If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
It is impossible to get Premillennialist to actually acknowledge the wording of Scripture on this subject. Avoidance and personal opinion is their sole argument. To rubbish it as "a modern term" is wrong and unwise. I will try and submit the NT evidence again in the hope I can get you to acknowledge NT truth here.

You need to see that there is a natural seed and a spiritual seed. The natural seed have one birth. The spiritual seed has two births. The first seed is from below. The second seed is from above. One is carnal and the other belongs to God.

The Apostles declares in Romans 2:25-29: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit.”

Most Christians are aware that Scripture places men into one of two general ethnic camps in a natural sense – circumcision and uncircumcision (also known as Jew and Gentile). However, Scripture equally places men into one of two general ethnic camps in a spiritual sense – circumcision and uncircumcision (also known as Jew and Gentile).

In this reading Paul reveals a profound spiritual truth how physically uncircumcised Gentiles are viewed as the circumcised, and physically circumcised Jews are viewed as uncircumcised. This seems contradictory and mistaken. After all Jews are Jews and Gentiles are Gentiles. In a natural sense this is true, but in a spiritual sense this isn’t. Paul goes on to prove this. He shows how the title “Jew” and “circumcision” are choice spiritual titles that relate alone to the redeemed of God.

It is not that these terms don’t have natural meanings but that the natural sense carries no special merit with God. We learn (quoting from the American Standard Version), “For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.” Basically what he is saying is that if you are not a child of God your Jewishness means absolutely nothing.

Romans 2:25-29 is quite powerful in that it changes the nature and scope of what a real Jew (the “circumcision”) and a real Gentile (the “uncircumcision”) are in God’s eyes. God takes these common natural terms and spiritualises them, and in doing so redefines the whole argument of true identity.

The title uncircumcision (normally used to describe a Gentile) is amazingly used to describe the unbelieving Jew. Also, the title circumcision (normally used to describe a natural Jew) is amazingly used to describe the believing Gentile. This would have been anathema to the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day. It would have been the greatest insult to a Jew.

A Jew today in God’s eyes is not physical but spiritual. Paul succinctly says, “he is a Jew, which is one inwardly.” Those that are born again, irrespective of nationality or color, are classed as true Jews.

Paul explains in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the international trans-ethnic Church, For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

This couldn't be clearer: "we are the circumcision" who are "in the Spirit."

We are not natural Israel or natural Jews or natural circumcision or natural sons of Abraham (that means nothing anyway), we are the spiritual circumcision - the true circumcision. We are the only chosen people on planet earth.

Colossians 2:11-14 declares, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross"

These verses I quoted demonstrate that the old covenant has been abolished. The impotence of physical circumcision is inextricably connected to the impotence of the old covenant. There was a time before the cross when physical circumcision was integral to the believer's profession - natural Israel being exclusively His covenant people. That is no longer the case today. Circumcision is no longer physical but spiritual. His covenant people are the redeemed of all nations (Jew and Gentile) not merely natural Israelis. The old theocracy has gone for ever. God chosen people are the Church of Jesus Christ. The old covenant ordinances (including circumcision) have all been nailed to the tree of Calvary - thus their uselessness.

Galatians 3:7-9 also says, “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

Those who have come to Christ by simple faith are here identified as the true children of Abraham. Paul takes an emotive term that the Jews earnestly coveted as exclusively their own (namely “Abraham’s seed”) and applied it to the New Testament Church (which contains Gentile Christians as well as Jews). He applies the covenant blessings of Abraham to a spiritual seed, in the form of the redeemed New Testament Church – made up of Jews and Gentiles. That Church was grafted into the true believing Israel in the Old Testament. They didn’t replace them as some would imagine, but were integrated into the “commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel” and all the promises pertaining to the same; all this points to the organic and covenantal unity of the people of God. In several places, Paul takes descriptions or terms that pertained exclusively to the earthly nation of Israel in an Old Covenant context and applies them to the Church in a New Covenant context. In an Old Covenant context, the terms “Israel,” “Abraham’s seed,” Jew “the circumcision” related solely to those within natural Israel (including Gentile converts), but in a New Covenant context these terms take on a spiritual significance.
Agreed. Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What does "ethnic believing Gentiles" mean? There's no evidence in scripture that believing Gentiles are grafted into fallen/cut-off Israel. We are grafted into the root of the olive tree (Christ).

Also, "believing" Israel is NOT grafted into their lot that is cut off. Please read Romans 11 again.

Did you read what I wrote? Then do not misrepresent.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,174
436
Pacific NW, USA
✟102,089.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How does this line up with what Paul actually said in Romans 9:6, though? I don't believe it does. He said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.". So, he was speaking of an Israel (he didn't call it a group within Israel, he called it Israel) of which not all who are descended from the nation of Israel are part. That's 2 different Israels, not two groups within the nation of Israel.

Right, but he did not say that these two different groups were two different *nations.* He didn't say there were two "Israels." And that is the point.

So Paul is using language suggesting there is just one Israel with two groups contained in it, one group being "true Israel," the ones who will be faithful, and the other group to be discarded as not adequately representative of the faith that belongs to that nation.

Think of a large field with a lot of good wheat in it, as well as a lot of tares in it. The tares are removed into piles and burned, and the wheat is gathered into barns to keep.

The field is Israel, and the wheat are the true membership who ultimately demonstrate faith. The tares are members of Israel who are then disposed of because of their predilection towards rejecting faith and opting for independence from God. They are cast off from the congregation of Israel, and become "rejected Israel."

You may class this as two groups of Israelis, but not as two "Israels." The rejected Israelis never form a nation--they are outcasts. They are burned in a fire, not to torture them but to remove them from the nation, just as tares are burned and removed from the field.

Presently, Israel appears to be a discarded nation, because the vast majority of them are unfaithful. And that certainly is what Jesus said would happen to them in this age, that the Kingdom would be "taken" from them.

But there is nothing indicating the same nation cannot be brought to repentance as a majority. That certainly happened in the Wilderness when Israel after the generation that died obeyed God and conquered Canaan. They didn't obey perfectly, but they did repent of what the previous generation failed to do.

I realize you can't understand what I'm saying. I think that's because you're not quite willing to entertain my pov. Oh well, we have to follow our own conscience, right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,174
436
Pacific NW, USA
✟102,089.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You have clarified it to my understanding, thank you. Yes, Germany took the wrong path by allowing a psychopath to sell them an unrealistic view of their place on the world stage as the "master race" and, subsequently, shaped their condescending look toward the rest of humanity. I think it's a burden and a stain on their conscience since the end of WWII and they have been trying to expiate for it.

My goodness, you appear to be most reasonable, whether you agree or not. I don't get this often on these forums! Thanks brother. I credit you!!

With regard to Germany, I'm really saddened. I'm half-German. A grandfather and a grandmother came from the region of Ukraine, but spoke German. There are many with my last name in Germany, and I'm sure many "shirt-tail relatives" lived through the Nazi debacle. Thankfully, my grandparents left Europe even before WW1!

Are you saying they are no longer a Christian nation?

Germany, and the many European-originating nations, are all called to be Christian nations. Like Israel, most of them have abandoned their "Christian" status.

But I believe God will restore them after Armageddon. I'm a Premillennialist. I think it will happen while humanity remain mortal, even after Christians in the present age are glorified and are given to apply some rule to that era--perhaps from heaven?
 
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Show me the scripture which supports your view. And why does Hebrews 10 "not negate the requirement for another temple and animal sacrifice"? It seems to me that the reinstating of animal sacrifices and offerings would completely contradict what is written in Hebrews 10.

Please see 2 Thess 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

It has been erroneously claimed by the uninformed that the temple referenced here is the heart. Unfortunately, there's no scriptural support for this assumption because if the temple is spiritualised, how can anyone see the antichrist showing as God?

Just as the False Prophet will do signs and wonders and even call down fire from heaven (Rev 13:11-14) ostensibly as proof of the Beast's divinity and subsequently deceive the unsaved to worship into false worship. The Beast/Antichrist will also physically show himself in the temple as God.

Learn to add the relevant verse to the chapter next time so I won't have to second guess what you mean.
Heb 10:26, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

This text refers to the saved that should he revert to sin, Christ will not die a second time (no more sacrifice) to atone for his sin. This is supported by the next verse '27' which points to the dire consequence of sin. It is irrelevant to Paul's narrative in 2 Thess 2:4 which refers to intransigent Jews reverting to the old practices. These facts support my case:

  • The church does not use the temple for worship. Hence the reference to "temple" points to ethnic Jews.
  • Unbelieving Jews will naturally revert to the Judaic practice of animal sacrifice that they were denied since 70 AD.
  • Believing Jews will have no use for the temple or animal sacrifice. As I pointed out before, they would have obeyed the scripture that warns them to escape into the desert by the time the beast sits in the temple showing himself as God.

Where is that taught in scripture? I know you referenced Rev 12, but what you're saying is not taught there. Do you have any other scripture to support your theory?
See above.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right, but he did not say that these two different groups were two different *nations.* He didn't say there were two "Israels." And that is the point.
Ugh. Again, he said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". Are you willing to look at this objectively? Let's break this down. What is the first Israel he mentions there? Obviously, the nation of Israel, right? Are we at least in agreement on that much? If not, this is hopeless.

Okay, so then he mentions "Israel" again and makes it clear that not all of those who are part of the first Israel are part of this second Israel. How is the second Israel not its own nation rather than a part of the first nation? Why did he call it Israel if it isn't a nation of any kind (such as the spiritual holy nation we, the church, are - 1 Peter 2:9)? I feel certain that if he was intending to reference two groups within one Israel, he would have worded it very differently than what he did.

So Paul is using language suggesting there is just one Israel with two groups contained in it, one group being "true Israel," the ones who will be faithful, and the other group to be discarded as not adequately representative of the faith that belongs to that nation.
There is no indication of there being two groups. The first Israel he mentioned consists of all people who descend from the nation of Israel, including believers and unbelievers. The second Israel consists of those who are the children of God and children of the promise, which we know from other scripture like Galatians 3:26-29 are those who belong to Christ.

Think of a large field with a lot of good wheat in it, as well as a lot of tares in it. The tares are removed into piles and burned, and the wheat is gathered into barns to keep.

The field is Israel, and the wheat are the true membership who ultimately demonstrate faith. The tares are members of Israel who are then disposed of because of their predilection towards rejecting faith and opting for independence from God. They are cast off from the congregation of Israel, and become "rejected Israel."

You may class this as two groups of Israelis, but not as two "Israels." The rejected Israelis never form a nation--they are outcasts. They are burned in a fire, not to torture them but to remove them from the nation, just as tares are burned and removed from the field.

Presently, Israel appears to be a discarded nation, because the vast majority of them are unfaithful. And that certainly is what Jesus said would happen to them in this age, that the Kingdom would be "taken" from them.

But there is nothing indicating the same nation cannot be brought to repentance as a majority. That certainly happened in the Wilderness when Israel after the generation that died obeyed God and conquered Canaan. They didn't obey perfectly, but they did repent of what the previous generation failed to do.

I realize you can't understand what I'm saying. I think that's because you're not quite willing to entertain my pov. Oh well, we have to follow our own conscience, right?
No, I would say that I can't understand what you're saying because it doesn't make any sense to me. Has nothing to do with my willingness or not to entertain your point of view. It truly makes no sense to me. I know that isn't pleasant to hear because we all want to at least be understood, but it is what it is in this case.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please see 2 Thess 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

It has been erroneously claimed by the uninformed that the temple referenced here is the heart. Unfortunately, there's no scriptural support for this assumption because if the temple is spiritualised, how can anyone see the antichrist showing as God?
How can a future physical temple possibly be the temple of God? Paul said that we, the church, are the temple of God (2 Cor 6:16). Shouldn't we take that into consideration here? Your belief in an individual antichrist is the reason why you can't understand what Paul is talking about there. He's talking figuratively about sinful people in the church in general there rather than about an individual antichrist. They are the people who are part of the mass falling away that he wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3.

Just as the False Prophet will do signs and wonders and even call down fire from heaven (Rev 13:11-14) ostensibly as proof of the Beast's divinity and subsequently deceive the unsaved to worship into false worship. The Beast/Antichrist will also physically show himself in the temple as God.

Learn to add the relevant verse to the chapter next time so I won't have to second guess what you mean.
Heb 10:26, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
The whole chapter is relevant, so that's why I didn't reference a specific verse in it.

This text refers to the saved that should he revert to sin, Christ will not die a second time (no more sacrifice) to atone for his sin. This is supported by the next verse '27' which points to the dire consequence of sin. It is irrelevant to Paul's narrative in 2 Thess 2:4 which refers to intransigent Jews reverting to the old practices. These facts support my case:
  • The church does not use the temple for worship. Hence the reference to "temple" points to ethnic Jews.
  • Unbelieving Jews will naturally revert to the Judaic practice of animal sacrifice that they were denied since 70 AD.
  • Believing Jews will have no use for the temple or animal sacrifice. As I pointed out before, they would have obeyed the scripture that warns them to escape into the desert by the time the beast sits in the temple showing himself as God.
Why would a temple that is only used by unbelieving Jews be called "the temple of God"? That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
My goodness, you appear to be most reasonable, whether you agree or not. I don't get this often on these forums! Thanks brother. I credit you!!

With regard to Germany, I'm really saddened. I'm half-German. A grandfather and a grandmother came from the region of Ukraine, but spoke German. There are many with my last name in Germany, and I'm sure many "shirt-tail relatives" lived through the Nazi debacle. Thankfully, my grandparents left Europe even before WW1!

I am just searching for the truth and will acknowledge it when I see it.

Germany, and the many European-originating nations, are all called to be Christian nations. Like Israel, most of them have abandoned their "Christian" status.

But I believe God will restore them after Armageddon. I'm a Premillennialist. I think it will happen while humanity remain mortal, even after Christians in the present age are glorified and are given to apply some rule to that era--perhaps from heaven?

There will be only two category nations when Jesus rules in the millennial kingdom.
  • His redeemed people from all tribes, nations and languages ( Rev 7:9). With regards to the saved nations, ethnic differences will no longer matter - they will be fused into one (1 Peter 2:9).
  • And the unsaved nations. What this implies is that Germans who are saved will be part of those in Christ above.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am just searching for the truth and will acknowledge it when I see it.



There will be only two category nations when Jesus rules in the millennial kingdom.
  • His redeemed people from all tribes, nations and languages ( Rev 7:9). With regards to the saved nations, ethnic differences will no longer matter - they will be fused into one (1 Peter 2:9).
You referenced 1 Peter 2:9, so let's take a look at it in context.

1 Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Can you see here that Peter was speaking of a current reality rather than something that wouldn't be true until some time in the future? We believers ARE a holy nation right now and ethnic differences don't matter now. Have you never read passages like these:

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
 
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
How can a future physical temple possibly be the temple of God? Paul said that we, the church, are the temple of God (2 Cor 6:16). Shouldn't we take that into consideration here? Your belief in an individual antichrist is the reason why you can't understand what Paul is talking about there. He's talking figuratively about sinful people in the church in general there rather than about an individual antichrist. They are the people who are part of the mass falling away that he wrote about in 2 Thess 2:3.

The whole chapter is relevant, so that's why I didn't reference a specific verse in it.

Why would a temple that is only used by unbelieving Jews be called "the temple of God"? That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

1. Even when ancient Israel used the temple for occult practices (Ezekiel 8:8-12), God did not deny it is his temple.
2. When the temple was turned into a place of merchandise in Jesus' day (Matt 21:12), God did not deny it belonged to him
3. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig and placing an image of Zeus therein, God did not deny it is his temple Dan 8:11-13.
4. Let the context explain which temple the writer has in mind. The contextual use of the temple in 2 Cor 6:16 refers to a spiritual temple. On the contrary, the context makes it impossible to interpret the temple in 2 Thess 2:4 as spiritual.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. Even when ancient Israel used the temple for occult practices (Ezekiel 8:8-12), God did not deny it is his temple.
2. When the temple was turned into a place of merchandise in Jesus' day (Matt 21:12), God did not deny it belonged to him
3. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the temple by sacrificing a pig and placing an image of Zeus therein, God did not deny it is his temple Dan 8:11-13.
4. Let the context explain which temple the writer has in mind. The contextual use of the temple in 2 Cor 6:16 refers to a spiritual temple. On the contrary, the context makes it impossible to interpret the temple in 2 Thess 2:4 as spiritual.
You're missing the point. Were the old physical temples of God originally made to be used by unbelievers? No. Yet, you are trying to tell me that the temple of God Paul referenced in 2 Thess 2:4 will be a physical building purposely built to be used by unbelievers and that Paul would call such a temple "the temple of God". I believe that is nonsense. I can't believe that Paul would possibly call something that God Himself would not approve of "the temple of God".
 
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
According to scripture it means nothing. You should be willing to accept that.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Galatians 3:26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
This is what I said, "I find it difficult to believe that ethnicity means nothing today...as in the flesh." None of the passages you quoted above proves that a Chinese believer is no longer Chinese or that an African Christian is no longer African - this is what I mean by ethnicity in the flesh.

If you understand the difference between "spiritually one in Christ" and ethnic differences while we remain in the flesh, you will harmony in your understanding.
 
Upvote 0

sovereigngrace

Well-Known Member
Dec 9, 2019
8,983
3,447
USA
Visit site
✟200,167.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is what I said, "I find it difficult to believe that ethnicity means nothing today...as in the flesh." None of the passages you quoted above proves that a Chinese believer is no longer Chinese or that an African Christian is no longer African - this is what I mean by ethnicity in the flesh.

If you understand the difference between "spiritually one in Christ" and ethnic differences while we remain in the flesh, you will harmony in your understanding.

Who said that? It is just that ethnicity means nothing today.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is what I said, "I find it difficult to believe that ethnicity means nothing today...as in the flesh." None of the passages you quoted above proves that a Chinese believer is no longer Chinese or that an African Christian is no longer African - this is what I mean by ethnicity in the flesh.
What does it matter what ethnicity we are? It doesn't.

If you understand the difference between "spiritually one in Christ" and ethnic differences while we remain in the flesh, you will harmony in your understanding.
I don't know what you mean. Please learn to be more specific. What are you talking about exactly?
 
Upvote 0

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
You're missing the point. Were the old physical temples of God originally made to be used by unbelievers? No. Yet, you are trying to tell me that the temple of God Paul referenced in 2 Thess 2:4 will be a physical building purposely built to be used by unbelievers and that Paul would call such a temple "the temple of God". I believe that is nonsense. I can't believe that Paul would possibly call something that God Himself would not approve of "the temple of God".
You have argued everything under the sun but miraculously avoided the elephant in the room! I have pointed out repeatedly that the Man of Sin cannot sit in the temple of the heart to show himself as God. Why don't you rebut that rather than this frivolous argument about whether unbelieving Jews can practice their animal sacrifice in the temple?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Trivalee

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 1, 2021
706
162
55
London
✟185,450.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Who said that? It is just that ethnicity means nothing today.
Spiritually, yes. But in the flesh, it tells us apart. Looks like some people can't differentiate between being ONE in Christ (spiritually) and me, an English Christian retaining my ethnicity while in the flesh from other believers.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You have argued everything under the sun but miraculously avoided the elephant in the room! I have pointed out repeatedly that the Man of Sin cannot sit in the temple of the heart to show himself as God. Why don't you rebut that rather than this frivolous argument about whether unbelieving Jews can practice their animal sacrifice in the temple?
How is it frivolous to question how a temple used by unbelievers could possibly be something Paul would call "the temple of God"? It's no wonder that you would try to avoid addressing that any further.

I have addressed your so-called "elephant in the room" many times in the past, so it's not something I avoid doing. You assume the reference to "the man of sin" is to an individual person that you call the antichrist. Do you take into consideration that John taught there are many antichrists instead of one?

Anyway, back to the phrase "the man of sin" supposedly referring to an individual antichrist. Is the following passage referring to an individual man of God?

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This is clearly not referring to an individual man of God but is generally referring to all people of God. I interpret the phrase "the man of sin" similarly.

And it is not frivolous to consider that no physical temple in the future could possibly be considered the temple of God. That is a very important consideration that you shouldn't just brush aside.
 
Upvote 0

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Spiritually, yes. But in the flesh, it tells us apart. Looks like some people can't differentiate between being ONE in Christ (spiritually) and me, an English Christian retaining my ethnicity while in the flesh from other believers.
What does people having different ethnicities have to do with anything we're talking about in this thread? Nothing.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
2,174
436
Pacific NW, USA
✟102,089.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ugh. Again, he said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". Are you willing to look at this objectively? Let's break this down. What is the first Israel he mentions there? Obviously, the nation of Israel, right? Are we at least in agreement on that much? If not, this is hopeless.

It may be hopeless. I feel frustrated, as well. I feel certain I've understood your argument, and have answered it the best I can. The Bible is not creating "groups," but identifying two kinds of people in the same nation--believers and unbelievers. There are different quantities of unbelievers and different quantities of believers at different times in Israel's history. At the time of Jesus, the quantity of unbelievers was large, and the quantity of believers small.

Again, these two groups are not entities or organizations, and cannot be called "nations." They are the same nation in different times and in different conditions. I will quote it again, and you tell me whether the believers form one political group and the unbelievers form another political group? After all, you referenced "nations," plural, and these are political entities!

Rom 9.6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

As you can see, this is not speaking of a plurality of political groups, nor of "nations" plural. Rather, it is speaking to whether there is a pedigree that can be claimed in order to inherit Abraham's promises, simply by being descended from Abraham. The assumption then has to be made that the pedigree matters, since that is the claim that is being made.

But Paul's argument is not that the pedigree doesn't matter, but that it alone is worthless if there is no reference to the faith of Abraham. The promise concerns God's choice to have people of faith.

So those who don't have faith may populate Israel at one time, and it is still "Israel." But it is only at that point "the hope of Israel" to be populated with those of faith when those who don't have it repent and receive it.

In other times, Israel's population majority may exercise faith and come closer to the promise of Abraham's national inheritance. Those who reject faith forever are cut off from Israel forever. It isn't that they weren't "Israel," but that they were not what God promised, and were rendered "illegitimate."

Okay, so then he mentions "Israel" again and makes it clear that not all of those who are part of the first Israel are part of this second Israel. How is the second Israel not its own nation rather than a part of the first nation? Why did he call it Israel if it isn't a nation of any kind (such as the spiritual holy nation we, the church, are - 1 Peter 2:9)? I feel certain that if he was intending to reference two groups within one Israel, he would have worded it very differently than what he did.

1 Peter 2.9 is a different passage from the one I discuss above, and has a different answer. As I said before, the international Church is not the nation Israel--neither literally nor figuratively.

Peter began his letter by addressing Jewish exiles, and it is to them he is explaining that they were called to be a holy nation. He does that in the light of the fact Israel, in that time, had largely turned against their calling. Peter was encouraging believers to hold onto their calling so that in due season Israel would be restored, as a nation, to faith. My take...

No, I would say that I can't understand what you're saying because it doesn't make any sense to me. Has nothing to do with my willingness or not to entertain your point of view. It truly makes no sense to me. I know that isn't pleasant to hear because we all want to at least be understood, but it is what it is in this case.

It's in the nature of human beings to have difficulty understanding one another for a variety of reasons, not the least of which we are imperfect. But there's no reason to savage one another simply because fences are not mended instantly, and all is clear in the blink of an eye. I think you're sincere, and I accept that you're frustrated. So am I, quite frankly.

But this is part of the process. We'll continue trying until we burn out, or? ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Spiritual Jew

Amillennialist
Supporter
Oct 12, 2020
7,394
2,496
MI
✟308,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It may be hopeless. I feel frustrated, as well.
Then it's time to just agree to disagree. We both have better things to do than frustrate each other. Thanks for the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RandyPNW
Upvote 0