Posted on 03/16/2014 6:46:27 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
That occurs at the second resurrection which occurs after Satan is defeated. That is the one I am looking forward to.
>>>I appreciate the desire to make MT 24, which seems to drive Preterism, conform to "this generation" versus the generation that sees that event… <<<
I am not sure about Preterism, but I am certain that Matthew 24 drives futurism. Well, to be more specific, the spiritualization of the term "this generation" in Matthew 24 drives futurism. When the masses find out the truth about Matthew 24, and that "this generation" really means "this generation," futurism will crumble like stale bread.
>>> i presently see it as prophetic utterance in which v. 2 happened in 70AD but was another precursor to the real AoD standing in a yet future temple, wherer he ought not. And the rest fits into that scenario, answering the questions, "what the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Not simply the "Jewish world."<<<
His coming was exclusively for the Jewish world: to usher out the old, and bring in the new. He made the new covenant to take away their sins. Recall this:
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:32 KJV)
The key words are, "whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord." Paul interpreted it this way:
"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (Rom 11:24-27 KJV)
But Paul had already defined "all Israel" as "not all Israel:"
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:6-8 KJV)
One would think from that statement that all of Isaac's seed would be considered Israel. But we all know that Jacob, son of Isaac was Israel, and Esau was rejected. That was determined before they were even born. So after explaining all that, Paul asks:
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." (Rom 9:14 KJV)
"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Rom 9:15-16 KJV)
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Rom 9:20-21 KJV)
So, the destiny of Israel was determined long ago; but not as many believe, or even as many think fair!
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha." (Rom 9:27-29 KJV)
And why only a seed? And why only a remnant?
"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." (Rom 9:31-33 KJV)
Of course, the stumblingstone was the chosen seed, Christ. And unfortunately, most in Jerusalem at that time did not believe Christ was the Lord, and could not even hear his voice. You cannot call on the name of the Lord unless you can hear and believe his words:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? " (Rom 10:13-15 KJV)
I guess they (Jerusalem, aka Babylon the Great) shouldn't have killed all the prophets.
Philip
Sorry, i cannot accept that either, as this is part of the GWT judgment, in which believers shall also judge angels. Which Jude Paul also speaks of.
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:2)<<<
I think you meant the next verse, 6:3. So, you don't believe Paul was talking about himself? And you don't believe the disciples judge the twelve tribes? I don't know what to say about that.
>>>And which occurs after the devil is bound and loosed, and all the wicked are destroyed:<<<
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:.... And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened...(Revelation 20:4,12)
>>>It has not happened yet no matter how much it is spiritualized.<<<
I will agree that verse 8 through 15 have not happened, and they won't happen until Satan is defeated.
>>>And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. (Zechariah 14:17)<<<
Jerusalem in that context is New Jerusalem: the Church.
>>> Frankly to relegate this along with the very extensive and detailed description of Ezekiel of the end times and future temple to simply being symbolic of the church and 70 AD is beyond what is reasonable, and imugns the prophetic nature of Scripture itself. I see it as more akin to what Jews engage in when explaining the prophecies of the Messiah as not speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ. <<<
So, I guess it would be too much, to ask you how you interpret the highlighted parts of these verses:
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luk 21:22 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40 KJV)
>>>out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.<<<
>>>And so this is what the Egyptians missed out on by not coming to the church feast of tabernacles. The Catholics would love this, but these those that are left of all the nations after the Lord smites all the people that have fought against Jerusalem. (Zech. 14:12,16) Analogies can be made but for me this speaks too clearly literal and as a future event.<<<
I agree that it is the same event as Eze 47:1; Zech 13:1; Zech 14:12, but also Joel 2:28; John 4:10; John 15:26 Acts 2:1-2 (the Day of Pentecost;) Rev 7:17; Rev 21:6; and Rev 22:1.k I also believe the same event is referenced by Jer 2:13 and 17:13, in a different context.
So when John qualified that statement with this statement to point to the Day of Pentecost,
"(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:39 KJV)
You think he meant something else. Okay.
>>>Those of Roman's 11:26 were the remnant, who were all resurrected in 70 AD (Jesus said he lost none, but the son of perdition.)<<<
>>>No one was bodily resurrected in 70 and crowned already and judging angels, unless we want to sound more like so-called Christian Scientists . Here Rm. 11 is all about God judicially blinding the natural branches, beloved for the father's sake despite being enemies of the "Israel of God," believers, until the fulness of the Gentiles be entered in, after which the curse is removed and all Israel, both the believing natural branches and the Gentile believers, shall be saved.<<<
The fulness of the Gentiles was completed in AD 70. After that, there have been no Jews or Gentiles, in the eyes of Christ: only Christians and non-Christians; or Children or non-Children. Any interpretation that attempts to divide us, under the pretense that Jews are God's chosen people, would not only be showing respect of persons, but would seem to be a case of Judaizing.
>>>The temple of Ezekiel has generated many different interpretations; but I doubt anyone really understands the prophecy. I personally believe it references, in part, the specs of the original temple (which Israel was too impoverished to rebuild to spec;)
The blueprint is said to be different, and it is far to extensive and literally detailed to simply be spiritualized as all referring to the church.<<<
Even in Chapter 47? LOL! I guess Israel could pipe in an enormous flow of water to that bone dry mount Moriah. But I do not see that happening.
>>>LOL! Something like that, but I don't consider it the end, but a new beginning where everyone lives happily ever after, from one generation to the next.<<<
>>>No laughing matter really, while with the preterist hermeneutic it is hard to say anything can speak of the beginning or the end after 70AD. If this here is allowed to be seen as a yet future event, then that which it is tied to honestly is also.<<<
I guess it all boils down to where our heart takes us in the scripture. My interpretation is based on saving the most people, and that would include saving this earth, which I like.
Philip
Live Links, it looked like a copy/paste.
That is absurd. As basically stated b4, the church is the one new man, not two new men, with one resurrected and the other waiting to be. See more further below.
spiritualization? Like "this generation," or "two Elijahs?"
Obviously you ignored the qualified nature of the reproof "of so much of Scripture," the vast degree of spiritualization, dozens of entire chapters.
How long do you think animal life will exist after all green grass is burnt up? (Rev 8:7) What do we eat then, the remaining canned food? How long do you think that will last?
How long do you think it takes for grass to grow back after it is burned? Sometimes more vigorously as the burning releases nutrients back into the soil. But it is a judgment, which the Lord will see the elect thru.
The famous preterist historian, Moses Stuart...all of those early historians, and others, followed the bandwagon of Irenaeus, and are therefore unreliable as historical witnesses in this matter.
The famous historian, Moses Stuart you mean, while i see no proof they all followed Irenaeus, while if you are going to impugn Irenaeus then you must also fairly do to Josephus.
I also read that early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, The Didache all expected a future figure and do not accept Nero
Yet as one critique says. If Revelation were written under Nero, there would be too few emperors; if under Domitian, too many. The original readers would have had no more information on these emperor successions than we do, and possibly even less. How many Americans can immediately name the last seven presidents? Furthermore, how could the eighth emperor who is identified as the beast also be one of the seven (Rev. 17:11)
there is not one word of about a third temple in the entire new testament,
You mean about one being built, which a fair point, though an argument from silence, yet if Rev. speaks of a literal one then it support its existence. And that literal nature is the contention.
I, personally, have never said the church was divided. What I did say was that those of the first resurrection were all Jews, as Daniel stated in Dan 12;
Wrong. Daniel speaks of "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" which constitutes all believers in the NT, "the Israel of God," (Gal. 6:16) and the NT only speaks of one res. of the just, at the culmination of all things.
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Mat 19:28 KJV)
Indeed they shall, as a special part of the body of Christ judging all the lost:
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)
That all res.NT church saints form that body of judges in incontrovertible.
there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
Indeed, these are the Jews who will be converted and preach during the Trib, after the fulness of the Gentiles be entered in. It simply does not say these are resurrected saints.
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:9-10, 12, 14 KJV)
Also affirmed, the original foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20) thus only one was chosen to replace Judas, (Acts 1:15ff) and does not represent all Jews.
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Indeed, as i just said. But what is built is the church, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;" (Ephesians 2:19) having made "in himself of twain one new man, so making peace," (v. 15) not a divided entity, with some being res. while others remain. Again. that is simply absurd.
Additionally all his servants are from the twelve tribes; and his disciples sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes. There is not a single Gentile mentioned.
That is either blindness or willful denial, as it is expressly stated that all the saints shall judge the world, and that the body of Christ is one, and in which There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) Which is "the mystery," "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6)
>>>And writing to both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him, and with the resurrection being bodily, and a separate Jewish resurrection is simply untenable.<<<
Where does it say that?
Say what? That both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him? And or that this is bodily? Look up the word "we" in context where it says that,
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (John 5:28) shall hear his voice, (John 5:28)
Do you deny that the resurrection is bodily?
That again is absurd, error based on error, the repetition of which does not make true. One must be like a so-called "Christian Scientist" to deny the abundant evidence that the devil is very active, and the Lord did not retrain him all the world would be like N. Korea.
the blood of the apostles, prophets, saints and the righteous, in general. Jerusalem was responsible for ALL THE BLOOD of all the prophets, apostles, and all righteous in general.
This actually applies more fully to the Roman emperors, which would persecute the church, and not simply because of the Jews but because of paganism. And which description goes beyond even that city.
This was the blood on Jerusalem’s hands:
The jdgmnt of Jeru.was s an example of the judgment to come, but your selective description ignores the other aspects of Babylon that extend far beyond Jerusalem, which did not reign over the kings of the earth, nor is found no more at all.
And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. (Revelation 18:21)
the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee:” (Rev 18:23-24) Both also lost the voice of the bridegroom and the bride. That can only be Jerusalem.
That is simply more forced spiritualization, and is utterly untenable as the church is the bride of Christ, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles, and did not cease to exist or make music to the Lord, and the text starkly states shall be heard no more at all in thee.
Nor do i see Jerusalem as being the so great city that the merchants referred to saying,
And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. (Revelation 18:19)
As for the rest of your responses, you must stay up half the night making them, while due to my stiff fingers it takes me hours to write responses to them, and i do not think much more is warranted from me.
I did see this yesterday however,
Your notion that the deaths of 1.1 million Jews by sword and famine, the complete destruction of Jerusalem, and the resurrection of the elect from the "four winds" was anticlimactic can only mean that you were not there, or the endless stream of "Antichrist of the Week" false prophecies has darkened your soul.
I think the false prophets who were to be stoned for foretelling things that do not come to pass could have learned some things from preterism. And no, i do not subscribe to Antichrist of the Week nor to the absurdity of a divided partly resurrected church, and Jerusalem being no more at all, etc,. or the extensive world wide and prolonged calamitous events being fulfilled in 70AD, and which almost entirely (Tacitus says a little) depends upon the writings of a Jewish turncoat whose integrity is justifiably questioned .
It does not, as again, all you can support is being with the Lord, while the Lord will reign on the earth, under whom are all the res. NT church saints serving Him, reigning on the earth, as said.
It also fits the scriptural descriptions of the holy city and holy temple, as well as the reign of Revelation 20; that is, unless you add a "while physically on earth" clause after the word, reign.
Scripture both affirms the bodily res. of Christ and that of believers being made like Him, with a glorified phy. body, and states "on the earth," thus i affirm it:
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)
The city itself is about 1500 miles square, and 1500 miles in height (you do take the words of the book of the Revelation literally, don't you?) That would cover a big chunk of the United States. It would not fit anywhere in the Middle East. To see the Lord would be a virtually impossible hike up that enormous mountain for all but the most physically fit.
And how many bathrooms it must have! You are ignoring the nature of the this earth, and likewise that of the glorified body, with which the Lord could come thru closed doors yet eat food. Where did that go? Like annihilationists, you must insist on forcing the physics and constraints of this world onto the next.
Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." (John 16:7-11 KJV) Now, that is righteousness!
The devil was judged at the cross, thus those who follow him will be, and thus even b4 70AD Peter's preaching convicted souls of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment.
And which simply does not constitute a world in which righteousness reigns. Which is simply more wresting of Scripture to conform to the hyper spiritulization of Scripture to conform to an interpretation of MT 24 which the rest of Scripture fails to support except by a highly metaphorical Origen type hermeneutic that is contrary to how the NT over interprets the OT, and instead is more akin to "Christian science" or Swedenborg.
>>>Meanwhile, whatever eschatology is right, believers must be about the Master's business, seeking first His kingdom and righteousness, although often its coming is set forth as the goal of such and terminus for such seeking, and futurist eschatology was a viable evangelistic aspect in Scripture.<<<
I think I agree…
Good.
>>>Live Links, it looked like a copy/paste.<<<
Can you translate that?
DANIEL1212: >>>That is absurd. As basically stated b4, the church is the one new man, not two new men, with one resurrected and the other waiting to be. See more further below. <<<
I don't understand why you don't understand. I haven't had futuristic doctrine drummed into my head all my life, so I am reasonably certain I never will understand your interpretation. Jesus said his coming would happen in the generation of his discples; and he said it not just once, but many times, in many different ways? Why do you insist on spiritualizing his words? For example, how do you manage to spiritualize a futuristic interpretation from this verse?
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1 KJV)
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:23 KJV)
I don't know how one can honestly spritualize those scriptures, other than "tongue in cheek."
>>>Obviously you ignored the qualified nature of the reproof "of so much of Scripture," the vast degree of spiritualization, dozens of entire chapters.<<<
Give me some examples. And how does one spiritualize visionary spirit, or spirit spoken by an angel? That sounds like a double negative to me.
ME: >>>How long do you think animal life will exist after all green grass is burnt up? (Rev 8:7) What do we eat then, the remaining canned food? How long do you think that will last?<<<
YOU:>>>How long do you think it takes for grass to grow back after it is burned? Sometimes more vigorously as the burning releases nutrients back into the soil. But it is a judgment, which the Lord will see the elect thru.<<<
LOL! I was wondering how one might weasel out of that one.
>>>The famous "preterist" [inserted by Dartuser] historian, Moses Stuart...all of those early historians, and others, followed the bandwagon of Irenaeus, and are therefore unreliable as historical witnesses in this matter.<<<
>>>The famous historian, Moses Stuart you mean, while i see no proof they all followed Irenaeus, while if you are going to impugn Irenaeus then you must also fairly do to Josephus.<<<
First: you are misquoting and mischaracterizing my remarks. I would appreciate it if you do not do that. If you can't debate honestly, then say so and we can consider this debate over.
If you don't see the proof about Irenaeus, then you don't want to see it. I seem to recall that even some dispensational historians have bitten the bullet and admitted that all early historians who wrote of a Domitian date were simply relaying what Irenaeus wrote. It is an indisputable fact.
I personally do not believe Irenaeus did not intend his words to be translated in the manner they were translated. The significant change in time periods from paragraph 1 to 3 leads me to believe he did not clearly write what he intended to write.
>>>I also read that early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, The Didache all expected a future figure and do not accept Nero<<<
Again, they all jumped on Irenaeus' bandwagon. Concensus is not history. It is only concensus.
>>>Yet as one critique says. If Revelation were written under Nero, there would be too few emperors; if under Domitian, too many. <<<
I have read that, but I don't recall where. Probably Ken Gentry's book. But I soon realized that whoever wrote that was desperate to make the actual history fit his preconceived notions of history. These are the "seven kings:"
"And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." (Rev 17:9-10 KJV)
These are the first seven Roman Emperors, who according to the Jews, were Kings (e.g., "We have no king but Caesar.")
1. Julius Caesar
2. Augustus
3. Tiberius
4. Gaius (Caligula)
5. Claudius
6. Nero
7. Galba, who only reigned for six months (e.g., a "short space".)
Nero, who reigned from 54AD to June of 68AD, persecuted Christians for forty and two months, exactly the time the scripture states the beast made war with the saints. Nero's persecutions ended upon his death in 68 AD.
Galba, the seventh, continued "a short space" (six months,) and therefore fits the scripture perfectly.
>>>The original readers would have had no more information on these emperor successions than we do, and possibly even less.<<<
Yes, they were sorta "isolated" by slow means of transportation and no other means of communication. Plus, all the earliest church leaders were resurrected and left no follow-up manuscripts. John certainly wasn't much help after the war, if that was really John, and not an imposter.
>>>How many Americans can immediately name the last seven presidents? Furthermore, how could the eighth emperor who is identified as the beast also be one of the seven (Rev. 17:11)<<<
There is a lot of speculation about what that really means. Historians, of all stripes, don't know: they can only speculate. This is, in my opinion, a reasonable interpretation from Dr. Ken Gentry's book, Beast of Revelation, pages 308-9:
"One reasonable alternative interpretation of the relevant passages is the possibility that the sixth head’s revival in the eighth head speaks merely of a semus in which Nero lived again. That is, it could be that the slain head that died was in fact Nero, but that his return to life as the eighth head was not a literal, corporeal reappearance on the scene of history, but a moral and symbolical return. For instance, Revelation 17:10-11 reads: “and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction.” Literally, the seventh emperor of Rome was Galba, who reigned only “a little while,” i.e., from June, A.D. 68 to January 1, A.D. 69. The eighth emperor, however, was Otho. Suetonius tells us something of Otho that is of great interest if this interpretive route be taken. Upon presenting himself to the Senate and returning to the palace, it is said of Otho: “When in the midst of the other adulations of those who congratulated and flattered him, he was hailed by the common herd as Nero, he made no sign of dissent; on the contrary, according to some writers, he even made use of that surname in his commissions and his first letters to some of the governors of the provinces.” Tacitus, too, speaks of Otho’s predilection for Nero: “It was believed that he also brought up the question of celebrating Nero’s memory with the hope of winning over the Roman people; and in fact some set up statues of Nero; moreover on certain days the people and soldiers, as if adding thereby to Otho’s nobility and distinction, acclaimed him as Nero Otho.” Dio Cassius mentions the same idea: “But men did not fail to realize that his rule was sure to be even more licentious and harsh than immediately added Nero’s name to his own.”
That also explains how he could have the wound by the sword, and still live.
>>>there is not one word of about a third temple in the entire new testament,<<<
>>>You mean about one being built, which a fair point, though an argument from silence, yet if Rev. speaks of a literal one then it support its existence. And that literal nature is the contention.<<<
If I was rich enough, I could build one. But didn't I read somewhere that, except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain? (Ps 127:1) When you get time, maybe you can show us where we can find the third temple in the New Testament, which was the context of my original response.
>>>Wrong. Daniel speaks of "thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" which constitutes all believers in the NT, "the Israel of God," (Gal. 6:16) and the NT only speaks of one res. of the just, at the culmination of all things.<<<
Read it again. You are muddying the waters by ignoring the word "many." You are also ignoring the words "thy people." You may think that means both Israel and Gentiles, but I seriously doubt Daniel thought that way.
>>>And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (Revelation 5:10)<<<
>>>That all res.NT church saints form that body of judges in incontrovertible.<<<
And who are the saints? I certainly don't believe it is anyone living today, or even after 70 AD.
>>>there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel." (Rev 7:3-4 KJV)
>>>Indeed, these are the Jews who will be converted and preach during the Trib, after the fulness of the Gentiles be entered in. It simply does not say these are resurrected saints.<<<
Where does it say that? Please show me which scriptures you spiritualized to arrive at that conclusion.
>>>And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." (Rev 21:9-10, 12, 14 KJV)<<<
Also affirmed, the original foundational apostles, (Eph. 2:20) thus only one was chosen to replace Judas, (Acts 1:15ff) and does not represent all Jews.
>>>And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,<<<
>>>Indeed, as i just said. But what is built is the church, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;" (Ephesians 2:19) having made "in himself of twain one new man, so making peace," (v. 15) not a divided entity, with some being res. while others remain. Again. that is simply absurd.<<<
I believe Paul was referring to the holy temple, which is within us, and not the holy city (Rev 21:22.) I believe the holy temple is the so-called "camp of the saints" that can be found in Revelation 20. But since you have taken what I said completely out of context, whether by accident or not, I recommend you read again what I wrote.
>>>Additionally all his servants are from the twelve tribes; and his disciples sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes. There is not a single Gentile mentioned.
That is either blindness or willful denial, as it is expressly stated that all the saints shall judge the world, and that the body of Christ is one, and in which There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) Which is "the mystery," "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body , and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Ephesians 3:6)<<<
Again, you have ignored my context, and are pretending I said something I did not. Please re-read, in its entirety, everything I wrote. Your reference says noting about reigning, nor of the first resurrection. Take note that an heir is not necessarily one who reigns (like a disciple reigns.) Nor is an heir necessarily part of the elect.
>>>And writing to both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him, and with the resurrection being bodily, and a separate Jewish resurrection is simply untenable.<<<
>>>Where does it say that?<<<
>>>Say what? That both Jews and Gentiles they are both told to look for the coming of the Lord and gathering unto Him? And or that this is bodily? Look up the word "we" in context where it says that,<<<
>>>Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:50-52)<<<
>>>Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (John 5:28) shall hear his voice, (John 5:28)<<<
>>>Do you deny that the resurrection is bodily? <<<
No, but I don't know what kind of body is resurrected, nor do you. I can only relay what is written; and I am unsure exactly what to make of it. You provided a small part from 1 Corinthians. There is more. We will begin with a general statement by Jesus:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63 KJV)
Now, Christ was resurrected in his bodily flesh: but he still had holes and scars from his crucifixion.:
"But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:24-28 KJV)
So, it is likely that Christ had yet to receive his spiritual body: the one mentioned in the following passage:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:42-44 KJV)
Now we know that when Christ spoke to John in the Revelation, he did not speak from an earthly body, but in the form of an angel:
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16)
And as you referenced, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." (1 Cor 15:45-56 KJV)
Peter said the same thing about the flesh, but by comparing it to grass:
"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings," (1 Pet 1:19-25 KJV)
There is one other key point: if I believed that I or others would be coming back to earth with Christ to spend 1000 years walking around, or doing whatever those who "reign" do, I would probably try to squeeze a "flesh and blood" resurrection out of the scriptures. But Christ said this to the woman who inquired about where she should worship:
"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:20-24 KJV)
I must conclude from the new covenant scriptures that we will have a "bodily" resurrection, but it will be spiritual bodies, and not fleshly, earthly types of bodies.
Philip
>>>That again is absurd, error based on error, the repetition of which does not make true. One must be like a so-called “Christian Scientist” to deny the abundant evidence that the devil is very active, and the Lord did not retrain him all the world would be like N. Korea.<<<
How about just a few supporting references for a futuristic Babylon? I am particularly interested in where all those apostles, prophets and that righteous blood comes from: you know, those whose blood Babylon the Great was responsible for. The same blood Jerusalem was responsible for.
This is no debate. It is a kindergarten name-calling contest. And I am going to declare you the winner! I cannot think of a greater insult to throw at you than “Christian Scientist;” so you win.
Insane…
Philip
clickable links, you are obviously skilled in HTML
I don’t have the links. These are old downloads. Search using the info I provided.
Cut/Paste with no attribution. Non bueno! Just take your word?
>>>Cut/Paste with no attribution. Non bueno! Just take your word?<<<
Get off your lazies and look them up.
Philip
While I was out working in the garden, it dawned on me that you may have missed my post #138 to you. It contained book authors, titles, and publication year (one title had no date.)
Most of those are so common on the internet, I thought you were just trying to annoy me. But after recalling some of your responses, I think I understand. LOL.
Anyway, go to post #138 of this thread. It lists everything you need to start your search. These Bible Websites have some of the commentaries (not in book form, but HTML,) such as:
http://www.studylight.org/com/
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-1.htm
http://m.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/
When I starting my research, last summer, those were the sites I visited most often. Later I found the following site which contains a myriad of great books, by author and title, including what appears to be the entire collection of early church history by Philip Schaff:
You can find all sorts of scanned books here:
https://archive.org/advancedsearch.php
I believe that site is where I found Burgon’s book, but I can’t be certain. I do recall I had to sort through a lot of stuff to find anything on that site; but occasionally I came up with a gem.
Another great resource is a place called the Preterist Archive:
http://preteristarchive.com/Books/index.html
Despite the name, you can find books of all theological stripes; but it is primarily devoted to materials from what they label as “preterist” and “partial preterist” authors. I believe I found the copy of The Parousia on that site; but I don’t recall.
Recently I found a PDF of Ken Gentry’s excellent book, “Before Jerusalem Fell,” on the Preterist site. I posted the link at that time. It does make things a lot easier having a searchable PDF.
Philip
I didn't cite them, you did, your job to provide the links.
>>>I didn’t cite them, you did, your job to provide the links.<<<
It is not my job to provide links to books. If you are too lazy to search for them, or if you refuse to purchase them, that is not my problem. No one else complained, so I believe this entire whine session by you is personal.
Did you bother to read my post #154?
Philip
If he is citing an on-line source, then a url or hotlink is preferred both for the moderators checking copyright restrictions and for those wishing to learn more and verify the quote in context.
>>>When a poster is citing a printed book or magazine, a bibliographical reference is fine. If the book is old and in the public domain, e.g. old translations of the Bible or the Didache, then no source information is needed.
If he is citing an on-line source, then a url or hotlink is preferred both for the moderators checking copyright restrictions and for those wishing to learn more and verify the quote in context.<<<
Thanks for the clarification, Moderator. Mind were all from books I keep on my computer. When I quote from the web, I try to remember to include the URL’s. Sometimes I forget, since I can’t remember things from one minute to the next, but I try.
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.