Jump to content

PeteWaldo

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

PeteWaldo last won the day on November 4 2014

PeteWaldo had the most liked content!

Reputation

6 Neutral

1 Follower

About PeteWaldo

  • Birthday 09/28/1950

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.christianeschatology.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

702 profile views
  1. Here we go again with this Darby guy. Do you have some kind of an Ax To Grind with this Gentlemen?? It seems that you are so "bent" on this obsession to refute him that you grab onto Fallacious Reasoning---being the Primary, and all manner of conjured concepts to somehow lay the wood to him. I suppose I wouldn't have a bigger ax to grind with John Darby's counter-gospel eschatology than I do with Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science or Joseph Smith's LDS or Charles Taze Russell's Jehovah's Witness or William Miller's Millerites or Ellen White's Seventh Day Adventists or Edward Irving's Irvingites or Dr. John Thomas' Christadelphians, except that John Nelson Darby - the "father of modern dispensationalism and futurism" - influenced more people. And it isn't like we weren't warned: 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. It should be no surprise then, that recently yet another movie was released in the tens of millions of dollars profitable "left behind" series industry, that is based on John Darby's "pre-trib" "rapture" doctrine, that is not to be found in the church before Darby's pen (well actually he received the idea from Margaret MacDonald by way of Edward Irving). Well I'm sure there are. But I'm not having a discussion with the "Internet" I'm having a discussion with you. And "How Many", "Plethora", and/or Consensus doesn't = TRUTH....and it's an Appeal to Popularity (Fallacy) TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious. I'm sure Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons make the same sort of appeal in their dismissals. However I didn't appeal to popularity but tradition regarding the widely held interpretation of the figurative language of that passage that your interpretation is contrary to, while the traditional view is instead in harmony with and supported by the Gospel. To help you see that your interpretation, did not provide any sort of "proof" of your view, when it doesn't. My Word, sir. The reason I make my appeal through church tradition, in an effort to help you overcome Darby, is because we are instructed to: Job 8:8 For enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and prepare thyself to the search of their fathers: 9 (For we [are but of] yesterday, and know nothing, because our days upon earth [are] a shadow:) The same reason that you have to treat my appeals that cite church tradition, and those of the former age, with hostility. While you may not realize it, John Darby is solely responsible for this pop-eschatology being in the modern church. Though C.I. Scofield popularized it through his annotated bible. Here is the way one of the most highly regarded futurists, Dr. Harry Ironside, described the history of Darby's 19th century 7-year tribulation/rebuilt temple/pre-trib rapture/millennial reign, eschatological scheme: in his Mysteries of God, p.50: ". . . until brought to the fore through the writings of . . . Mr. J. N. Darby, the doctrine taught by Dr. Scofield is scarcely to be found in a single book throughout a period of 1600 years. If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the writer has in measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre- and post-Nicene, the theological treatises of the scholastic divines . . . the literature of the reformation . . . the Puritans. He will find the 'mystery' conspicuous by its absence." That is why you are hostile to the traditional historicist approach to New Testament prophecy, as employed by the church before Darby, including those great men of God of the Reformation. That is why 80 million evangelicals (in the U.S. alone), must necessarily reject even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation and his Islamic kingdom "beast" the final foe of God's people. This even as it is by far the most hermeneutically sound view, that is also supported by the history of the Christian era including 1400 years of Islamic history, and even through an honest open-eyed view of the present day reality of the prophet John's "world". I've already answered each of your queries @ least twice on this thread....but you continue to act as if, this is something new. I guess it was a vain hope to find some common ground, in agreement to the simple and irrefutable answer I was seeking, with a simple "yes". Unless of course you actually believe that an understanding of literal New Testament scripture, should begin first, through an interpretation of the figurative language of an Old Testament prophetic dream. But then it was in the same vein as the rest of what you referred to as "answers". However just because you type words into a post, in further obfuscation, does not constitute an answer. You utterly failed in your effort to provide support for your denial that Jesus did indeed come in His kingdom during the 1st century, before some in His audience died, just as He said He would. Let's look at one of your "answers": 99.5% of your entire position hangs on this verse. It's called "One Verse Theology" and is quite dangerous. The other .5% hangs on dwelling in a temple built with human hands. (Can you show in Ezekiel 40-48 who built/will build this Temple....?) You don't seem to realize that what that actually expressed is: "I simply dismiss those literal New Testament Bible verses, because they contradict my interpretation, of the figurative language of an Old Testament prophecy." You suggest that my literal understanding of the inviolable literal language of literal passages of New Testament scripture that are not open to interpretation - as meaning just what they say - as being "dangerous". Then you cite your interpretation of the figurative language of an Old Testament prophecy, in efforts to nullify the literal New Testament verses that collapsed your house of cards. And even then the verse you cite indicates that God will dwell in the temple described in that passage in Ezekiel forever. Do you really think that a God, who the scriptures inform us doesn't dwell in temples made with hands at all, would stick Himself in a temple built by the hands of men, let alone forever? Is it really that difficult to see which of those approaches is the one that is more "dangerous"? You see the reason I point out the history of your eschatology is not to make you or other forum members mad, but to inspire you to actually bother to investigate the history of futurist doctrine rather than turning a blind eye to it yet again, and once again running and hiding from that history rather than honestly confronting it. Because investigating the truth of the historical record of it, along with coming to terms with the spectacle of it's utter failure in the light of the literal language of New Testament scripture, is what helps folks overcome Darby. Since Jesus IS truth, the best way we can serve Him, is by putting our best effort into seeking out and following the truth. The reason I point out the history is to help you see that you do not need to feel compelled to continue to defend that pop-eschatology any more. To offer you a good reason to simply investigate with a Berean spirit, an entirely different yet most traditional approach to the book of Revelation, as those great men of God of the Reformation would have approached it if they were here today. As opposed to having to continue to approach the book of Revelation through nothing more than pure blind guesswork speculation about some future someday, but instead recognizing it as being in effect an index of history, through fulfilled Bible prophecy that is confirmed by that historical record. Just as those before us recognized, that those who would come after them, would understand it. Isaac Newton: "This Prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the scripture of truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end; {Daniel 12:4, 9} and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals:.... All which is as much as to say, that these Prophecies of Daniel and John should not be understood till the time of the end: .... But in the very end, the Prophecy should be so far interpreted as to convince many." (Part II. Observations Upon the Apocalypse of St. John. Chap 1) My effort is simply to encourage folks to thoroughly investigate all 4 approaches to Bible to Christian eschatology (though it doesn't take much time to dismiss "Idealism"), and then judge each of the 3 approaches independently from each other, and entirely on their own merit.
  2. Of the spotless Lamb of God, who ushered in His kingdom and built His temple in 3 days through His crucifixion death and resurrection, we are informed: Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; To someone that is in the temple and kingdom of Jesus Christ, it seems like borderline blasphemy, for a Christian to suggest a relevance of any animal sacrifice in the future, in light of the knowledge of the one sacrifice for sins forever of the spotless Lamb of God. Perhaps as errant as expecting a restoration of the old covenant in which to do it. Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. So rather than boasting ourselves against the Jews, what if we were to understand simply that God blinded some faithful Jews to the Gospel, so they couldn't sin against it? That through their faith in our great God YHWH, they are actually saved by their anticipated Son, without even knowing it? You then use this verse to support "your" thesis.....Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. The Gospel is Defined here..... (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; {2} By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. {3} For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; {4} And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" That's The Gospel Romans 11:25 speaks to Blindness in Relation to "Not Knowing Christ is The Messiah"....not, Not knowing the Gospel. The Gospel is as clear today as it was then. Ask any Jew, they surely know it! You seem to have helped make my point. While you ignore warnings about boasting in your conceit against Jews, the Gospel was indeed as clear then, as it is today. Yet the following verse was penned decades after the cross: Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. So if they were still blinded well after the cross, their blindness at least extended to when that verse was penned. For you to proclaim that Jews are not blinded to the Gospel, would require that you know when the good Lord chose to lift the veil from the eyes, of those He Himself blinded. But perhaps you would agree, that you cannot, and don't know. What do the scriptures indicate, about a period beyond when that verse was penned, so long after the cross? 25 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. Also rendered: "until the full number of the Gentiles come in" "until the fulness of the nations be come in" 28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. So what if instead of boasting against them in our arrogance we understood that if God hadn't removed the veil and quickened them toward the Gospel, they may not be any more guilty of transgressing new covenant law, than a remote tribesman or child who never had an understanding of it? Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. So through at least one simple understanding, all of the machinations folks have gone through in here in efforts to nullify literal New Testament scripture, through interpretation of the figurative language of Old Testament prophecy, could be dispensed with. No more need to try to replace the temple Jesus built in 3 days, with a carnal physical temple of this world. No need for a kingdom other than the one Jesus ushered in during the first century - particularly since the literal scriptures inform us that his kingdom is in us and is specifically not of this world. Folks in here could embrace the literal Gospel verses that I have posted throughout this thread, with as much love as I do, rather than having those literal verses repeatedly testify against their interpretation of figurative language. The reason for the tribulation, is the same as it has been since my brother and fellow companion in it, John, mentioned it. (NKJV) Rev 1:9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. That reason for tribulation is simply because we are God's people. 2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. Regarding a period of great tribulation, or exceptional tribulation within the tribulation of the Christian era, through the traditional approach of historicism the 20th century would seem a pretty good fit. With 70 million killed in WW2 alone, including 8 million or so Jews. Regarding the reason the Lord restored His people to their covenant land: Ezekiel 36:19 And I scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries..... 22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not [this] for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake..... 23 And I will sanctify my great name..... 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God. I believe the rest of the reasons are still in progress. The Roman Church for one, has of course historically been big into "supersissionism", or "replacement theology". Isaac Newton: “Hence I observe these things, first that the restauration of the Jewish nation so much spoken of by the old Prophets respects not the few Jews who were converted in the Apostles days, but the dispersed nation of the unbelieving Jews to be converted in the end when the fullness of the Gentiles shall enter, that is when the Gospel (upon the fall of Babylon) shall begin to be preached to all nations. Secondly that the prophecies of Isaiah described above by being here cited by the Apostle is limited to respect the time of the future conversion and restitution of the Jewish Nation, and thirdly that the humour which has long reigned among the Christians of boasting our selves against the Jews, and insulting over them for their not believing, is reprehended by the Apostle for high –mindedness and self-conceipt, and much more is our using them despightfully, Pharisaicall and impious”
  3. I don't deny it....I deny your interpretation of it. I believe that if i were to suggest that literal verse, within that literal passage, that is quoting Jesus' literal words, indicates something other than what Jesus Himself said, it wouldn't be an "interpretation" but a lie. My brother and companion the prophet John and I, are in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, today. Seems you don't want to join us. So what is your "interpretation" of that literal verse? ======================================================================================================== For the 4th Time: So what is your "interpretation" of these literal verses?.... (Luke 1:31-32) "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. {32} He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:" (Acts 15:13-16) " And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: {14} Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. {15} And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, {16} After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" (Amos 9:11) "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:" As I said, for "your" thesis to hold any water, you must show Christ ruling from here. If not, your position is colossally Untenable. Jesus is of the lineage of David and thus heir to his throne: John 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? If you're going to be literal with what you underlined, you'd be obligated to begin by telling us where the literal chair that David sat in is, wouln't you? A ridiculous suggestion, isn't it. Yet there's your literal throne. We don't need to squander time or forum space with Darby's 19th century interpretation of the figurative language of that Old Testament passage, when there is a plethora of websites on the internet that you can avail yourself of, that will explain how it points to the very same kingdom Jesus ushered in, before some that were standing before Him died (who you yourself listed). The same kingdom throne and temple that I have been posting about all along. Simply Bing something like - build again the tabernacle of David. Yet there you are, continuing to duck and dodge the literal language of New Testament scripture, through interpretation you have been taught of the figurative language of Old Testament prophecy. Even as you accuse the traditional understanding (as revealed in that web search) of that prophecy, as being "colossally untenable"! Your doing so shouldn't be a surprise, since that's the way John Darby constructed his pop-19th century eschatology - with a backwards approach. For pity's sake, the very foundation of his creation, is his interpretation of the figurative language of Daniel's 70th week, that spins into an inverted pyramid of pile-on presumption from there! That's the reason, that when you are confronted by literal verses from the New Testament, they become a witness against you. Are you saying that Jesus built His temple in the first century, through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, but gee whiz, it just can't be that He came in his kingdom in which to build it? Perhaps He built it but forgot to furnish His/our temple with a throne? John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. I believe "the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said", do you? Or perhaps you think He failed to build His/our temple altogether? This isn't a "thesis" my friend. Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. You even underlined it later in your post: What stone cut "without hands", is the cornerstone of the temple, that was built without hands? Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; Mar 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; So does it make sense to you that proper exegesis of scripture (or any other literature that contains figurative language), must begin by first understanding the inviolable literal language of literal scripture, before we even attempt interpretation the figurative language of figurative passages of prophecy that cannot be allowed to contradict those literal verses and passages?
  4. The "why" of your question was answered by the literal verses from the NT, that were posted immediately before your question. Even included the same emphasis: Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world..... Does anything seem ambiguous about that plain literal language from literal verses? Should folks seek to nullify that literal language that is not open to interpretation, with an interpretation of the figurative language of a prophetic vision that is widely open to interpretation, that is specifically contradicted by the truth of those literal verses?
  5. So are you saying that you believe that Jesus prophesied falsely, when He told those standing before Him, that some of them would not die before they saw the Son of Man come in His kingdom? Didn't you yourself post: Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world..... So what are you saying? Oh gee I meant the other kingdom of God? If you don't think that Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning over you, in His kingdom today, you might need to review your relationship with Him. No, that is not what I am saying and you really need to check your flesh with that judgmental attitude. His Kingdom is within us. His Holy Spirit is in us, sealing us for the day of redemption. Salvation has absolutely nothing to do with His second coming, the seals/trumpets/bowls, the millennium, the New Heaven and New earth or the New Jerusalem. Now, what I asked for is not a bible teaching, but a timeline of what happened when. You are claiming that Christ has been reigning (as He will in the millennium) for the past 2000 years, which was only to last for the 1000 years, so I was asking for the proof. When was Satan bound in chains and cast into the bottomless pit? When did the tribulation happen? When did the rapture, or being caught up, happen? Also, if you see some prophecy being fulfilled in the future, then say so. I would like to have dates pointing to each event that is to take place before He returns. Now, if a discussion of this type is something you cannot do without attacking someone, then perhaps this is not a thread for you. If that was a reference to my last suggestion, there seems no shortage of folks that think Christ ruling and reigning with a rod of iron, is reserved for some future someday. If it was in regard to my suggesting you were indicating: "Oh gee I meant the other kingdom of God?" it seems to me that you basically just repeated it. Regarding the flesh, from where I stand in the kingdom, I see that obsession with those who believe the temple Christ built nearly 2,000 years ago to be so insufficient that a temple built by the hands of men would be needed - even as you must readily admit that the NT informs us that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. I agree. What might have made that even more complete, is to add that Christ and His people are the temple of God in that kingdom, ever since He built His temple nearly 2,000 years ago. We will not be well served by distracting ourselves and wasting time with interpretation of figurative language of John's prophetic vision that is widely open to interpretation before first becoming grounded in the literal language of literal verses in the New Testament, that are not open to interpretation. This is an example of how we would waste our time if we began with the figurative language of prophetic dreams. Within this same post you recognize that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is within us, from a literal verse and passage, but then in the very same post turn around and seek to nullify that, by illustrating that your interpretation of the figurative language of John's prophetic vision has you awaiting some future kingdom of this world, of some future someday instead. Perhaps the kingdom of Jesus Christ that the prophet John and I are brothers and companions in, just doesn't seem good enough, for someone that desires a kingdom and temple of the flesh in this world. So how is your believing in both not saying "Gee I meant the other kingdom!" Your indicating that Rev 20 can only mean a thousand years, is how folks wander off into error. Which I explained to another poster earlier: Maybe you were deceived into believing that indefinite plural, provided some sort of "proof" of a necessarily specific future single one-thousand year reign, but as you can see it doesn't. You requested "proof" regarding Christ's invisible kingdom, for which by it's nature "proof" does not exist, nor can I provide any (except perhaps through anecdotal testimony of folks with near death experiences, and those whom have had conversations with Jesus and such). My understanding is reached through the scriptural evidence that the OP and my posts have been larded with - that even you embellished with more scripture from Mark that confirms that the kingdom of God is within us. Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world..... Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. So is the kingdom of God of this world or not? Is the kingdom of God within us or not? Are God and His people His temple or not? Is that the true tabernacle that the Lord pitched and not man, or not?
  6. I don't deny it....I deny your interpretation of it. I believe that if i were to suggest that literal verse, within that literal passage, that is quoting Jesus' literal words, indicates something other than what Jesus Himself said, it wouldn't be an "interpretation" but a lie. My brother and companion the prophet John and I, are in the kingdom of Jesus Christ, today. Seems you don't want to join us. So what is your "interpretation" of that literal verse?
  7. Not where I live and go to church, and most of the churches we relate to. I imagine churches around you are likely not that way, since you live in Africa, and the Lord is working powerfully around much of your continent. Different story in the west. Particularly with apostate institutions that are even selling out Jesus through interfaith pluralism. The kinds of institutions that are more interested in the politics and economics of demonizing Israel, and the carbon footprint of their "church", than in preaching repentance. I'm afraid that the modern concept of the alter call may all too often understood by those who go up, as paying lip service to Jesus for a guarantee of salvation, and license to continue in serial sin since that "salvation" is believed irrevocable. But likely were never saved in the first place since they were unrepentant for more than a short while. Even the famous sorcerer Simon Magus got baptized.
  8. =========================================================================================================== 99.5% of your entire position hangs on this verse. It's called "One Verse Theology" and is quite dangerous. The other .5% hangs on dwelling in a temple built with human hands. (Can you show in Ezekiel 40-48 who built/will build this Temple....?) At least when I peddled Darby's doctrine, I didn't simply discard literal verses in literal passages of New Testament scripture, because they didn't fit my 19th century eschatology. You accuse "One Verse Theology" of an entire approach to Bible prophecy. So would that be the "future" temple that is required, because the temple that Jesus built in the 1st century through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, was so inadequate, incomplete and insufficient, that it would require a follow up temple built by the hands of men? Perhaps we can get a better idea as to who built it, once we understand how long it will be occupied: Ezekiel 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, [neither] they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places. The same temple Jesus built in the 1st century: Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. The true tabernacle: Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. (I have to step out for a couple hours)
  9. Billy Graham I don't know why I couldn't see these replies until now, so please excuse me for editing after they were posted. Indeed, a concept born in the 1950s, and a reason that so many believe themselves to be Christians simply for having parroted it, and perhaps believing themselves to be licensed to continue on in serial sin for having done so. My former pastor even told those before him "Congratulations, your name is written in the Lamb's book of life!". Obviously without having any more idea as to the condition of their hearts, than he could have God's judgments. But then there are few quicker ways to empty the offering plates, a clear out a church today, than to preach repentance. Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Do you think there is any shortage of people who have deceived themselves into believing they are Christian? What if by simply parroting those words they believe they are "once saved always saved"?
  10. Is it my position that the Son of Man came in His kingdom nearly 2,000 years ago? Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would? The term for the view that Christ has been ruling and reigning in His kingdom throughout the Christian era is called "amillennialism". Now I can see why your posts make no sense to me. Please, do us all the pleasure of outlining in a timeline where every one of the events in Revelation occurred, from the first seal to the last bowl. This will save many hours of back and forth posting trying to garner information of what you believe. **Edited by a servant Please do not repost this ** So are you saying that you believe that Jesus prophesied falsely, when He told those standing before Him, that some of them would not die before they saw the Son of Man come in His kingdom? Didn't you yourself post: Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world..... So what are you saying? Oh gee I meant the other kingdom of God? If you don't think that Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning over you, in His kingdom today, you might need to review your relationship with Him. It may be hard for you to see that what you are actually requesting is that I help you understand an entire Dan-Rev study, within the entirely separate yet traditional approach to Bible prophecy of historicism (with which I am going to venture that you are unfamiliar), through a series of one-line zingers that you can seize on to wring through the filter of pre-conceived notions that spring from the eschatology you have been taught. Let alone that to even begin with a "timeline" would be foiled right out of the gate, because it would have to be prefaced by an understanding of the repetitive bifidic and chiasmic nature, of the books of Daniel and Revelation. Additionally, the attitude expressed in your post, seems to belie your left sidebar profile claim of a desire to "learn" and "share". I was a futurist for many years so I am well familiar with what you believe. I even began teaching it on a website I had previously uploaded (that was originally more geared toward politics). However the further I developed the website and the more I shared, the more convicted I became by a compounding of serious questions that arose as I wrote, that I increasingly could not find answers to. Ultimately deciding that (what I later learned was John Darby's) futurist eschatology, has a beyond difficult time of standing in the light of the truth of the Gospel. I was introduced to it through Jack Van Impe shows and tapes for some years (who has taught the doctrine for over 60 years, beginning on UHF TV in Detroit in the 1950s) followed by attending Calvary Chapel for several years, with independent Bible study throughout that time. Now let me ask you. If you measured it in terms of full-time study, how many weeks or months or years do you suppose you have spent, studying the book of Revelation through the traditional approach of historicism? (There are only 3 viable approaches which are futurism, preterism and historicism.) The part I find most amazing, is that futurists are generally resistant to learning anything other than what they have been taught, yet it doesn't even seem to bother them that Darby's 19th century eschatology, necessarily precludes them from even considering that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation. This even as 1/4 of mankind - 1.5 billion people in the world today - must DISbelieve that Christ was crucified, and thus reject His shed blood, while they deny and blaspheme the Son of God, as articles of their faith in the false prophet Muhammad who commands his followers to conquer all kingdoms and ultimately subjugate all people to DISbelieving the crucifixion and denying the Son of God. Who are taught that if they were to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even to pray in Jesus' name, would be to commit the single most "heinous" and only unforgivable sin ("shirk") in Muhammadanism. So committed to doctrine are today's Christians, that they would never consider even investigating, how another approach to prophecy may even paint a bullseye square in the middle of Muhammad's back as THE false prophet, and explain just why his Islamic kingdom "beast" is out there slaughtering and subjugating non-Muslims around much of the world today, as they have for 1400 years. In light of that doesn't it seem just a little bit weird to you, that you are necessarily precluded from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet, when we believe in..... The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit While Muhammad's followers follow the satanic trinity of: the father of lies, his messenger Muhammad, specifically and necessarily in the spirit of antichrist (each and every one, as an article of their faith, in Muhammad alone) If you actually do have an interest in learning, as your sidebar indicates, and would like an introduction to an entire approach to Bible prophecy with which you may be unfamiliar, I recommend the book "The False Prophet" by Ellis Skolfield, available free online. It is a brick by brick empirical argument that is fun and fast to read. For over 35 years our 87 year old elder brother, has written about Islam in Bible prophecy, as revealed through the traditional historicist approach of the Reformers and 1800 years of church history. However if you pick it up with the same amount of Berean spirit that your post seemed to indicate, and instead of giving it a fair and impartial reading but instead try to wring every sentence through the filter of your pre-conceived notions, it will be as big a waste of time as anything else that is approached in that manner. "He who is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." But do you imagine that until and unless you do make a real effort at understanding prophecy, through the entire approach of the tradition of historicism, that you really have any standing to argue against it through a 19th century pop-eschatology? (And I don't mean learning historicism as held by cults like SDA that happen to share the same approach. For example just because Arnold Murray's Serpent Seed cult are futurists, doesn't mean that all futurists are compelled to believe that Eve literally had sex with Satan, as they do.)
  11. Indeed and amen bro! Yet no shortage still seem to expect to say: "See here!' or 'See there!" to the physical. The kingdom He spoke of is the security of being Gods child, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus will physically return soon. I believe soon Jesus will arrive physically, in His Second Coming too. How much worse does this world have to get?!! Coming in final judgment, at the last trump, when time itself will cease to exist. Well, I'm up a couple hours past my bedtime bro. Night night. I do believe the rapture will occur at the last trump, but His judgment will not be at that time, nor will time cease to exist at the last trumpet. His judgment comes later and time will continue to exist, though we will not take part in it for time is about how we measure this existence. Good morning OneLight. Pop-bible versions may offer the impression that time doesn't end at the last trump - voice of the seventh angel - through translations of convenience driven by futurist doctrine, since if time ended there couldn't be anything further that is measured by time. Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: They substitute the word "delay", where the KJV used "time", in this verse. Perhaps to buy more time?!:-) Check Strong's and you will find the word is: chronos 1. time either long or short I believe the verse means just what it says, that time itself will be no longer. If delay had been meant as in: Act 25:17 Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Strong's again: anabolē 1. delay, a putting off If delay had been meant in Rev 10:6 why wouldn't the Greek term that actually means delay have been used? Time will be finished and we will then be in God's state of timelessness that exists outside of time when: Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. Did that say the mystery should be "finished except for this or that"? Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Reign forever and ever, in the kingdom He brought in the 1st century. Not on earth for some randomly placed thousand years of some future someday. Look again at the verse from Ezekiel that I posted regarding the temple that Joe thought was to be yet in the future: ".....the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever....." Isn't it all perfectly consistent? That kingdom is within us, just as the literal scripture that you posted says. Jesus ushered His kingdom in during the first century before some that He explained that to even died. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, just like the literal verses indicate. We are all "fellowcitizens" in the household and kingdom of God and were built into an holy temple in the Lord through the Spirit, for nearly 2,000 years. Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Just as all of the verses indicate. Tough I do complement you for doing a word search, you really need to do a better job and go beyond what Strong's gives and look at what the Greek dictionaries tell us. Even within the simplicity of Strong's, it gives the following: G5550 chronos "of uncertain derivation; a space of time (in general, and thus properly distinguished from G2540, which designates a fixed or special occasion; and from G165, which denotes a particular period) or interval; by extension, an individual opportunity; by implication, delay. KJV: + years old, season, space, (X often-)time(-s), (a) while." It does not mean that time ceases to exist. The same part of the verse in Greek says: chronos ouk estai eti time not shall-be still I have no idea where you were going with the rest of the post or how it even ties into what we are discussing. You can't even seem to see that what you quoted would seem to reinforce the view that time will be no longer. That time itself, whether "a space of time, or interval" will cease to exist. It says "by implication, delay." so in order for it to "imply" "delay" would require an accommodating context. I would suggest that the last trump, and voice of the 7th angel end of all things, is perhaps the last context in which delay would be implied. Further I showed you the Greek word for "delay" which would. I stated where I was going with it. That if at the last trump (or sound of the seventh angel) the mystery of God is finished, and we are forever on God's time, then we will be joining Him in being outside of time. That being the case there wouldn't even be such a thing as a further concept of a period of 1,000 years. Paul was addressing the church in the following, so we have every reason to believe that the church is the "we". Paul and you and I and the rest of the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 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. Not a few trumps before the last, but at the last trump. Additionally, if there is any THEY group, I am pretty confident I would not want to be in it! 1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.... Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Rev 16:17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. What is done? The mystery of God as he declared to his servants the prophets. Final judgment. The "day of the Lord". Anyone who has deceived themselves into believing they became a Christian because they parroted a "sinner's prayer" after making a "decision", even as they are well aware they remain in serial sin, will be "left behind" forever. No second chance at repentance, because of judgment deferred for 7 years. No second bite at the apple.
  12. ======================================================================================================= So is your position that there is No Millennium or that the Millennium Started over 2,000 Years ago? Then that would mean that the events of Revelation have already taken place...or do you dismiss...in it's Entirety, The Book Of Revelation? And a Healthy Chunk of the Book Of Daniel, among many others? If any of those above apply, You got Encyclopedic Volumes of Problems. For Brevity, let's stick with just a couple (They'll be quite sufficient). Is it my position that the Son of Man came in His kingdom nearly 2,000 years ago? Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Or is it you that denies that Jesus came in His kingdom, before some of those standing before Him died in the first century, just as He promised them He would? No that would mean that the book of Revelation has been being fulfilled throughout the Christian era, just as the church understood, throughout its first 1800 years. For example as expressed by Isaac Newton: "This Prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the scripture of truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end; {Daniel 12:4, 9} and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals:..." The term for the traditional view that Christ has been ruling and reigning in His kingdom throughout the Christian era is called "amillennialism". Further, as I already expressed in the thread on the subject the Greek word for a single 1000 is "chilias", but the word used in Rev 20 is "chilioi" which is an indefinite plural, that could indicate many thousands. This doesn't mean that it can't indicate a single thousand, but If something as important as a whole doctrine surrounding a single future thousand year reign were meant, don't you think "chilias" would have been a better choice? My approach to Bible prophecy is in the church tradition of historicism. The same approach through which you yourself understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled. The same approach through which the available evidence suggests the church approached New Testament prophecy, before John Darby penned his futurist doctrine in the 19th century, that was popularized in the 20th century church through by C.I. Scofield's annotated Bible. In other words I take a uniform approach to all Bible prophecy, while you switch from historicism for the OT, to the pop-eschatological approach of futurism when it comes to the book of Revelation. Through the traditional historicist approach it is my understanding, that the books of Revelation and Daniel have been being fulfilled throughout the Christian era, as great men of God of the Reformation like Isaac Newton and Matthew Henry did, and as the church understood before the 20th century. Indeed as my thread on the subject indicates I believe that these books are at least nearly fulfilled. You even participated in the thread, so unless you ignored the first two posts I can't imagine how you could come up with the notion, ".....do you dismiss...in it's Entirety, The Book Of Revelation?", when I explained how I believe that Muhammad is indeed THE false prophet of the book of Revelation, and his Islam kingdom "beast" of Revelation 13 the final foe of God's people, and recognize the restoration of Jews to their land and city as marking the beginning of what Daniel's prophecy refers to as the "time of the end". Thus, through the church traditional approach of historicism, it is my understanding that those books are at least nearly fulfilled. The difficulty you are having in understanding what I post, as your reply well demonstrates, is that you are trying to wring an entirely different approach to prophecy, through the filter of pre-conceived notions from the approach you have been taught and currently hold. The only way you will be able to even begin to see, is if you decide to consider the traditional historicist approach entirely on its own merit, and then judge between, futurism, preterism and the tradition of historicism, each independently on its own merit. Only then will you be able to judge which of the 3 approaches to prophecy has "Encyclopedic Volumes of Problems". Righteous judgment through knowledge, rather than doctrinal insistence while remaining ignorant, to at least one of the other entire approaches. I well understand that the tiny peeks into what I was allowed to present through the traditional approach before being stopped, do not fit in with Darby's "7-year tribulation" "pre-trib" "rapture" "future rebuilt temple" "The Antichrist" "millennial reign" eschatological scheme, however understanding the books of Daniel and Revelation through the tradition of historicism is well supported by those of the former age, and the historical record of kingdom succession, as well as present day reality, of John's "world". #entry2163199 Could it be that the one that has "Encyclopedic Volumes of Problems" could be the one that failed to reply to the content of the post that he quoted? Perhaps the greatest difficulty in exegesis of scripture arises when one first begins with interpretation, of the figurative language, of prophetic dreams and visions in Old Testament prophecy, before turning to the literal language of literal passages of New Testament scripture. For example the pop-eschatology of futurism comes from the 19th century pen of John Darby (who is regarded as "the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism"). The basis of that scheme begins with his understanding of the book of Daniel suggesting that there would be a 7 year period of tribulation in Darby's future. But since the book of Daniel was sealed until the "time of the end", wouldn't any individual's understanding of it in the mid-19th century, at best be seriously compromised, and perhaps even egregious error? Yet the understanding of futurists today, is the very same as John Darby's, from the mid-19th century. But let's get to the questions of this thread, some of which you ignored, even in the post you quoted. 1. Did the Son of Man come in His kingdom in the 1st century, as He prophesied that He would, or not? 2. Was the temple that Jesus built in 3 days through His crucifixion, death and resurrection, somehow so insufficient, and so incomplete, as to require that a physical temple to be built in the future by the hands of men? Particularly in light of the scriptures that unequivocally state in literal language of a literal passage of New Testament, that God doesn't well in temples made with hands. 3. If faithful Jews are saved through their faith in our great God YHWH, since YHWH Himself blinded some of them to the Gospel so that they couldn't transgress new covenant law (no law no transgression), what would the purpose of a physical temple built by men's hands be? Particularly if indeed the New Testament scriptures indicate that Jews and Christians have been saved by faith over the last 2,000 years. It should be obvious that any animal sacrifice under a restoration of the old covenant would be irrelevant at best. Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 4. A curious question. How many weeks or months have you spent in the study of New Testament Bible prophecy, through the same traditional historicist approach through which you understand Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled, while judging the approach completely on its own merit without filtering it through pre-conceived notion or futurist eschatology you have been taught?
  13. Anybody is welcome to reply to this, and I guess the question I have is why would folks want to stick Jesus into a physical temple on earth made by the hands of men, even though He built His temple in 3 days at the time that He also ushered in His kingdom, nearly two thousand years ago? The temple that was built through the perfect sacrifice of the spotless Lamb of God. Now I can understand why some faithful Jews, who may remain blinded to the Gospel by God Himself, could have an interest in building yet another temple on the temple mount. Even how they could have an interest in resuming animal sacrifices for atonement of sin. Earlier I mentioned that since some faithful Jews still labor under the old covenant, might God have blinded some of them to the Gospel, so they couldn't sin against it? Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 25 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. 28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. So could it be that Jews blinded to the Gospel can't transgress new covenant commandments, because God prevented them from even seeing the Gospel? Might they be saved through that ignorance to the Gospel, just as perhaps tribesmen in a remote village, or little kids or the mentally challenged may be, that never received an understanding? Faithful Jews whose lives revolve around their faith based community, doing what they can to please our Lord as their fathers have for 3500 years, that may be saved through their faith as Abraham was? But Christians have not been blinded to the Gospel. So of what purpose would a Christian believe any blood sacrifices over the last 2,000 years, or at any time in the future, would serve? Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; Doesn't it seem that a Christian, championing a need for future blood sacrifice of animals in a restoration of the old covenant, would be walking in stunningly egregious error, to put it mildly? Do the scriptures indicate such a restoration, or the exact opposite? Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. What purpose would a physical replacement, for the temple that Jesus built nearly 2,000 years ago, serve, if indeed Jews have been saved as a result of their blindness and faith in our great God YHWH, for the last nearly two thousand years?
  14. You agree that the kingdoms of this world are Satan's legal possession, but then seem to indicate that there would be a need for judgment on them. Since you agree they are Satan's, what's left to judge? Which is the least driven by Satan? I don't wonder if He may be passing judgment on Europe even today, for abandoning Him in the prophesied apostasy, and the punishment on the unregenerate there being Islam. It wouldn't be the first time God used His enemies as a tool of punishment. Exactly, me too. He in us and we in Him. A temple of God through the Spirit and His kingdom is within us too. So why would there be need for a physical temple, particularly built by by the hands of men (which the scriptures indicate that God would specifically not dwell in), any more than there has been a need for a temple over the last nearly 2,000 years? Why would the temple that Jesus built in 3 days, through the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of God, be so imperfect and so insufficient as to require a physical temple of this world? Because it would be better than the one Jesus built through His sacrifice? But you already indicated a relationship through the Spirit. I am in the kingdom of God today, and will be forever. And doesn't dwell mean dwell? Live there? Hang out there? Gen 21:21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt. Doesn't that mean Ishmael lived in the wilderness of Paran? Whether in your house, or in your neighborhood, or in the household of God that His people dwell in presently (while in this temporal life), and will continue to dwell in with our fellow saints and Lord and Savior forever (after we pass from this temporal life). Old Testament or New: Act 11:29 Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: Jesus already built our temple nearly 2,000 years ago, and we are indeed connected personally through the Spirit as you indicate. When the ecclesa meet, it doesn't matter whether it is online like here, or in someone's living room (like in the 1st century), or under a shade tree. Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. But He came in His kindgom 2,000 years ago. Don't you imagine that literally dwelling with our Lord in heaven, would be unimaginably better, than continuing to be stuck in a temporal world - let alone for a thousand years? Would that be something to look forward to? So we could suffer watching the spectacle of sinners falling to temptation and the trap of sin? Don't we get enough of that in this world? That is however how Muhammad described paradise through his carnal imagination. The "worthy" such as himself perched on jewel encrusted thrones, with for what he called "entertainment", the ability to gaze down into hell for the amusement of watching those who didn't do quite enough good deeds, be tortured by the hand of his "Allah". He certainly already rules over me with a rod of iron, in His kingdom, today! Folks over who's lives He doesn't, might want to review what they understand about their relationship with Him. And if His Second Coming occurs before I die, at the sound of the seventh angel, I expect what the scriptures indicate: Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
  15. Indeed and amen bro! Yet no shortage still seem to expect to say: "See here!' or 'See there!" to the physical. The kingdom He spoke of is the security of being Gods child, sealed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus will physically return soon. I believe soon Jesus will arrive physically, in His Second Coming too. How much worse does this world have to get?!! Coming in final judgment, at the last trump, when time itself will cease to exist. Well, I'm up a couple hours past my bedtime bro. Night night. I do believe the rapture will occur at the last trump, but His judgment will not be at that time, nor will time cease to exist at the last trumpet. His judgment comes later and time will continue to exist, though we will not take part in it for time is about how we measure this existence. Good morning OneLight. Pop-bible versions may offer the impression that time doesn't end at the last trump - voice of the seventh angel - through translations of convenience driven by futurist doctrine, since if time ended there couldn't be anything further that is measured by time. Rev 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: They substitute the word "delay", where the KJV used "time", in this verse. Perhaps to buy more time?!:-) Check Strong's and you will find the word is: chronos 1. time either long or short I believe the verse means just what it says, that time itself will be no longer. If delay had been meant as in: Act 25:17 Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Strong's again: anabolē 1. delay, a putting off If delay had been meant in Rev 10:6 why wouldn't the Greek term that actually means delay have been used? Time will be finished and we will then be in God's state of timelessness that exists outside of time when: Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. Did that say the mystery should be "finished except for this or that"? Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Reign forever and ever, in the kingdom He brought in the 1st century. Not on earth for some randomly placed thousand years of some future someday. Look again at the verse from Ezekiel that I posted regarding the temple that Joe thought was to be yet in the future: ".....the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever....." Isn't it all perfectly consistent? That kingdom is within us, just as the literal scripture that you posted says. Jesus ushered His kingdom in during the first century before some that He explained that to even died. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, just like the literal verses indicate. We are all "fellowcitizens" in the household and kingdom of God and were built into an holy temple in the Lord through the Spirit, for nearly 2,000 years. Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. Just as all of the verses indicate.
×
×
  • Create New...