scriptures to discover the so-called facts you claim.

We are interested in proofs.


This is a terrible think to say. This shows you are not a theologen with the heart of God, you are a doctrinealist, bent on the "proof" of your doctrine instead of the truth. How can we know the truth unless we search the scripture? By reading your posts or the theology of a mere man? No! We must search the scripture for the truth. People assume you know what you are talking about since you are an administrator. How do you have the nerve to say no one is interested in searching the scripture? I will be praying for you.


You don't deal with the two word for prince, in Daniel. You don't deal with the meaning of 'after.' You don't deal with the meaning of covenant. You don't deal with the fact it says confirm a covenant with many, when Christ came to Israel, not Gentiles, and didn't confirm anything with them since they rejected him. You don't deal with the fact it does not say for 7 years HE, not THEY, confirmed a treaty, but says he confirmed a treaty of 7 years length.



This is off topic. I will deal with this on the Daniel thread when I have time. As it is I have other things to do. I chose to continue to comment on this because this is where you are being the most bileregent.I will not deal with the some of the following because you repeat your self.


Either give some literal proof and justify your reading, grammatically, or stop preaching.

You guys come on and tell us how spiritually ignorant we are and how you have seen the Truth.

Well, prove it. Give us something literal.

And no. It is total nonsense to say literal will not work. It will and does, in perfect harmony.

Not our problem you don't like what it says and want to change it. Which you can only do by demanding it is fugurative, not literal.

And that is the whole basis for your theology, as in Replacement Theology and not liking the literal words.


When did I say you were spiritually ignorant? It is you who allow your personal perferences to interpret scripture because you are just so sure things are future. For you things have to be literal, because that is all you know. You are aparently above searching the scripture for answerers perfering to study the works of men. Saying that my theology is based not liking literal words is nonsence. It shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are hardly ever clear in what you put up.

Now its your turn to answer questions. Explain Matthew 21. Jesus spoke of taking away the kingdom form the religious leaders and giving it to spiritual Israel.Even the Pharisess knew this, how do you explain this away?

The truth is you have no idea what you are talking about. My guess is, since you seem to hold some contemt for searching the scripture, you have read theologians who you agree with and use them to support you position. To be honest I think you are hear to cause desention and stop reasonable debate and discussion. You are completly unreasonable and most of your posts are angry. This is a bad attitude to have and I am praying for you in this.

[CoreIssue]

You made it seem like I used that verse to prove my position, which I did not, I think it was very dishonest.
I didn't. Your problem.
I dealt with it, you are just to set in your preconcieved theology and arragance to see that, or perhapes you do and all you can do to defend you claims is be bilerigent.
You didn't offer any literal proof. Just statements.

I am not a replacement theologian, that is a term ignorant people use to stop Christians from studying the word of God, I say gentiles and Jews together make up Israel, not that the church replaced Israel. Stop making things up.

Just what do you think Replacement Theology means?

It MEANS Church took over the promises and such of Israel. It means Israel now works through the Church and it will not be restored as covenant body.


Try using proper grammar.

I understand the Greek grammer well but Im not sure exactly what you want. Speaking of grammer you hardly ever type in complete sentences.

I mean reading by what the words actually say, not what you want to claim they say figuratively.

Proof. Where is your proof? Not there.

Well, no one else has problems understanding what I am saying. Not typing a book or disertation here. Just getting the meaning out there.



And stop launching off into other verses as if that proves your position.

Now, this is a simple passage and you should have no problem dealing with it if your Replacement Theology is fact.

Give me a grammatical reading on it that justifies your Replacement Theology.


The verses I posted prove my position, saying Jews and gentiles together are heirs also works to prove my point. We are now together. Now it is your turn to answer a question. What verses do you have to prove God has two peoples. Your doctrine besmerches the character of God, by saying he is a pologimist and the church by saying she is but a concubine instead of a bride. Give me a verse, not an angry retort.

No it does not. You did not deal with Ephesians. You went to another passage with a different contextual issue and tried to force that into defining Ephesians and the Body of Christ.

Lay out Ephesians and tell me what IT says. Not what you want it to say.

You are calling Paul misinformated, in error or a liar by saying his words didn't mean exactly what they said.

Classical false doctrine play. Evade what you cannot deal with by jumping to non-related statements, or spinning the, and then trying to force them onto the passage at issue.

You cannot just go over Ephesians and get your meaning from it. So you do this dodge and dance routine.


No one is interested in your ramblings on searching the scriptures to discover the so-called facts you claim.

We are interested in proofs.


This is a terrible think to say.

No it isn't. It is logically and reasonable to demand you actually PROVE something literally. Can actually take the given passage and show your claims in it.

You cannot.
This shows you are not a theologen with the heart of God, you are a doctrinealist, bent on the "proof" of your doctrine instead of the truth.
Garbage. It shows you are required to be able to prove your case and deal with the given passage, as written.
How can we know the truth unless we search the scripture?
By searching the scriptures using proper rules of grammar and semantics.

You cannot just take a passage and slice and dice it meaning to force it to fit your doctrine.

The fact you cannot deal with it literally is a red flag your doctrine is wrong.
By reading your posts or the theology of a mere man?
Oh, here we go with that garbage. Your doctrine is from God and mine is from man.

Prove it!
No! We must search the scripture for the truth.
Yep. Been doing it for 46 years.

People assume you know what you are talking about since you are an administrator. How do you have the nerve to say no one is interested in searching the scripture? I will be praying for you.

Because you don't see anyone jumping to your defense, do you?

What arrogance to think we have not discussed these issues for over a long period of time in many ways.

Proof! Enough cliches and bluster. Give us proof!


You don't deal with the two word for prince, in Daniel. You don't deal with the meaning of 'after.' You don't deal with the meaning of covenant. You don't deal with the fact it says confirm a covenant with many, when Christ came to Israel, not Gentiles, and didn't confirm anything with them since they rejected him. You don't deal with the fact it does not say for 7 years HE, not THEY, confirmed a treaty, but says he confirmed a treaty of 7 years length.



This is off topic. I will deal with this on the Daniel thread when I have time. As it is I have other things to do. I chose to continue to comment on this because this is where you are being the most bileregent.I will not deal with the some of the following because you repeat your self.

Not off topic. Has a ton to do with Replacement Theology and disproving Christ died in the 70th Week.


Either give some literal proof and justify your reading, grammatically, or stop preaching.

You guys come on and tell us how spiritually ignorant we are and how you have seen the Truth.

Well, prove it. Give us something literal.

And no. It is total nonsense to say literal will not work. It will and does, in perfect harmony.

Not our problem you don't like what it says and want to change it. Which you can only do by demanding it is fugurative, not literal.

And that is the whole basis for your theology, as in Replacement Theology and not liking the literal words.


When did I say you were spiritually ignorant? It is you who allow your personal perferences to interpret scripture because you are just so sure things are future. For you things have to be literal, because that is all you know. You are aparently above searching the scripture for answerers perfering to study the works of men. Saying that my theology is based not liking literal words is nonsence. It shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are hardly ever clear in what you put up.

Because without literal proof, somewhere, you have nothing. Plain and simple.

And trying to turn the whole bible figurative makes the meaning subjec to the whim of the reader. It isn't.

Now its your turn to answer questions.

No. Not until you answer me with literal proof.

I am still waiting for you to explain Ephesian for what it says. JUST Ephesians.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

Quote:
You made it seem like I used that verse to prove my position, which I did not, I think it was very dishonest.
I didn't. Your problem.

Not really, I think everyone here can see what your doing, you are avoding the issue. You hand me a verse and when I don't explain it "properly" you ignor everything else I have used. Pay attention to what I have shown you.


Quote:
I am not a replacement theologian, that is a term ignorant people use to stop Christians from studying the word of God, I say gentiles and Jews together make up Israel, not that the church replaced Israel. Stop making things up.
Just what do you think Replacement Theology means?

It MEANS Church took over the promises and such of Israel. It means Israel now works through the Church and it will not be restored as covenant body.

I really don't know how I can make this any clearer with out being patronizing. Has anyone else had trouble with how I explained my belief? God has always had a people. Even when national Israel sinned, there were a few who still followed Him. Those people were true Israel. Paul himself says not all Israel is Israel. This means not all people who are Jews racially and Jews spiritually. God promised to make a new covenant with His people that would be written on our hearts, where true circumsision would be on the inside. The intent of the Jewish nation was to be a nation of priests, just like the church, but they did not do as they were called out to do. God sent His son and through his death he atoned for the sins of all. (I do not want to argue the tulip, it really makes no difference in this). Jesus came to the Jew first, but the majority of racial Israel rejected Him. It was through Paul that God revealed the mystery that gentiles could become Spiritual Jews, without becoming racial Jews. Just as in Old Testament times, it is the Spiritual Jew not a paticular race of people that are God's people. Church and Israel are interchangable terms in the New Testament. One did not replace the other, and I never said it did. God's people is made up of all races of those who worship Him in spirit and truth, not a single race who denys the Messiah. I can only imagine what retort you will have for this and I'm sure it won't be polite. I am writing this for the sake of the people reading this whom you have attempted to confuse by distorting my position.

The verses I posted prove my position, saying Jews and gentiles together are heirs also works to prove my point. We are now together. Now it is your turn to answer a question. What verses do you have to prove God has two peoples. Your doctrine besmerches the character of God, by saying he is a pologimist and the church by saying she is but a concubine instead of a bride. Give me a verse, not an angry retort. No it does not. You did not deal with Ephesians. You went to another passage with a different contextual issue and tried to force that into defining Ephesians and the Body of Christ.

Lay out Ephesians and tell me what IT says. Not what you want it to say.

You are calling Paul misinformated, in error or a liar by saying his words didn't mean exactly what they said.

Classical false doctrine play. Evade what you cannot deal with by jumping to non-related statements, or spinning the, and then trying to force them onto the passage at issue.

You cannot just go over Ephesians and get your meaning from it. So you do this dodge and dance routine.


I did ask for a verse instead of an angry retort. I will outline Ephesians at the end of this post. It is a verse you put out there, not me, but I will deal with it. Maybe you could show the same courtsey to me and stop ignoring the scripture I put up and calling it "statements."
Who is making the classic play? You are the one refuseing to answer questions and you didn't put up the verse from Ephesians until I asked you to deal with the versesd I put up, which you have not done.

Quote:
Quote:
No one is interested in your ramblings on searching the scriptures to discover the so-called facts you claim.

We are interested in proofs.
This is a terrible think to say.
No it isn't. It is logically and reasonable to demand you actually PROVE something literally. Can actually take the given passage and show your claims in it.

You cannot.
Quote:
This shows you are not a theologen with the heart of God, you are a doctrinealist, bent on the "proof" of your doctrine instead of the truth.
Garbage. It shows you are required to be able to prove your case and deal with the given passage, as written.
Quote:
How can we know the truth unless we search the scripture?
By searching the scriptures using proper rules of grammar and semantics.

You cannot just take a passage and slice and dice it meaning to force it to fit your doctrine.

The fact you cannot deal with it literally is a red flag your doctrine is wrong.


More proof you really have no idea what you are talking about. What are the proper grammer rules? Are you a Greek or Hebrew scholar? Do you know what Hermenutics is? This is rediculious. You keep repeating yourself and demanding proof when it is right in front of you, you are just to caught up in your self importance to admit you might be wrong.

Because you don't see anyone jumping to your defense, do you?

What arrogance to think we have not discussed these issues for over a long period of time in many ways.

Proof! Enough cliches and bluster. Give us proof!

I don't see anyone coming to yours either. I would guess many people who share you views are embarassed by the curt manner in which you defend them. I am new here, so I havn't seen any posts on this topic but I never once assumed no one has talked about them, nor have I said or even implied that. What does that have to do with anything? I have given you proof you just refuse to deal with it.


And trying to turn the whole bible figurative makes the meaning subjec to the whim of the reader. It isn't.


It is for some people, and that is a very sad thing. The Bible was written to a 1st century audience. The Jewish people had no trouble understanding what John wrote. Every language has its idioms. A non English speaker would not understand "let the cat out of the bag" means tell a secret. In the same way it is difficult for us to understand many of the things written in a different culture 2,000 years ago. If you read "run like the wind" in a book would you take it literally? I hope not. Would you demand a poem follow the gramatical rules or prose, or that prose must be set with a rhyme scheme? Why apply such abserd rules to the Bible. Understand that the type of literature it is must be taken into account, and that context, not Scofield, determines meaning.

Now its your turn to answer questions. No. Not until you answer me with literal proof.

I am still waiting for you to explain Ephesian for what it says. JUST Ephesians.


If I were a gambler, I would bet you would decide that no matter how well I explained Ephesians, it was not good enough because for you correctness is not measured by logic or scripture but by your theology. You will repeat yourself again, perhaps say I am just making statements, or that I am avoiding things, or that I don't like liteal words, and use that as an excuse not to answer me. Thats fine. If you don't explain the verses from Matthew and the verses I posted about Israel and JUST the verses I posted, then I will consider that absolute and final proof I have made my point and that you cannot answer. I believe most people here will as well.

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

I hope you don't mind me putting the context of the verse up. Like it or not the context of the verse determines its meaning.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:19-22 (NASB)

The church is the temple of God. That is very clear. If we are the temple what use is there for a physical one? Will you accuse Paul of spiritualizing.

that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, Eph 3:3-6 (NASB)

The first occurence of fellow simply means coinheiritor.

I will now deal with the word fellow as it appears the second time in verse 6 since that is vital to the meaning.

Greek NASB Number: 4954

Greek Word: s?ss?µ??

Transliterated Word: sussômos
Root: from 4862 (http://www.crossbooks.com/book.asp?pub=0&book=66&sec=00049712#g4862) and 4983; (http://www.crossbooks.com/book.asp?pub=0&book=66&sec=00050987#g4983)

Definition: of the same body:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
fellow members (1),
fellow members of the body (1).

—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

Greek NASB Number: 4983

Greek Word: s?µa

Transliterated Word: sôma
Root: of unc. or.;

Definition: a body:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
bodies (11),
body (128),
personal (1),
slaves (1),
substance (1).

—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary
Greek NASB Number: 4862

Greek Word: s??

Transliterated Word: sun
Root: a prim. prep.;

Definition: with, together with (expresses association with):--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
accompanied (1),
accompanied* (1),
accompany* (2),
along (10),
associates (2),
besides* (1),
companions* (2),
including (1),
together (1).
—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

This is very clearly talking about the Jew and gentile being one in Christ. It is not discussing distince peoples, but even as such it proves my point. It says the church is one person, not two. Your logic would make the church into a two headed freak of nature.

[CoreIssue]

I am going to wait for others to comment on most of what you said.

Trying to have it both ways doesn't work.

Quote:
And trying to turn the whole bible figurative makes the meaning subjec to the whim of the reader. It isn't.
It is for some people, and that is a very sad thing.
And you are taking what you don't like and spinning it figurative.

Again, wherever you declare something figurative and not literal you have to justify it.

No way to justify Ephesians being figurative. Or the 70th Week.

Yes, parts of Revelation are figurative. But figurative that is given literal meaning. Thus literal.

No moving it back in time and declaring it done.

You do have to give literal proof to back such claims.
The Bible was written to a 1st century audience. The Jewish people had no trouble understanding what John wrote.
It was written to Church, not Jews.

Yes, about Jews. But also Gentiles.

You cannot throw out a statement like this and say bingo! All figurative!
Every language has its idioms. A non English speaker would not understand "let the cat out of the bag" means tell a secret. In the same way it is difficult for us to understand many of the things written in a different culture 2,000 years ago. If you read "run like the wind" in a book would you take it literally? I hope not. Would you demand a poem follow the gramatical rules or prose, or that prose must be set with a rhyme scheme? Why apply such abserd rules to the Bible. Understand that the type of literature it is must be taken into account, and that context, not Scofield, determines meaning.

And somehow you are an expert in ancient Greek and Hebrew.

Yes, I understand the differences in ancient languages and societies. No it does not justify your claims.

Quote:
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
I hope you don't mind me putting the context of the verse up. Like it or not the context of the verse determines its meaning.
Nope. I posted it before.
Not a gripe, but a suggestion. Please use the quote functions more accurately. It makes replying, by others, a whole lot easier.
Go to testing and experiment with the quoute function.
When it just says
quote:
cotent
that is not proper quoteing. Highlight it and click the quote icon. Then it will be properly quoted a more easily quotable.
Thanks.
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit. Eph 2:19-22 (NASB)

Fine, but the problem is you are quoting about the Body of Christ as a whole. Not who composes it.
The Body of Christ is not defined as the Church alone. You error in trying to make that leap of logic.
The church is the temple of God.
Nope. Does not say that.
It says the Body of Christ, not Church.
You are not keeping your terms distinct and clearly define.
That is very clear.
Body of Christ, not Church. That is clear.
If we are the temple what use is there for a physical one? Will you accuse Paul of spiritualizing.
Fine for the Church Age.
But the Body is Israel AND Church.
In Israel, past and future, there is a physical Temple.
Your assumptions and logic are not proof. Especially when Ezekiel, John, Daniel, Zechariah and others declare a future physical Temple.
The error is in your thinking.
that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. 4 By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel, Eph 3:3-6 (NASB)

Yep. And members of the Church, in this Age. And members of the Body of Christ from all Ages.
But Israel doesn't exist as covenant in the Church Age nor does Church exist as covenant in the OT and future
The first occurence of fellow simply means coinheiritor.
Co means two, not one. ONE body of TWO heirs.
Each distinct.
Church now and Israel OT and future.
If all were Church there would be only ONE heir of Gentile and Jews. Israel as a term would be meaningless.
I will now deal with the word fellow as it appears the second time in verse 6 since that is vital to the meaning.

Greek NASB Number: 4954

Greek Word: s?ss?µ??

Transliterated Word: sussômos
Root: from 4862 (http://www.crossbooks.com/book.asp?pub=0&book=66&sec=00049712#g4862) and 4983; (http://www.crossbooks.com/book.asp?pub=0&book=66&sec=00050987#g4983)

Definition: of the same body:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
fellow members (1),
fellow members of the body (1).

—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

Greek NASB Number: 4983

Greek Word: s?µa

Transliterated Word: sôma
Root: of unc. or.;

Definition: a body:--

List of English Words and Number of Times Used
bodies (11),
body (128),
personal (1),
slaves (1),
substance (1).

—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary
Greek NASB Number: 4862

Greek Word: s??

Transliterated Word: sun
Root: a prim. prep.;

Definition: with, together with (expresses association with):--

Yep. Plural.
Israel AND Church. Not just Church.
Never is Israel called Church. Do not confuse the meanings of Jew and Israel being the same thing.
List of English Words and Number of Times Used
accompanied (1),
accompanied* (1),
accompany* (2),
along (10),
associates (2),
besides* (1),
companions* (2),
including (1),
together (1).
—NASB Greek-Hebrew Dictionary

This is very clearly talking about the Jew and gentile being one in Christ.
Yep. One Body of Christ.
But Body of Christ and Church are not the same identical thing.
It is not discussing distince peoples,
No. It is talking covenant bodies. Church and Israel are TWO distinct covenants.
but even as such it proves my point. It says the church is one person, not two.
Nonsense. It rejects your point.
It says Church is ONE person and Israel is ONE person. And the TWO persons, together, are the Body of Christ.
Your logic would make the church into a two headed freak of nature.
No, your logic and understanding are flawed.
Body of Christ and Church are not interchangable terms.
Body of Christ are all saints.
Church is ONE covenant body of saints within the Body of Christ.
Israel is another.
It says there is ONE Body of Christ composed of TWO heirs.
The two, together, form the whole. Each is but a part of the whole.
It does not say the CHURCH has two heirs. It says the Body of Christ has two heirs.
Israel has no Gentiles in it. Church is both Jews and Gentiles.
Never is Israel called Church in the Bible. Ever.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

Wow this has gone beyond absurd. You ignore facts and simply give angry retorts when I post something. By refusing to deal with the scripture I put up you prove you can't answer me using scripture. The church is the body of Christ, and we are the temple of God, like it or not. Your inability to answer the verses I put up from Matthew show you that you have no way of explaining how even the Pharisees knew Jesus was referring to them when He said he was going to take the kingdom away from them. Although waiting for others to comment is just another way to avoid having to answer me, I am curious about what the other people on think about this. Like I said before, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. God is more honored with a humble searching for truth than a rude, arrogant defense of what you just want to believe. Let me clarify that. I know many dispensationalists, and they can support their claims, and while I disagree with them I respect them. You have done nothing but change the subject and retort angrily which shows you don't really know why you believe what you do, you just trust those who taught you.

[CoreIssue]

Wow this has gone beyond absurd. You ignore facts and simply give angry retorts when I post something. By refusing to deal with the scripture I put up you prove you can't answer me using scripture.
Still waiting for something literal out of you. Have not seen it yet.

Post a verse that says Israel is Church. Never said.

Not your spiritualized nonsense of non grammatical reading. But literally said.
The church is the body of Christ,
Well, you keep saying that. Post the proof.
and we are the temple of God, like it or not.
The Body of Christ is, not the Church alone. Post the proof

I already did with Ephesians for what I said.
Your inability to answer the verses I put up from Matthew show you that you have no way of explaining how even the Pharisees knew Jesus was referring to them when He said he was going to take the kingdom away from them. Although waiting for others to comment is just another way to avoid having to answer me,
Nope. I am not letting you run away from Ephesians.

Plenty of time to deal with Matthew AFTER you prove your case for Ephesians. Still waiting.
I am curious about what the other people on think about this.
I would like to see them post as well.
Like I said before, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it.
What! Any path to God type nonsense.

God says defend sound doctrine. Not defend any doctrine.
God is more honored with a humble searching for truth than a rude, arrogant defense of what you just want to believe.
Attack the messenger. Yep. Standard fall back for not having an answer.
Let me clarify that. I know many dispensationalists, and they can support their claims, and while I disagree with them I respect them. You have done nothing but change the subject and retort angrily which shows you don't really know why you believe what you do, you just trust those who taught you.

If they can support their claims then what are you doing? Standing up for your doctrine knowing it is wrong?

After all, if they supported dispensationalism it proves you wrong.

You cannot both be right.

And no. I am not doctrinism taught. I am non-demoninational. Always have been.

Where did you get your teachings? It is by the book Preterist arguments.

You guys didn't just come to the same figurative interpretations on your own.

[Jessie]

off the subject but we sure have a lot of folks lately claiming core is posting angry retorts and such is interesting. I sure see no anger. what I do see is that the posters claiming this are angry and saying the other is when they are not.

very very interesting....
just what is your purpose for doing this?

ok back to topic.

[Jessie]

quote:

Like I said before, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it.

is this a joke?

quote:

God is more honored with a humble searching for truth than a rude, arrogant defense of what you just want to believe

now where have I heard this one before?

false accusations will get one no where.

so ones rude and arrogent if they dont go your way? you really need to stop attacking personally.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
Eph 2:14-16 (NASB)

Here you go, I'm sure this won't be enough to satisfy you. How am I running away from Ehpesians? I did three word studies. Maybe if you told me exactly what you want I can do it.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Gal 3:26-29 (NASB)

Does this sound like two heirs?

[Jessie]

quote:
It says Church is ONE person and Israel is ONE person. And the TWO persons, together, are the Body of Christ.

now why do you think this is not true bravesfan?

[InTheWind]

Braves fan lets knock off the accusations, i think you have been too to many boards where they don`t debate or challenge you. So when your told to prove your case you start making rude remarks and try and dodge the questions.
I can`t debate this with you and won`t pretend i can but i sure can give you a warning to stop the name calling , which i now have. :nod:

[CoreIssue]

14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.
Eph 2:14-16 (NASB)

Here you go, I'm sure this won't be enough to satisfy you. How am I running away from Ehpesians? I did three word studies. Maybe if you told me exactly what you want I can do it.

You are right.

Let us look what you did here.

Paul starts the Book and tells us it is written to the Church at Ephesus. That sets audience. Church, not Israel.

No mention of Israel in chapter 1.

Chapter 2 he moves into rejecting the Jews who are critical of Gentiles. Says they are of one Church.

Audience has not changed. Still is Church.

Says he has joined the two together as one body, one new man.

Now take care here, it does not say that new Body is Church. You cannot make that leap.

Using a building as an example, he says Christ is the foundation and the Apostles and Prophets build upon it.

It says by him the whole building is joined together, not that it is a single unit.

A building is composed of individual rooms that together are the building.

And again, he does not call this building Church. He calls it Body.

Then in chapter 3 he defines the Body.

Note the Body is never called Church. Never.

He then defines the Body (building) as being compose of two heirs (rooms)

ONE Body/Building composed of TWO Heirs/Rooms.

Christ is the head of the Body and the foundation of the Building.

I defy you to show me where it ever says anything other than Israel and Church making up one Body and one Building.

Never says Body = Church alone. Always plural in composition. As in building joined together, heirs, fellows and sharers.

The Heirs, those together, fellows and sharers are defined as Israel and Church.

Not a body of singular heir or building of singular room.
[QUOTE]26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Yep. Romans 8 says all who love Christ will be conformed to him.

Does nothing to say all are Church.
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Baptized by water? That is Church, not Israel.

Baptized by the Holy Spirit? That is all saints, Church, Israel and of neither covenant.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek,

there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.
Gal 3:26-29 (NASB)

Now you jumped books and context but are trying to make them the same context, audience and subject.

Note Paul is pinning this down to the issue of relationship with Christ. He was not saying there were no issues of sex, slavery and such in the world. Or that God didn't consider those issues when dealing with us.

And to whom was this Book addressed? The Church at Galatia.

A church composed of Jews and Gentiles.

Covenant Israel did not exist at that time and does not exist now.

But it will exist again when the Church is Raptured.
Does this sound like two heirs?
Yepper!

Try reading in context.

The book was written to the CHURCH at Galatia. Not the Church and Israel.

That church had both Gentile and Jewish members. Note JEWISH, not Israel.

Paul told them that in the Church Jew and Gentiles were issues that didn't matter. There was no distinction.

And he told them in the whole of the issues, Church and Israel were equally parts of the Body of Christ, both here and in Ephesians. TWO equal heirs.

You speak of need to understand the times.

There were constant problems with the Jews trying to be superior to the Gentiles. Paul was dealing with it, here, as he did elsewhere.

Galatians was a Church book written to a church on issues of the Church in the Church Age.

None of which negates Israel and Church being co-heirs. It does not allow you to change the grammatical and literal meaning of Ephesians.

[cbressler1976]

I have always thought that the torment of hell was not a physical fire....but a mental one....if God takes out all of His Goodness and love...well what do you have left?? ...so the devil and his angels and all the people who didn't accept Jesus are in a place that has no love...so they are mean to one another.....

[cbressler1976]

I also am not sure if I believe that the sinners/devil and his angels will be able to see us...i think they will never see God/Jesus and His people again...I think being away from God is torment enough for them...

[CoreIssue]

I have always thought that the torment of hell was not a physical fire....but a mental one....if God takes out all of His Goodness and love...well what do you have left??
It is. Hell is a very real place and the total absence of God does not leave anything nice.
...so the devil and his angels and all the people who didn't accept Jesus are in a place that has no love...so they are mean to one another.....
In the way I read it, which may or may not be right, each person is in their own place subject to their own punishments.

Yep, in total it is one big Lake for eternity. But there are pockets assigned to each person.

Cannot be sure. But I think God will not give them any opportunity to seek comfort from others or take their frustrations out on others.

[CoreIssue]

I also am not sure if I believe that the sinners/devil and his angels will be able to see us...i think they will never see God/Jesus and His people again...I think being away from God is torment enough for them...
The only thing we have to come even close to knowing on that issue is that those in Hell can see what is going on in Heaven and the earth.

Would seeing be more torment than help? I think so.

[cbressler1976]

Thank you so much.... :):
You have a gift...sometimes you come off as being harsh (never to me...just some that post nonsense here)....but I think that is because you understand so much more then a lot of people and it must be frustrating to you when u can see it and that other person can't....my husband is very intelligent when it comes to history etc....(he isn't too smart when it comes to God)....but he gets frustrated when people don't understand him...and it seems like he is mad.....but I am glad that I found this place...so that if I ever need help...I can find the answers...

[CoreIssue]

Thank you so much.... :):
You have a gift...sometimes you come off as being harsh (never to me...just some that post nonsense here)....but I think that is because you understand so much more then a lot of people and it must be frustrating to you when u can see it and that other person can't....my husband is very intelligent when it comes to history etc....(he isn't too smart when it comes to God)....but he gets frustrated when people don't understand him...and it seems like he is mad.....but I am glad that I found this place...so that if I ever need help...I can find the answers...
I don't mean to sound harsh, if I do.

And it is frustrating at times to see people say things that are absolute violations or word meaning and grammar.

I understand people not seeing complex things.

But not basics while being so sure they are right.

Glad you like it here. :tiphat:

[cbressler1976]

I don't mean to sound harsh, if I do.


It's probably just me...you see, I am the most over sensitive person in the world!! I always think people hate me...I always think people are thinking badly about me... I also think Paul comes off harsh...but he is my favorite apostle... :nod:

[Chrystalwuzhere]

Wow this has gone beyond absurd. You ignore facts and simply give angry retorts when I post something. By refusing to deal with the scripture I put up you prove you can't answer me using scripture. The church is the body of Christ, and we are the temple of God, like it or not. Your inability to answer the verses I put up from Matthew show you that you have no way of explaining how even the Pharisees knew Jesus was referring to them when He said he was going to take the kingdom away from them. Although waiting for others to comment is just another way to avoid having to answer me, I am curious about what the other people on think about this. Like I said before, what you believe is not as important as why you believe it. God is more honored with a humble searching for truth than a rude, arrogant defense of what you just want to believe. Let me clarify that. I know many dispensationalists, and they can support their claims, and while I disagree with them I respect them. You have done nothing but change the subject and retort angrily which shows you don't really know why you believe what you do, you just trust those who taught you.





What I see here is that you are spending most of your posts attacking Core instead of discussing scripture. InTheWind gave you a very direct warning, and I am in complete agreement with him. So, why don't you back away from personal jabs and continue to discuss and reason from the Word of God.

Baiting and attacking people is not discussion, it is taunting them. You present your own position and Core can present his in the way he sees fit. And, I guarantee you, we are in no way embarassed by the way he presents his argument or defends it.

Now, discuss or debate, but leave off the personal attacks.

[Chrystalwuzhere]

I don't mean to sound harsh, if I do.


It's probably just me...you see, I am the most over sensitive person in the world!! I always think people hate me...I always think people are thinking badly about me... I also think Paul comes off harsh...but he is my favorite apostle... :nod:

Nah, it's not just you. Core is our resident Mr. Cranky Pants. :rofl:


Just kidding...just kidding. Good grief! :tease:

[CoreIssue]

I don't mean to sound harsh, if I do.


It's probably just me...you see, I am the most over sensitive person in the world!! I always think people hate me...I always think people are thinking badly about me... I also think Paul comes off harsh...but he is my favorite apostle... :nod:

Nah, it's not just you. Core is our resident Mr. Cranky Pants. :rofl:


Just kidding...just kidding. Good grief! :tease:
:shock: Me! Sweet little me! :eek:

[LetsGoBravesfan]

i think you have been too to many boards where they don`t debate or challenge you

I have posted on three boards, two of which have been moved to a special preterist section. I have been debated in all of them but this is a debate site so no problem.

So when your told to prove your case you start making rude remarks and try and dodge the questions.

I don't mean to seem patronizing but have you read this in its entirity? I feel that if anyone but an administrator showed such rudeness and lack of tact something would have been said long ago, but I have refrained from saying as such since this is "his board"

I have proved my case perfectly well, it is He who refuses to answer my questions, misquoted, and misreprestned me. He has also resorted to calling me names. He has been rude from the beginning.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

I think I have been perfectly reasonable with you. If you would rather make personal jabs at me than discuss things that is fine. I will not talk to you anymore on this thread unless you answer my questions.

[Jessie]

i think you have been too to many boards where they don`t debate or challenge you

I have posted on three boards, two of which have been moved to a special preterist section. I have been debated in all of them but this is a debate site so no problem.

So when your told to prove your case you start making rude remarks and try and dodge the questions.

I don't mean to seem patronizing but have you read this in its entirity? I feel that if anyone but an administrator showed such rudeness and lack of tact something would have been said long ago, but I have refrained from saying as such since this is "his board"

I have proved my case perfectly well, it is He who refuses to answer my questions, misquoted, and misreprestned me. He has also resorted to calling me names. He has been rude from the beginning.

what you consider rude is nothing but being direct. not skirting around things.
many are not accustomed to this, and let their "feelings" rule.

I have not seen you prove your case myself.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

I have not seen you prove your case myself.


Is there anything in paticular you want me to post about my views? If you look back, I have posted numerous verses that prove my point. Instead of addressing them coreissue put up a verse not dealing exactly with what I was discussing and refused to talk about anything else. Even when I looked back at at the context for the verse, my explinations were not good enough for him, and he used this as an excuse not to answer me. Don't you think it is fair that with all that is being demanded of me he should at least respond to the verses I put up.

[cbressler1976]

I don't mean to sound harsh, if I do.


It's probably just me...you see, I am the most over sensitive person in the world!! I always think people hate me...I always think people are thinking badly about me... I also think Paul comes off harsh...but he is my favorite apostle... :nod:

Nah, it's not just you. Core is our resident Mr. Cranky Pants. :rofl:


Just kidding...just kidding. Good grief! :tease:
:shock: Me! Sweet little me! :eek:
With the many questions of mine that Mr. Cranky Pants has answered, I am learning A LOT.... The man's a genious...he must drive his wife crazy....but the wife is usually smarter then the husband, so she must be beyond genious...;) lol..

[Jessie]

I have not seen you prove your case myself.


Is there anything in paticular you want me to post about my views? If you look back, I have posted numerous verses that prove my point. Instead of addressing them coreissue put up a verse not dealing exactly with what I was discussing and refused to talk about anything else. Even when I looked back at at the context for the verse, my explinations were not good enough for him, and he used this as an excuse not to answer me. Don't you think it is fair that with all that is being demanded of me he should at least respond to the verses I put up.

you speak in circles and are not clear.

core has dealt with them , just not the way you wanted him too.
and he has answered you and gone into a lot of explanation for you.

this is debate. he has been fair.

which verses are you saying he did'nt respond too. lets start there.

I see far too many gaps in your thinking. and I've seen you only respond to bits and peices of what core has said.

[LetsGoBravesfan]

which verses are you saying he did'nt respond too. lets start there.

Does God have two brides? Is he an adulterer or the church a whore? Not at all the idea is profane. We did not replace Israel, we are Israel. God has had one people from the beginng.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.