NT support for a third temple

[Timtofly]

At what point in the timeline do the unrepentant achieve victory over Sin?
Is it During the Millenium?

Death is the victory over sin.

 

[Timtofly]

I don’t suppose you see the error in your logic, do you.

Just as preterist do not see the error in their logic.

 

[Hammster]

Zechariah and Isaiah.

That narrows it down. Thanks. Next time just say “Bible”.

 

[Hammster]

Just as preterist do not see the error in their logic.

I don’t have an error. But I’ll point yours out if you’d like.

 

[parousia70]

Death is the victory over sin.

For the Unrepentant?
Where is that taught?

 

[Timtofly]

That narrows it down. Thanks. Next time just say “Bible”.

The verses have been plastered on several different threads for weeks.

 

[Timtofly]

For the Unrepentant?
Where is that taught?

Do you think they have an issue with sin after death?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you think they have an issue with sin after death?

Only with where it causes them to end up after death.

 

[Hammster]

The verses have been plastered on several different threads for weeks.

Why would you assume that I read every thread?

 

[parousia70]

Do you think they have an issue with sin after death?

I do.
After death, The unrepentant suffer IN THEIR SIN, forever.

Are you saying death brings victory over sin for the unrepentant?

If so, why repent? If death brings you victory over, and freedom from, sin, why repent?

 

[Timtofly]

Why would you assume that I read every thread?

I did not. I thought all posters were talking about the same verses, not coming up with any different ones than those that have been the topic for days.

 

[Timtofly]

I do.
After death, The unrepentant suffer IN THEIR SIN, forever.

Are you saying death brings victory over sin for the unrepentant?

If so, why repent? If death brings you victory over, and freedom from, sin, why repent?

Repentance brings forgiveness, not victory. The point was when does sin stop. It is not about the consequences.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

No, stop misquoting me. A resurrected soul is not mortal nor immortal. That is Greek pagan thinking. Paul said this corruptible will be changed for incorruptible. The soul moves from one corruptible body to a new incorruptible body. It is the reverse process that happened to Adam on the day he disobeyed God, and physically died. Adam went from a permanent God made incorruptible body to a sin nature corruptible body. Those who live in the Millennium will have a permanent incorruptible physical body like Adam had prior to sin entering the world. No sin, thus no corruptible bodies. That is why the 1000 years starts with a physical resurrection.

The reign on earth currently ongoing is not on earth, but spiritual. God is calling out of Adam's flesh and blood, descendants to dwell in Paradise forever. That is why it is invisible to those who dwell on the earth. It is spiritual, because it exist in Paradise, not on the earth.

The Millennial Kingdom is not the same Kingdom that is being gathered in Paradise. The Millennium Kingdom cannot even start until the Second Coming brings an end to sin being in the world, and the spiritual separation placed on all of Adam's offspring. The only people who choose to live during the last 1000 years, are those who get their head chopped off instead of receiving the mark during the last 42 months of Satan's rule on this earth. The choice between beheading and being removed from the Lamb's book of life can only happen during those 42 months mentioned in Revelation 13.

The current choice is to live forever in Paradise/the New Jerusalem, as that is what the Atonement was all about. That is the only point the fullness of the Gentiles represents. Not some future reign on earth. The NHNE is a totally different reality and paradigm altogether.

No one currently on earth in their current state is going to inherit any thing. The soul moves into a totally different physical body.

I'm not sure how I could have possibly misrepresented your unique view that you have all to yourself when it's so clear and straightforward, as you have so clearly explained here. I'll try not to do it again.

1000 years is not temporary. 1000 days would be temporary. Sin does not enter at all. Disobedience results in Death, not sin. There is no more temporary chance to "get it right". Sin is living with disobedience non stop. These current physical bodies are dead and thrive in sin and non stop disobedience.

Clearly disobedience brings sin into the world as it did in Adam's case. God will not let that happen during the 1000 year reign on earth.

You speak nothing but incoherent nonsense. You didn't bother addressing the point that I made.

I'll try one more time. Can you please actually address what I say here instead of going off on an incoherent tangent? You believe that Zechariah 14:16-19 describes things that occur during the thousand years, right? Do you somehow think that not even one person would refuse to go up to Jerusalem to worship God at that time? If so, why does it warn about people receiving punishment if they don't do that if it won't even be possible for them to refuse to do that?

 

[Hammster]

I did not. I thought all posters were talking about the same verses, not coming up with any different ones than those that have been the topic for days.

Not to mention, the thread is actually about the NT. Those books are OT.

 

[parousia70]

Repentance brings forgiveness, not victory. The point was when does sin stop. It is not about the consequences.

Sin, as a state of Being, Is eternal. It does nto stop. That is the Point indeed.
We are Born into it, and unless we repent, we never escape. Not ever.
Repentance brings Forgiveness as through repentance we SHARE in Christ's VICTORY over Sin.
The only way out of The State of Sin we are Born into is repentance and belief.
Death does not remove the unrepentant unbeliever from the sin state he is born into.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm arguing that the nations which are deceived when Christ returns, thus are allowed to remain rather than being destroyed at the time, they are no longer being deceived during the millennium because Christ and His saints are ruling the planet, and that satan is in the pit at the time, and that the beast and fp have been cast into the LOF. Thus, there is no one to deceive them since Christ and His saints obviously would not be trying to deceive them in any manner. It is not until satan is loosed that anyone is then being deceived again.

So, based on what you said here, it is your belief that Jesus will let some unbelievers who are deceived off the hook when He returns.

Even though 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 says that He will take "vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" when He returns, you have Him not taking vengeance on some "that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" at that time. How do you explain this? What would be different about those unbelievers who you think He will not take vengeance on at that time compared to the unbelievers that He will take vengeance on at that time? If this distinction between unbelievers is going to be made when Christ returns, why didn't Paul mention that?

Also, since you have people going from being deceived to no longer being deceived when Christ returns, does that mean you believe those people will be saved? If so, that would mean they would be saved some other way than by freely choosing to believe in Christ. That's not something that I would think someone who believes in NOSAS would believe.

My proposal involves satan setting out to deceive again someone no longer deceived, and not someone already deceived since you typically deceive someone not already deceived rather than someone that is already deceived. If they are already deceived, why do they still need to be deceived? So then, you only deceive someone already deceived, thus never deceive someone that is not deceived instead?

Then we are back to some of the questions I asked, that you never bothered to try and answer yet.

As I pointed out to you in another post, these are the wrong questions to ask an Amil since we don't understand the nature of Satan's binding the way you do. We don't believe him being bound and being loosed has to do with his ability or inability to deceive in general. You should ask questions according to our understanding of Satan's binding and loosing, not yours.

Imagine me asking you how Satan will be able to stop the preaching of the gospel when he's loosed and how he will be able to unite unbelievers throughout the world into actively opposing Christians? Why would I ask you that when that's not your understanding of what he is bound from doing and not your understanding of what he will do when he is loosed?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Not to mention, the thread is actually about the NT. Those books are OT.

We're obviously already beyond the possibility of anyone presenting any clear NT support for the idea of a physical third temple of God being built. Surely, someone would have presented that by now if there was any. We might as well make this thread a free for all to discuss whatever we want at this point. But, I guess that kind of already has happened.

 

[parousia70]

We might as well make this thread a free for all to discuss whatever we want at this point.

Chunky Peanut Butter is superior to Creamy.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Chunky Peanut Butter is superior to Creamy.

Okay, you've gone too far now. I'm pretty sure there has to be a forum rule against making posts like this which deny proven facts such as the fact that creamy peanut butter is superior to chunky peanut butter. I have no choice but to report your post.

 

[Aldebaran]

Chunky Peanut Butter is superior to Creamy.

That's discriminatory against those who don't have teeth!