Eschatological and Millennial Theories and their problems.

[Christambassador1968]

The Church is spiritual Israel. The lineage mentioned of in the OT from Adam on down through Seth Enosh.. Methuselah on down through Christ. They are GOD's OT elect. He elects us into his family. Just like I had no choice in what family I was born into. GOD in his absolutely awesome power, saw throughout all time, who would believe in him. GOD caused Israel to sin so that he could bring the light of the truth to the gentiles, we were in darkness in prison without the word of GOD or hope in the OT days.

The spirits in prison, is the gentiles. In the OT days, the only people to have GOD's word was Israel and them only. After Israel goes after Baal and the Grove, which was ancient Christmas pagan worship. GOD divorces Israel and When Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the Jews eyes were blinded
Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Some folks mention that this is some sort of "replacement theology". That can't be since GOD himself divorced Israel to marry his church which was always his plan. The spirits in prison in the NT testament greek is Phulake (Foo-Lock-ay), a division of light and dark, or light being truth and darkness without the truth. So Christ took his church from once darkness into light and we have the truth written on the fleshy tables of our hearts as opposed to tablets of stone in the OT. The OT is a shadow of the things in the NT.

 

[BABerean2]

That is said of "the nations" (verse 8 NKJV) or "the heathen" (verse 8, KJV), not of Israel.

Do you mean the "Israel" in the passage below?

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Quoted from Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
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.

.

 

[jgr]

The Old Covenant has indeed passed away, has indeed perished. But the promises made during the time that covenant was in effect were not based on that covenant. So the claim that they have passed away is baseless.

I checked my Bible. All of the promises to which you refer are contained in a section entitled the Old Testament. They are all promissory clauses and bequests within that section, in the same way as your own personal Will and Testament contains promissory clauses and bequests.

If you check your own Bible, I'm reasonably certain that you'll discover the same.

That is why Scripture declares:
2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

What part of all do you not understand?

I would invite you to provide the name of any acknowledged scholar of the historical true Christian Church who did not believe that all of the promises in the Old Will and Testament are based on that covenant.

God knew from the beginning everything He was going to do in the future. So during Old Testament days, He knew the Old Covenant would pass away. So if the promises made during that time were going to pass away with the covenant, then God was lying when He promised these things.

So your doctrine makes God out to be a liar.

You continue to exhibit deliberate ignorance regarding the meaning and operation of a Will and Testament. If you were to update your own personal Will and Testament, and eliminate or change heirs or bequests, would you consider yourself perfidious for having done so?

You would not, nor would any court of law.

So why would you consider God perfidious for updating His Own Will and Testament?

The only doctrine that makes God out to be a liar is one that obdurately refuses to recognize that all of the promises are realized in Christ, and that He is the Heir of all things.

A false dogma (not doctrine) that incessantly seeks to exhume a decayed and vanished covenant corpse; and to replace Christ as the sole and exclusive Heir with a now-genetically-indistinguishable nation of unbelievers.

Dispensationalism.
A false dogma of arrogance.
A false dogma of ignorance.

 

[Dave L]

Revelation 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

How about this then? Can you envision---and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them----leading to the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:12? This perspective of course disproves Premil, yet, it in turn still proves Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning post the 2nd coming because Zechariah 14:16-19 can't be fulfilled until Revelation 20:9 and Zechariah 14:12 are fulfilled first.

As I see it, this is the end of the world followed in v 21 the creation of the New Heavens and earth. This uses Peter's end time passage about the elements melting with a fervent heat. And a big bang type of event where the heavens pass away with a great noise.

 

[Dave L]

Why would any Bible believer possibly conclude Zechariah 14:12 is not meaning in the literal sense? How can anyone possibly spiritualize that?

Zechariah 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Given what we know from Ezekiel 38, as an example, how can the following not possibly equal their fate according to the above?

Ezekiel 38:22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

Do you spiritualize these things as well? In the event you don't, you still can't envision an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone, leading to, their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth?

Zechariah 14:16-19 is meaning post the 2nd coming since it is meaning post the fulfillment of Zechariah 14:12 before Zechariah 14:16-19 can even be fulfilled.

If you understand these in the light of the New Covenant, Jesus is Israel along with his body the Church, and as an event depicting the end of the world and the New Heavens and earth, all is well. But we always interpret the Old (partial) with the New (complete).

 

[Biblewriter]

Is it possible you are blind to the fact they have been fulfilled?

No. I am a student of history, having devoted many decades to it. And there is zero question that many of them have most absolutely never been fulfilled.

One example is Ezekiel 10: 28-32, which gives a detailed description of the path to be followed by an attacker that chapter calls "the Assyrian." We know of a certainty that not only no ancient Assyrian, but no other invader, ever approached Jerusalem by following that path.

A second example is the great coalition described in Ezekiel 38:1-5, and said in the rest of the chapter to be going to attack Israel "after many days," and "in the latter years." No such coalition has ever attacked Israel.

 

[Biblewriter]

I checked my Bible. All of the promises to which you refer are contained in a section entitled the Old Testament. They are all promissory clauses and bequests within that section, in the same way as your own personal Will and Testament contains promissory clauses and bequests.

If you check your own Bible, I'm reasonably certain that you'll discover the same.

That is why Scripture declares:
2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

What part of all do you not understand?

I would invite you to provide the name of any acknowledged scholar of the historical true Christian Church who did not believe that all of the promises in the Old Will and Testament are based on that covenant.



You continue to exhibit deliberate ignorance regarding the meaning and operation of a Will and Testament. If you were to update your own personal Will and Testament, and eliminate or change heirs or bequests, would you consider yourself perfidious for having done so?

You would not, nor would any court of law.

So why would you consider God perfidious for updating His Own Will and Testament?

The only doctrine that makes God out to be a liar is one that obdurately refuses to recognize that all of the promises are realized in Christ, and that He is the Heir of all things.

A false dogma (not doctrine) that incessantly seeks to exhume a decayed and vanished covenant corpse; and to replace Christ as the sole and exclusive Heir with a now-genetically-indistinguishable nation of unbelievers.

Dispensationalism.
A false dogma of arrogance.
A false dogma of ignorance.

You are using human reasoning about about human practices as an excuse to deny Divine promises about Divine practices.

 

[Dave L]

No. I am a student of history, having devoted many decades to it. And there is zero question that many of them have most absolutely never been fulfilled.

One example is Ezekiel 10: 28-32, which gives a detailed description of the path to be followed by an attacker that chapter calls "the Assyrian." We know of a certainty that not only no ancient Assyrian, but no other invader, ever approached Jerusalem by following that path.

A second example is the great coalition described in Ezekiel 38:1-5, and said in the rest of the chapter to be going to attack Israel "after many days," and "in the latter years." No such coalition has ever attacked Israel.

But this again is based on silence. History does not say anything so it must not have happened. What if it happened and you have not become aware of it yet? And the technology limits the prophecy to specific eras when the technology existed. They are going to steal Israel's cattle? With spears and clubs???

 

[Biblewriter]

If you understand these in the light of the New Covenant, Jesus is Israel along with his body the Church, and as an event depicting the end of the world and the New Heavens and earth, all is well. But we always interpret the Old (partial) with the New (complete).

Our God demands that we always believe everything He has said. And He will not accept the interpretations we place upon the meanings of a few passages as an excuse for refusing to believe a far greater number of passages that explicitly say things that directly contradict those interpretations.

God has told us, in high detail, a great number of things that are going to happen in this world. You tell us that none of these things is actually going to happen. Somebody is lying. Who is it?

 

[Dave L]

Our God demands that we always believe everything He has said. And He will not accept the interpretations we place upon the meanings of a few passages as an excuse for refusing to believe a far greater number of passages that explicitly say things that directly contradict those interpretations.

God has told us, in high detail, a great number of things that are going to happen in this world. You tell us that none of these things is actually going to happen. Somebody is lying. Who is it?

This is true but....often we fail to grasp the meaning of the passage as the Pharisees did. And they ended up believing a lie.

 

[jgr]

You are using human reasoning about about human practices as an excuse to deny Divine promises about Divine practices.

Wills and Testaments were defined and established in biblical times.

Their characteristics have passed unchanged through the millennia to what is recognized and utilized in contemporary jurisprudence.

 

[Biblewriter]

But this again is based on silence. History does not say anything so it must not have happened. What if it happened and you have not become aware of it yet? And the technology limits the prophecy to specific eras when the technology existed. They are going to steal Israel's cattle? With spears and clubs???

It is not an argument from silence to point out that Ezekiel 38-39 has never happened. I studied ancient histories and geographies for 35 years to know the identities of the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:1-5. And I eventually found positive proof, from multiple ancient sources, as to whom every one of them was. They basically comprise Russia, Western Europe, and the Islamic nations of the Middle East. And this group of nations has never united for any purpose, much less to attack Israel. This is known fact, not an argument from silence.

You say this cannot happen. Are you right, or is God right?

 

[Biblewriter]

This is true but....often we fail to grasp the meaning of the passage as the Pharisees did. And they ended up believing a lie.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Dave L]

If the shoe fits, wear it.

If the Pharisees got it wrong, maybe we should move away from their position.

 

[Dave L]

It is not an argument from silence to point out that Ezekiel 38-39 has never happened. I studied ancient histories and geographies for 35 years to know the identities of the nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38:1-5. And I eventually found positive proof, from multiple ancient sources, as to whom every one of them was. They basically comprise Russia, Western Europe, and the Islamic nations of the Middle East. And this group of nations has never united for any purpose, much less to attack Israel. This is known fact, not an argument from silence.

You say this cannot happen. Are you right, or is God right?

John tells us who Gog and Magog are in Revelation 20. They are symbols of the church's enemies. You cannot fulfill this prophecy literally without recreating all of the ancient out of date particulars too. Besides, it fits Esther to a Tee.

 

[DavidPT]

But we always interpret the Old (partial) with the New (complete).

I don't disagree with this, yet at the same time, I don't think this is the case every single time though. For example.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Why would Jesus be telling the reader to go to the OT in order to shed more light on what He was meaning if it's always supposed to be the other way around? Why not be unlike unbelieving Jews, where they determine things from only one testament, thus it being obvious to most of us why they are coming to a lot of wrong conclusions at times? That is what I basically see Amils doing, basing the majority of their conclusions on one testament alone rather than both combined.

 

[Dave L]

I don't disagree with this, yet at the same time, I don't think this is the case every single time though. For example.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

Why would Jesus be telling the reader to go to the OT in order to shed more light on what He was meaning if it's always supposed to be the other way around? Why not be unlike unbelieving Jews, where they determine things from only one testament, thus it being obvious to most of us why they are coming to a lot of wrong conclusions at times? That is what I basically see Amils doing, basing the majority of their conclusions on one testament alone rather than both combined.

Didn't this happen in 70 AD? And the abomination of desolation in Daniel symbolized the Romans? Just as Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who symbolized him?

 

[Biblewriter]

John tells us who Gog and Magog are in Revelation 20. They are symbols of the church's enemies. You cannot fulfill this prophecy literally without recreating all of the ancient out of date particulars too. Besides, it fits Esther to a Tee.

Actually, Revelation 20 does not say who Gog and Magog are. It only says that they will attack "the saints." But your argument contradicts itself. For something that was yet in the future in John's time could not have taken place in Esther's time, which was long before John's time.

 

[DavidPT]

Besides, it fits Esther to a Tee.

I have heard that one before, yet when actually comparing things though, you're apparently deceived if you think those events fit Esther to a Tee.

 

[Biblewriter]

Didn't this happen in 70 AD? And the abomination of desolation in Daniel symbolized the Romans? Just as Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who symbolized him?

If this happened in AD 70, why didn't any Christian writer in the next 200 years (whose writings have survived to the present time) realize it.