The alive and remaining are changed - doesn't that mean all the rest died?

[angels4u]

41 minutes ago, George said:

For those who've not read this was a study on the Kingdom.

It may be enlightening to those who are interested.

Thank you George,I'm sure I read it earlier but will read it again to be reminded of everything

[George]

Just now, Last Daze said:

There is no evidence that such an event has taken place.

True ... and it does fit with Zechariah's passage.   So like a LITERAL PHYSICAL return of Jesus ... like it says in the Bible! 

[Last Daze]

1 minute ago, George said:

True ... and it does fit with Zechariah's passage.   So like a LITERAL PHYSICAL return of Jesus ... like it says in the Bible! 

Agree.  And concerning the kingdom, there's no reason that both a literal kingdom of God and a spiritual kingdom of God can't both exist at the same time.  One does not preclude the other.

[George]

@Josheb Honestly, you need to have a bit thicker skin.  Abuse is along the lines of name calling, ad hominem attacks, etc.    

[missmuffet]

11 minutes ago, Josheb said:

It is a violation of the TOS to mention any poster, especially in any way that implies or otherwise insinuates the other person is lacking in some way. Smiley faces don't make violations of the TOS okay. This op is not about my need, your need, iamlamad's need, Alive's need, enoob57's need, nor anyone else's need for study. We are studying the scriptures right here and now and most of us are doing so abiding by the TOS.

 

And you just changed the words.

The first post clearly says nothing about "from my perspective". 

 

And the facts in evidence show I have studied the message of the kingdom from your perspective. I have expounded upon the Hebraic mindset and I showed hos all the sources provided were extra-canonical and not representative in any way of an Old Testament Jewish mindset. I asked from scriptural support for the 7,000 year cycle and no one has provided any such evidence. Statements about preterism were shown to be incorrect and I asked for evidence any preterist teaches what was claimed and I am still waiting on that evidence. You went on record plainly stating you were not a scholar of things eschatological. I summarized the difference between Historicism and Dispensationalism. The evidence shows I have studied and it shows I am not the one in need of study. I understand the message of the kingdom from your perspective just fine. I simply disagree with it. It's not clear you understand the message of the kingdom from my perspective.

 

And throughout the 24 pages of this thread I have refrained from telling you anything about you because the TOS prohibits it. 

 

When you insinuate someone does not know something and needs to study it is abusive of everyone in the forum. Keep the posts about the posts and n NOT the posters.

I completely agree and nothing I have posted should have been construed otherwise. We simply disagree as to the nature of that kingdom and it is evident to everyone here you're not actually using much of Jesus' teachings. You're couched mostly in the Old Testament and a post-canonical view of the supposed Hebraic mindset.

And I think you should study out the message of the kingdom from perspectives other than the Dispensational Premillennial point of view that was invented in the 19th century but I manage to post without telling you that because I respect you as the owner of the forum and the TOS as the standard to which we all agreed. 

So don't deflect this time: 

Can we have this discussion without you ever mentioning me in any way that implies or otherwise insinuates some lack on my part? If so then engage the substance of the posts and don't mention me again. If not, then I will gladly move on to other ops and have the conversations that can be had with those posters who can have them. 

 

 

Let me know. 

It is about all the needs of those of us  on Worthy who want to hear the literal true Word of God Josheb. We want to know the truth. God wants us to know the truth. 

[George]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

We are not jews, we are Christians, and it is completely inappropriate to impose the older revelation upon the newer revelation or in any other way neglect or deny what the New Testament says about the Old Testament. 

Remember that you are GRAFTED INTO a TREE!  Where do you suppose ALL THE WRITERS of the NT quoted from?     Whether you realize it or not ... ALL SCRIPTURE must be FULFILLED! 

[DeighAnn]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

f we are to believe scripture as stated - really believe it as written, then it does not matter whether Revelation was written before 70 AD or circa 95 AD. Belief is not dependent upon date. 

What does that mean?

 

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

What happens does not matter. The scripture states what the scripture states whether you or I understand 2000 year later what happened or not. Do we believe the scripture as stated or not? Or do we say, "No, I will not believe what is written because I don't see those events having happened. I will measure scripture by history and not history by scripture"? 

Do you understand what prophecy is?   IT DOES MATTER IF IT HAPPENS or not because that is how we tell false prophets from fakes, no?

[Last Daze]

5 hours ago, missmuffet said:

It is about all the needs of those of us  on Worthy who want to hear the literal true Word of God Josheb. We want to know the truth. God wants us to know the truth. 

One thing that I've noticed about proponents of Replacement Theology or Kingdom Now Theology or Dominion Theology is that there is no consistency in determining what should be taken literally and what should be taken spiritually, or taken both ways.  I suspect that in large part this is because scripture is read through the filter of the desired outcome.

I agree with the literal approach as well unless the context suggests otherwise.  In addition to that, all the pieces have to fit because things can be viewed differently.  It is a learning process and if it's not led by the Spirit of God, it'll wind up in a ditch.  Regardless of how we see things, prophecy will come about as God wills.

The theme that Jesus repeated often about His return:

• What I say to you I say to all: "Stay alert!" Mark 13:37

Edited March 29, 2022 by Last Daze

[iamlamad]

5 hours ago, Josheb said:

200 years ago = John Darby. 

 

What is a salvation without sin? It cannot be the rapture because that is inherently has something to do with sin. It cannot be the millennium kingdom because that too inherently has to do with sin. The author of Hebrews said Jesus would come without sin unto salvation, or in more contemporary syntax, he will come to bring a salvation that has nothing to do with sin. It would be good if Paul's words were believed and John Darby was not followed. He did write much farther long ago than 200 years and he was writing predominantly about circumstances and events predominantly occurring in his era, not ours. What was future for them is now past for us. The last days occurred in the NT era. We look forward to the last day. The ends of the ages occurred in the NT era. We look forward to the age to come. 

Anyone can go through scripture and compare the last days scriptures with the last day scriptures, and anyone can do the same with this age (the age in which Jesus appeared) and the age to come.

Heb 9:28 

AMP
so Christ, having been offered once and once for all to bear [as a burden] the sins of many, will appear a second time [when he returns to earth], not to deal with sin, but to bring salvation to those who are eagerly and confidently waiting for Him.

This is telling us that Christ came the first time FOR sin, but He will not come for sin a second time. His second coming will be for a different reason: salvation for those waiting for Him, looking for Him.

Paul used the word "salvation" for the rapture in 1 Thes. 5. I expect this is the meaning here.  

This book is addressed to the Hebrew people, but He died for Gentiles as well as the Hebrews. If indeed He comes pretrib for His saints, it would be His second coming and this verse would fit. I believe He WILL come pretrib. 

[missmuffet]

41 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

One thing that I've noticed about proponents of Replacement Theology or Kingdom Now Theology or Dominion Theology is that there is no consistency in determining what should be taken literally and what should be taken spiritually, or taken both ways.  I suspect that in large part this is because scripture is read through the filter of the desired outcome.

I agree with the literal approach as well unless the context suggests otherwise.  In addition to that, all the pieces have to fit because things can be viewed differently.  It is a learning process and if it's not led by the Spirit of God, it'll wind up in a ditch.  Regardless of how we see things, prophecy will come about at God wills.

The theme that Jesus repeated often about His return:

• What I say to you I say to all: "Stay alert!" Mark 13:37

Can/should we interpret the Bible literally?

https://www.gotquestions.org

ANSWER

Not only can we take the Bible literally, but we must take the Bible literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us. When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate. Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture and then give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs, ignoring the context and author’s intent. But this is not what God intended, which is why God tells us to correctly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
 

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus’ command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 17:3)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.

Edited March 29, 2022 by missmuffet