Posted on 03/01/2014 10:42:07 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
>>>This is a prayer given to God by believers here on earth, while members of the Kingdom of God. It is still meaningful without confusing the 2 kingdoms.<<<
Two kingdoms? Do you have any supporting scripture that there will be two kingdoms?
Thanks,
Philip
What evidence did you present? I recall your opinions, but I somehow missed your evidence. Please restate your scriptural evidence.
The whole point is to bring out scriptural evidence to support our doctrines. If you have any scriptural evidence to support your views, please post it. I will not deny the Word of God, if it supports your views.
For the record, I appreciate your earlier link to the Lewis Sperry Chafer paper; but I don't consider him a credible bibilical scholar. For example, he wrote in the paper you linked, "The Kingdom in History and Prophecy:"
Protestant theology has very generally taught that all the kingdom promise, and ever the great Davidic covenant itself, are to be fulfilled in and through the Church. The confusion thus created has been still further darkened by the failure to distinguish the different phases of the kingdom truth indicated by the expression "kingdom of Heaven," and "kingdom of God. "
Then, in a vain attempt to present his opinion as fact, he tries to tug at our insecurity with, "Bible interpretation is incomplete without it." He piles on with this hogwash, all right out of Scofield 101:
In the Bible:
- " Israel " is not the " Church";
- " Zion " is not the body of saints of this dispensation;
-the " throne of David " is not Heaven, nor will it ever be;
-the " land of your fathers " is not " Paradise " and
-the " house of Jacob" is not a host of Gentiles ignorantly attempting to force an entrance into Judaism
That is spiritualization of the scriptures to the nth degree. A couple of things he mentioned are borderline true; but they are polluted by half-truths and absolute nonsense.
Getting back to the topic, there is no proof whatsoever the "two" kingdoms are anything but the same. The only "proof" that exists is a mere opinion, and you know what they are worth.
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
Philip
Jerusalem was besieged for quite some time. After it fell, it was trodden under foot by the Gentiles until at least 1967, or count approximately 6 months in 70 when they entered Jerusalem.
>>>Jerusalem was besieged for quite some time. After it fell, it was trodden under foot by the Gentiles until at least 1967, or count approximately 6 months in 70 when they entered Jerusalem.<<<
I’m not sure what you are saying.
Philip
I mean Jerusalem was not trodden under foot by the Gentiles
for only 42 months so your link falls long or short. The Romans entered for about 6 months in 70. Otherwise the Gentiles have trodden it under foot until this day, or if you don’t regard the site Abraham offered Isaac and on which the a temples were built, 1944 Gentile years. You also might run all your Preterist calendar code calculations through the Hebrew/biblical calendar.
God foresaw Israel would choose poorly and that Messiah would be betrayed to the wicked hands of the Gentiles. He also foresaw this.
Welcome to fantasy island again folks ...
Where the second coming actually was in 70 AD, and even though every eye was suppose to see Him (Rev. 1), He really came back spiritually so that nobody actually did.
Miller repented of his foolishness ...
I would agree with you, if we had only the means to look at it from a futuristic perspective, with no historical hindsight. But historians say that forty and two months was the length of the war, from Mar 67 to Sept 70 AD. I believe that was considered the time period beginning when Rome declared war on Israel, until the Temple was destroyed. We also have to consider the high probability that "the holy city" included all of Israel. Moses Stuart wrote in Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy, 2Ed, 1851, p 115-116:
“. . . Jerusalem, as being the metropolis, is, as often in the Old Testament, made the symbol or representative of the whole country or nation. The reader needs only to be reminded, how often Zion and Jerusalem stand, in prophetic language, as the representatives of the Jewish government, polity, land, and nation, in order to accede to the position, that the capitals in the Apocalypse are to be considered as the symbols of the country and of the government to which they belong."
“When John therefore predicts, in Rev. 11:2, that “the holy city shall be trodden under foot 42 months,” this of course involves the idea, that the country of which the holy city is the capital, is also trodden under foot. To make their way to the capital, a foreign enemy, coming (as the Romans did) from the north, must have overrun a great portion of Palestine antecedently to the capture of Jerusalem. The prediction of course includes both, inasmuch as the holy city is made the representative of the country at large.”
Therefore, according to Stuart, the term "holy city" included the nation it represented. Recall that Jesus emphasized the destruction of Jerusalem, yet other Israeli cities were destroyed, as well.
Philip
>>>Welcome to fantasy island again folks ... Where the second coming actually was in 70 AD, and even though every eye was suppose to see Him (Rev. 1), He really came back spiritually so that nobody actually did. Miller repented of his foolishness ...<<<
LOL! This coming from one who believes that Old Testament imagery that is used in the New Testament must be considered literally? I think you and Miller have a lot in common. Wasn’t he some sort of false prophet, along the lines of Hal Lindsey, who predicted the year of the rapture?
Talk about fantasy island. One day maybe you will explain to us how you envision “every eye” seeing Jesus, and especially those who have been dead for 2000 years; you remember: those who pierced him? I bet you have to put on your Super-Duper Fantasy Island Thinking Cap for that one! LOL!
Philip
Just a minor point: shouldn't you have written, the wicked Jews betrayed Christ in front of the compassionate Roman, who didn't want Christ murdered and tried to talk the Jews out of it? Or something like that . . .
That passage from Deut 30 was referring to the Babylonian captivity, if I understand correctly. I also noticed you stopped before the going got rough. This followed:
"… I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live…" (Deut 20:15-19)
I am still not sure what your point is. In the next chapter it appears Moses threw in the towel:
"For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands." (Deu 31:27-29 KJV)
I would appreciate it if you would include the Book, Chapter and verse(s). Otherwise, how am I going to follow your conversation and have enough spare time to take care of my honey-do list?
Thanks,
Philip
Only the words of Jesus...
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
At hand means near...
Jerusalem was under the foot of Nebuchadnezzar, on thru the time of Christ’s trial before Pilate (we have no king but Caesar), and on thru Paul’s rescue from the Jews by the Roman soldiers,...right up to establishment of Israel in 1948.
The inserrection of 70 AD was hardly an example of a Jerusalem controlled by Israel. More like an increasingly painful imprisonment, until the city was destroyed. Rome had the sheer manpower to take Jerusalem in short order if it had wanted to bring in more forces. The city wasn’t much of a threat to overthowing their empire. But, they were certainly used as another example of Roman (God ordained) judgement for rebellion.
I agree. But there are other verses to contend with. Let's analyze:
Jesus began at Galilee preaching the Kingdom (God/heaven) was at hand, or, you stated, near:
"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15 KJV)
"Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee … From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat 4:12, 17 KJV)
But later Jesus said that the violent controlled the kingdom of God/heaven from the days of John the Baptist:
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." (Mat 11:12 KJV)
Even later, he gave us an indication of who the violent were:
"And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? ...Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof ... And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." (Mat 21:43. 45 KJV)
It appears the violent were, most likely, the chief priest, elders and Pharisees. Therefore, I conclude that when Jesus said the kingdom of God/heaven was at hand, he meant it was going to be taken away from the violent, and given to others. Does that sound reasonable?
Philip
>>>>Jerusalem was under the foot of Nebuchadnezzar, on thru the time of Christ’s trial before Pilate (we have no king but Caesar), and on thru Paul’s rescue from the Jews by the Roman soldiers,...right up to establishment of Israel in 1948.<<<
>>>>The inserrection of 70 AD was hardly an example of a Jerusalem controlled by Israel. More like an increasingly painful imprisonment, until the city was destroyed. Rome had the sheer manpower to take Jerusalem in short order if it had wanted to bring in more forces. The city wasn’t much of a threat to overthowing their empire. But, they were certainly used as another example of Roman (God ordained) judgement for rebellion.<<<<
What scriptures are you referring to?
Philip
Exodus 32:30-35
Sometimes you write things that make me think you simply reject the nature of God's love and grace, why Messiah had to suffer and die, and take you purposefully take the role of Israel's accuser and adversary. Jeremiah 31:1-11
I would appreciate it if you would include the Book, Chapter and verse(s). Otherwise, how am I going to follow your conversation and have enough spare time to take care of my honey-do list?
I'll try to include references.
That passage from Deut 30 was referring to the Babylonian captivity, if I understand correctly. I also noticed you stopped before the going got rough.
No, that is not what it says. That is what you want it to say. It is a covenant between God and Israel. You have nothing to do with it. You should listen to your Apostle. These things are true and eternal. Romans 9:1-5
And Romans 11:1-6 says this which is still true.
The main half truth being presented is somebody claiming they have a question when they post an article, when they refuse to look at the evidence and have a preformed decision.
Do you mean the Roman who heard the Word face to face, had the authority to set him free, and still ordered him to be tortured and crucified ? Will you next present the defense for Judas Iscariot ?
I see; when you support Preterism you have no problem taking things literally, or spiritually, or whatever works best; It is as if the gospel you believe first and foremost is Preterism itself and everything is secondary to that equation. That is the way your comments come across to me. Were Daniel's 70 weeks contiguous or interrupted ?
You are trying to change what Jesus said. He did not say the Land of Israel would be trodden down of the Gentiles, he said Jerusalem.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
>>>Sometimes you write things that make me think you simply reject the nature of God’s love and grace, why Messiah had to suffer and die, and take you purposefully take the role of Israel’s accuser and adversary.<<<
I thought you were through with your nastiness, but I guess I was wrong. Those things written in the books of Moses were intended to be warnings to Israel; not as a weapon against anyone who doesn’t adhere to your feelings about them. It is about time you heard, maybe for the first time, that your doctrine is far more dangerous to Israel than mine.
What is the consequence of my interpretation of the future being wrong? Nothing, except maybe a few more Jews will hear about Christ.
What is the consequence of your doctrine if you and your fellow futurists are wrong? Generations of Jews will never hear the words of Christ. Frankly, your “hands-off” doctrine stinks.
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.