Questions To Dispensationalists

[random person]

The new covenant was stated in Jeremiah 31:31. It was made at the cross. It will become effective when Christ returns to earth and sets up his kingdom.

The millennium is symbolic, an ungiven amount of time between advents.

Read verse 20:4 in the King James, there is no mention of a physical resurrection, they are souls, disembodied souls -- Eccl. 12:7; Luke 8:55; 2 Corinth. 5:8; & Philip. 1:21,23!

Do you believe Christ is reigning right now in Heaven?

 

[random person]

Yes, the context of the passage was to comfort those whose loved ones had gone on before. But that has zero bearing on the facts of the rapture itself. To deny that this will happen is to deny explicitly stated scripture. But it is legitimate to debate when this will happen.

The Rapture was added in by man. It is a man's doctrine.

Hebrews 9:28 totally destroys the Rapture.

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND time without [bearing] sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 10:12 & 13:20:

But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant,

 

[riverrat]

The Rapture was added in by man. It is a man's doctrine.

Hebrews 9:28 totally destroys the Rapture.

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND time without [bearing] sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 10:12 & 13:20:

But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant,

If it is man's doctrine how did it get in the Bible?
The rapture is not the second coming.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Rapture was added in by man. It is a man's doctrine.

Hebrews 9:28 totally destroys the Rapture.

So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND time without [bearing] sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 10:12 & 13:20:

But this man, after he had offered ONE sacrifice for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God;

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant,

When you deny the rapture, you are not denying an interpretation of scripture, you are denying explicitly stated scripture.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

 

[random person]

If it is man's doctrine how did it get in the Bible?
The rapture is not the second coming.

Where is it written in the bible?

 

[random person]

When you deny the rapture, you are not denying an interpretation of scripture, you are denying explicitly stated scripture.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

This passage is speaking of the Second Coming of Christ:

a) the dead in Christ will be raised
b) the living in Christ will be caught up and transformed

In a twinkling of an eye: 1 Corinthians 15:50-52

 

[riverrat]

This passage is speaking of the Second Coming of Christ:

a) the dead in Christ will be raised
b) the living in Christ will be caught up and transformed

In a twinkling of an eye: 1 Corinthians 15:50-52

So in the twinkling of an eye everyone on the whole earth will see him come. I think not.
So the second coming of Christ is not to the earth. I think not.

 

[random person]

So in the twinkling of an eye everyone on the whole earth will see him come. I think not.
So the second coming of Christ is not to the earth. I think not.

Reread verse 16 of 1 Thessalonians 4:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.

 

[riverrat]

Reread verse 16 of 1 Thessalonians 4:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.

Try reading verse 17.

 

[random person]

Try reading verse 17.

See in verse 16, the dead are raised.

In verse 17, the living are caught up in the air with the dead.

Both have received their glorified bodies at this moment, the Second Coming of Christ.

IMO, the catching up could mean, perhaps is describing God preserving His children from the destruction of the heavens and the earth in order to reconstruct a New Heavens and New Earth.

 

[Biblewriter]

See in verse 16, the dead are raised.

In verse 17, the living are caught up in the air with the dead.

Both have received their glorified bodies at this moment, the Second Coming of Christ.

IMO, the catching up could mean, perhaps is describing God preserving His children from the destruction of the heavens and the earth in order to reconstruct a New Heavens and New Earth.

But Revelation 20 explicitly says that the thousand years come between the resurrection of the blessed and the resurrection of the damned. Even if you were correct that the thousand years only means "a long time," it still comes between these two resurrections.

The only way to escape this is to irreverently claim that the Bible simply does not mean what it explicitly says.

 

[random person]

But Revelation 20 explicitly says that the thousand years come between the resurrection of the blessed and the resurrection of the damned. Even if you were correct that the thousand years only means "a long time," it still comes between these two resurrections.

The only way to escape this is to irreverently claim that the Bible simply does not mean what it explicitly says.

Do you think I will rely upon man's limited understanding over the words of Jesus and Paul?

Please read John 5:28-29; 6:39-40,44,54; 11:24; 12:48; and Acts 24:15!

Also Matthew 13:36-43, 47:51; 25:31-34,41,46 which speaks of the resurrection of the Last Day, where the faithful will receive their inheritance (and their glorified bodies) and simultaneously where the wicked will be judged and removed!

Do you trust Jesus and His word?

 

[Biblewriter]

Do you think I will rely upon man's limited understanding over the words of Jesus and Paul?

Please read John 5:28-29; 6:39-40,44,54; 11:24; 12:48; and Acts 24:15!

Also Matthew 13:36-43, 47:51; 25:31-34,41,46 which speaks of the resurrection of the Last Day, where the faithful will receive their inheritance (and their glorified bodies) and simultaneously where the wicked will be judged and removed!

Do you trust Jesus and His word?

I trust the entire Bible, from cover to cover. The words of Jesus, as recorded by the Holy Spirit, the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul, Luke, Peter and John, and the words of the very same Holy Spirit through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets.

There is zero contradiction between these unified messages.

There is absolutely nothing in the entire New Testament that even hints at an idea that the pronouncements given through the Old testament prophets will not be literally fulfilled.

 

[random person]

I trust the entire Bible, from cover to cover. The words of Jesus, as recorded by the Holy Spirit, the words of the Holy Spirit through Paul, Luke, Peter and John, and the words of the very same Holy Spirit through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets.

There is zero contradiction between these unified messages.

There is absolutely nothing in the entire New Testament that even hints at an idea that the pronouncements given through the Old testament prophets will not be literally fulfilled.

But Israel as a nation doesnt exist anymore under the New Covenant. Christ restored the tabernacle of David, the tents of David aka us the Church. We longer worship God in Jerusalem, we worship God in our churches.

Where the Old Covenant concerns the Israelites and converts, the New Covenant concerns ever nation, tribe, and tongue.

 

[riverrat]

But Israel as a nation doesnt exist anymore under the New Covenant. Christ restored the tabernacle of David, the tents of David aka us the Church. We longer worship God in Jerusalem, we worship God in our churches.

Where the Old Covenant concerns the Israelites and converts, the New Covenant concerns ever nation, tribe, and tongue.

The new covenant is for Israel and Judah. It is not in effect at this time. It will become effective when Christ returns and sets up the earthly kingdom.
The Body of Christ (the church) is not Israel.
Is it OK for me to worship outside of a church building?

 

[Dispy]

The new covenant is for Israel and Judah. It is not in effect at this time. It will become effective when Christ returns and sets up the earthly kingdom.
The Body of Christ (the church) is not Israel.
Is it OK for me to worship outside of a church building?

AMEN!!!

 

[Biblewriter]

But Israel as a nation doesnt exist anymore under the New Covenant. Christ restored the tabernacle of David, the tents of David aka us the Church. We longer worship God in Jerusalem, we worship God in our churches.

Where the Old Covenant concerns the Israelites and converts, the New Covenant concerns ever nation, tribe, and tongue.

Once again, you are putting your interpretation of the meaning of one scripture which does not say what you claim it means above the explicit statements of other scriptures.

35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 "If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever."
37 Thus says the LORD: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.
Jeremiah 31:35-37

 

[Jack Terrence]

Once again, you are putting your interpretation of the meaning of one scripture which does not say what you claim it means above the explicit statements of other scriptures.

35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for a light by day, The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night, Who disturbs the sea, And its waves roar (The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 "If those ordinances depart From before Me, says the LORD, Then the seed of Israel shall also cease From being a nation before Me forever."
37 Thus says the LORD: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD.
Jeremiah 31:35-37

But Jesus contradicts you. That's the problem. He said that Israel's house would be left unto them "DESOLATE."

All promises made to Israel were CONDITIONAL whether it is explicitly stated or not. There are scores of conditional statements sprinkled throughout the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah 18:6-10). Jesus said that their house would be left unto them "DESOLATE" and anthropology confirms this.

Every encyclopedia on the face of the earth testifies that there is no Jewish race today. To fail to line up your interpretation of the scriptures with the scientific and anthropological evidence is to bring reproach upon Christianity.

 

[riverrat]

But Jesus contradicts you. That's the problem. He said that Israel's house would be left unto them "DESOLATE."

All promises made to Israel were CONDITIONAL whether it is explicitly stated or not. There are scores of conditional statements sprinkled throughout the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah 18:6-10). Jesus said that their house would be left unto them "DESOLATE" and anthropology confirms this.

Every encyclopedia on the face of the earth testifies that there is no Jewish race today. To fail to line up your interpretation of the scriptures with the scientific and anthropological evidence is to bring reproach upon Christianity.

And Christ was correct. Their house, the temple, of Jerusalem referred to in the previous verse was left desolate in AD 70.

 

[Biblewriter]

But Jesus contradicts you. That's the problem. He said that Israel's house would be left unto them "DESOLATE."

These words of Jesus do not even approximately contradict what the Holy Spirit had already said. You keep quoting half a sentence. This declaration very specifically included an "until." That is a clear statement of a terminus to the time of desolation, even as the Holy Spirit had already stated so many times through so many prophets.

All promises made to Israel were CONDITIONAL whether it is explicitly stated or not.

Even the ones that explicitly say they are not conditional, such as the one I just quoted, or the statement of Psalm 89 that the promise was so absolute that even sin could not cancel it?

30 "If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they break My statutes And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless My lovingkindness I will not utterly take from him, Nor allow My faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.
Psalm 89:30-34

There are scores of conditional statements sprinkled throughout the prophets (e.g., Jeremiah 18:6-10). Jesus said that their house would be left unto them "DESOLATE" and anthropology confirms this.

Every encyclopedia on the face of the earth testifies that there is no Jewish race today. To fail to line up your interpretation of the scriptures with the scientific and anthropological evidence is to bring reproach upon Christianity.

I base my beliefs on the Bible, and its very, very many explicitly stated promises that Israel will eventually be brought to repentance and restored to her land. I do not base my beliefs on the words of scientists who say the opposite to what the Bible says.

You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with God.