Israel, Abraham, and Modern Times

[mkgal1]

I didn't say its based on Luke. I am saying 2 proclamations of Jesus were found in Luke 1.

You wrote:

The promise is based on Luke 1

......but then wrote this:

Gabriel repeated the prophecy of Jeremiah to Mary in Luke 1.

Zechariah proclamation of what the birth of Jesus meant for Israel, is found in Luke 1:68-75 too.

......which I agree with.

​

 

[mkgal1]

Can I confirm you don't believe in a future 1000 year reign of Jesus on Earth?

Correct

 

[Guojing]

Correct

Yep as I expected. Then I can understand why you would spiritualize what Luke 1 is saying about Christ.

 

[mkgal1]

Yep as I expected. Then I can understand why you would spiritualize what Luke 1 is saying about Christ.

By "spiritualize", do you mean I don't overlook this part of Luke 1 that contradicts the futurist paradigm?

Luke 1
31Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!”​

 

[parousia70]

You are not aware that mid-acts dispensationalists has that as a principle?

Let’s be completely honest.
Anyone who interprets:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.....3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

To mean:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must not take place for two millennia, And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John....3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is thousands of years away.

Can in no way claim to read the Bible literally.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalist or not, You are no literalist.

 

[mkgal1]

Can you tell me how you're reconciling 2 Samuel 7:16 with the belief that there's no throne of David now on earth....but will be in the future?

What particular passage in Daniel....could you quote it for me, please?

You are asking the wrong questions.

Show me in history an Israeli kingdom, spiritual or physical after the Babylonian captivity. Not a government or puppet kngdom.

I think you forgot to answer my questions (you should be able to - at least - quote from Daniel what you're referring to).

 

[Guojing]

Let’s be completely honest.
Anyone who interprets:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.....3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

To mean:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must not take place for two millennia, And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John....3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is thousands of years away.

Can in no way claim to read the Bible literally.

Mid-Acts Dispensationalist or not, You are no literalist.

In the first place, the mystery of the rapture is not found in Revelations.

It was revealed in Paul's epistles.

 

[Guojing]

By "spiritualize", do you mean I don't overlook this part of Luke 1 that contradicts the futurist paradigm?

Luke 1
31Behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to give Him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end!”​

Because those who believe in the 1000 year reign of Christ, believes that Jesus will be ruling the Earth from Jerusalem during that time, so that promise is yet to be fulfilled.

 

[mkgal1]

Because those who believe in the 1000 year reign of Christ, believes that Jesus will be ruling the Earth from Jerusalem during that time, so that promise is yet to be fulfilled.

The problem that belief creates is that it's directly against the promise recorded in Jeremiah and 2 Samuel.

Jeremiah 33:17 ~ For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,

2 Samuel 7:16 ~ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16).

​

 

[Guojing]

The problem that belief creates is that it's directly against the promise recorded in Jeremiah and 2 Samuel.

Jeremiah 33:17 ~ For this is what the LORD says: David will have a descendant sitting on the throne of Israel forever.

​

Yes, this is a promise yet unfulfilled. Will have points towards a future event.

I don't see anything that contradicts that.

 

[Timtofly]

That's actually my point.

The Bible records a promise made that states:

Jeremiah 33:17 ~ For this is what the LORD says: David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel

2 Samuel 7:16 ~ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever”
​

.....and we know that's not been true on earth (as you've posted).

​

Not yet. Has not happened in heaven either.

 

[Timtofly]

I think you forgot to answer my questions (you should be able to - at least - quote from Daniel what you're referring to).

Daniel 2, and the Gentile kingdoms.

When the last of the kingdoms is destroyed, Christ will set up His kingdom.

 

[Timtofly]

The problem that belief creates is that it's directly against the promise recorded in Jeremiah and 2 Samuel.

Jeremiah 33:17 ~ For this is what the LORD says: 'David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,

2 Samuel 7:16 ~ And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever” (2 Samuel 7:16).​

​

How can it be against this promise? The promise has not been fulfilled until the last kingdom is crushed.

 

[parousia70]

In the first place, the mystery of the rapture is not found in Revelations.

It was revealed in Paul's epistles.

In the first place, it's The RevelatioN, Singular, not RevelationS, plural.

Next, this doesn't refute my point about the fact that you do NOT read the Bible literally.

 

[mkgal1]

​

How can it be against this promise? The promise has not been fulfilled until the last kingdom is crushed.

In just focusing on this one phrase...."David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel"....and trying to set aside the timeline or narrative you've believed....how else can you interpret that other than to say that has to be the spiritual kingdom (because... as you've pointed out....it clearly didn't play out that way on earth)?

There is also this passage in Hebrews 8 that contrasts Christ Jesus's priesthood with the ancient Levitical priesthood in ancient Jerusalem (Jesus, Melchizedek, and David were all priestly kings):

Hebrews 8
1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 3And since every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer.4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to the law. ​

 

[Timtofly]

In just focusing on this one phrase...."David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel"....and trying to set aside the timeline or narrative you've believed....how else can you interpret that other than to say that has to be the spiritual kingdom (because... as you've pointed out....it clearly didn't play out that way on earth)?

There is also this passage in Hebrews 8 that contrasts Christ Jesus's priesthood with the ancient Levitical priesthood in ancient Jerusalem (Jesus, Melchizedek, and David were all priestly kings):

Hebrews 8
1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. 3And since every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer.4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to the law. ​

Because the physical still exist.

You cannot deny the reality of the physical.

 

[Guojing]

In the first place, it's The RevelatioN, Singular, not RevelationS, plural.

Next, this doesn't refute my point about the fact that you do NOT read the Bible literally.

if you insist

 

[mkgal1]

Because the physical still exist.

You cannot deny the reality of the physical.

What do you mean?

How else can a person interpret "never lack a man seated on the throne" other than to mean that either David himself or his promised descendant (Son of David - Jesus) would occupy the throne. IOW...."never lack" = always occupied.

 

[parousia70]

if you insist

Just observing the facts.

 

[Guojing]

Just observing the facts.

I already said the rapture is not found in books outside Romans to Philemon.

you are setting up a straw man