Some Questions About The Temple and Kingdom of God

[Last Daze]

 

Why can't there be a dual fulfillment?  A spiritual and a natural?

 

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?

 

 

I still don't see anything there that precludes a dual fulfillment.

 

The kingdom of God cometh not with observation - true...the spiritual one.

 

the kingdom of God is within you. - true...the spiritual one.

 

My kingdom is not of this world..... - true for both.   "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world." 1 John 2:16

 

None of the above mentioned say anything about precluding a natural kingdom.  Do you have any verses that say something to the effect that henceforth there shall never be a natural kingdom?  Because there is plenty to suggest that there will be.  Just because Christ's emphasis in those verses speaks to the spiritual kingdom does not mean that the future natural kingdom is invalid.

[PeteWaldo]

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

 

Moreover, It's the Reason for the "Great Tribulation".....

 

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”

Edited November 11, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=============================================================================================================

 

 

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.

 

 

 

So, where is it?  So you're saying........... the "Literal" Throne of David  ='s  the lineage of David ??     Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)

 

 

(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:"

 

So, give unto HIM.... a Lineage? Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)

 

(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:"

 

So,

 

"will build again"....a Lineage?

 

"is fallen down"....The Lineage is fallen down??

 

"ruins thereof:.... The Lineage is in ruins??

 

"I will set it up"....HE'S gonna "set up" the Lineage again??

 

All Non-Sequitur, IN TOTO.

(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:"

 

So,

 

"will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen".....  So HE'S gonna Raise up "The Lineage" that is fallen??

 

"close up the breaches thereof".....  How do you close up "the Breaches" of a Lineage?

 

"I will raise up his ruins"..... How do you raise up a Lineage?

 

"I will build it as in the days of old".....  So HE'S going to Build the same Lineage as in the days of Old?

 

 

Again, "Collectively and in TOTO....Non Sequitur (Fallacy)----  The Premise does not agree with the Conclusion.

 

 

We don't need to squander time or forum space with Darby's 19th century

 

 

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. 

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

My Word, sir.

 

 

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?

 

 

I've already answered each of your queries @ least twice on this thread....but you continue to act as if, this is something new.

 

 

Please Reconcile (Luke 1:31-32), (Acts 15:13-16), and (Amos 9:11) without Fallacies.  And provide......

 

 

                                                                                                              "TimeLine" 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

 

We need to see the events of Revelation, satan bound for a thousand (or Thousands of years  ), Christ Ruling from The Throne of David......?

[Last Daze]

Was glancing over Daniel 7 and came across this:

 

But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come.’  Daniel 7:18

 

How does this fit in with a "spiritual kingdom only from now on" understanding?

[Marilyn C]

As regards the `kingdom of God is within you...` (Luke 17: 21)

 

Gk. `entos ` - in the midst, among you.

 

This is in relation to the Lord Jesus Himself. He is the Righteousness, He is the Peace, He is the Joy, the entire kingdom in expression. These three specific features are necessary for a durable kingdom, namely righteousness, peace & joy. These are three of the unshakable things that remain, when all things that can be shaken shall be shaken. (Heb. 12: 27)

 

As always, it is the Lord whom God`s word is focussing on. Marilyn.

[PeteWaldo]

 

We don't need to squander time or forum space with Darby's 19th century

 

 

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.

 

Here we go again with this Darby guy.  Do you have some kind of an Ax To Grind with this Gentlemen??

 

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).

 

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. 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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".

 

 

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?

 

 

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":

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2014 by PeteWaldo

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

====================================================================================================================

 

For the 6th 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.

 

 

And....

 

 

 

                                                                                                        "TimeLine"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

We need to see the events of Revelation, satan bound for a thousand (or Thousands of years  ), Christ Ruling from The Throne of David......?