There is no such thing as a "rapture" for believers!!

[JAL]

His Word is commanded to all generations, not just literally "one thousand." But God is using the number thousand here to show spiritual consistency in representing the fullness. Likewise in Revelation chapter 20, where it speaks of the one thousand year millennial reign of Christ. It is the perfect example of this numerical symbolism. It signifies the fullness of time of the reign of Christ, the binding of Satan, and the rest of the dead live not again, before the second Resurrection. Not the totality of time from the beginning, and not literally one thousand years, but the fullness of time between events spoken of there.

I lost track of your position. What is the first and second resurrection in your view?

 

[JAL]

@ShineyDays2,

Also let's suppose it's not 1,000 years - it's an indefinite period of time. Let's say 100 years. We still have all the same logical issues to face right? Who is going to populate this 100-year "millennium"? I'm not getting you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
" There IS hard evidence for the immaterial. It's what God breathed into the nostrils of a pile of dirt which "became a living soul"."

I don't see your point.

Yes, I can see that clearly. I think the problem is that you are so wrapped up in your metaphysical ideas that you can't see the simplicity of it all.

Breathing is a physical process. Air can push other air - note that both clusters of air must be tangible for this to work.

Irrelevant. God didn't breathe air into the pile of dust. Sad that you think so.

BTW, etymologically the term soul is rooted in "breath".
Everything you've said supports materialism.

I sure don't deny the material.

And if there is any doubts about the physicality of divine Wind/Breath, note that it pushed apart the waters of the Red Sea (something not possible for an intangible wind). Exodus 15:8;Exodus 15:10.

Re: Ex 15:8, this is a SONG sung to the Lord, by Moses and the Israelites.

E 14:16 - Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.

This is what God told Moses to do. I'll leave you to figure it all out.

You want to move off this topic - fine just say so.

I already did. I thought you would understand the words "not interested". Sorry for the assumption.

Don't pretend to have evidence that you don't possess, because I will call you on it.

I've only seen that you have a problem with the immaterial. That's all.

 

[JAL]

Irrelevant. God didn't breathe air into the pile of dust. Sad that you think so.

That's not my position. Breathing is a physical gust of substance that can be used to push another physical substance (a soul) into a pile of dirt. If either of the two substances is intangible, the effort fails.

Re: Ex 15:8, this is a SONG sung to the Lord, by Moses and the Israelites.

E 14:16 - Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground.

This is what God told Moses to do. I'll leave you to figure it all out.

It's about evidence. Here's what the text says:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

Then later when Moses says it was a blast of Breath/Wind from God's nostrils, he uses the term "ruach" which is precisely the term so frequently mistranslated "immaterial Spirit" by Platonic theologians.

This dividing of the sea wasn't magic - it wasn't even instantaneous. It was the divine Wind/Breath blowing all night long.

Again, is God dumb enough to paint for us a false, idolatrous picture of Himself as a figure with nostrils who breathes? You're free to believe that - but let's be clear about one thing. Even if you dismiss all the biblical evidence, what are you left with? Plato! At that point it becomes immoral to pretend that traditional metaphysics came from Scripture.

The church fathers looked to Plato because they believed him equally authoritative as Scripture and they didn't believe that Scripture could be trusted to give us a technically precise picture of God.

 

[JAL]

I already did. I thought you would understand the words "not interested". Sorry for the assumption.

Sorry for assuming you'd understand my condition that I'd call out any hand-waving.

I've only seen that you have a problem with the immaterial. That's all.

You asked me where divine Clouds came from. I was just showing you some evidence of materialism.

 

[ShineyDays2]

Also let's suppose it's not 1,000 years - it's an indefinite period of time. Let's say 100 years. We still have all the same logical issues to face right? Who is going to populate this 100-year "millennium"? I'm not getting you.

1,000 years is one millenium. But that 1,000 years is symbolic of the entire time between the cross and the Last Day - The End of the Ages - Judgment Day. There is no rapture of the church is scripture. Therefore, there is no need for a new temple either. The A-mil has been the primary view up until the early 1800's. It was at that time that J.N. Darby created the rapture and the dispensational theory of which has infiltrated the churches today. Plug in the "origins of dispensationalism" and you will get a pletora of info on him and his theory.

 

[Ligurian]

Oh, for heaven's sake. I already proved that there are different kinds of good news.

But, there is only 1 way to be saved.

Agreed: Matthew 7:12.

 

[JAL]

1,000 years is one millenium. But that 1,000 years is symbolic of the entire time between the cross and the Last Day - The End of the Ages - Judgment Day. There is no rapture of the church is scripture. Therefore, there is no need for a new temple either. The A-mil has been the primary view up until the early 1800's. It was at that time that J.N. Darby created the rapture and the dispensational theory of which has infiltrated the churches today. Plug in the "origins of dispensationalism" and you will get a pletora of info on him and his theory.

Ok I'm not buying the A-millennial position because I hold to Covenant Theology which makes no distinctions between OT and NT saints. Since we are all under the same covenant, in my view, NT saints can't be said to automatically enjoy, in contrast to OT saints, a period of reigning with Christ. This is especially apparent from the fact that the last 1,900 years of the church has been anything BUT victorious by divine standards of "victory".

 

[ShineyDays2]

Ok I'm not buying the A-millennial position because I hold to Covenant Theology which makes no distinctions between OT and NT saints.

But that is the primary position of the A-millenium. It is dispensationalism that denies that the New Covenant is for the church today!

 

[JAL]

But that is the primary position of the A-millenium. It is dispensationalism that denies that the New Covenant is for the church today!

I'm not a dispensationalist but I agree with them that Israel's New Covenant is for Israel, not the Gentiles. That's one point where I differ with Covenant Theology. I preserve the distinction between Israel and the Church.

To clarify - it is one Promise/Covenant of grace but it manifests itself in a potentially unlimited number of promises/covenants (including any promises that the Lord speaks to you as an individual), including Israel's Old and New Covenants.

 

[Ligurian]

You don't agree that the book of James was written sometime around Acts 8, when Jews from Jerusalem were scattered abroad from Saul's persecution?

You don't connect James 1:1 with Acts 8:1?

I agree with you that Peter taught the exact same gospel of the kingdom that Jesus taught Israel in his first coming. That was not my point.

In that gospel of the kingdom, you need works to show your faith.

The Gospel of the Kingdom can be summed up in one verse: Matthew 7:12. In fact, the entire Bible can be summed up in that one verse. If you don't believe Jesus, you won't do what He says: treat others the same way you want to be treated.

Isn't this what all of the great religions have in common: respect and love for your fellow mankind and womankind? Isn't this the sum total of what brotherly love really means? And the God who created us all--each and every one--certainly must expect us all to be kind to each other. If you see a person wallowing in filth and covered with sins, do you turn a blind eye? Is that what you'd want others to do unto you? if you were in your right mind and they were in their right mind. None of this is rocket science, is it? But it's treated like the bestest battlefield ever. And why is that?: Because humans are covered with sins, and they need to be taught over and over not to do what they always knew was wrong.

 

[JAL]

But that is the primary position of the A-millenium. It is dispensationalism that denies that the New Covenant is for the church today!

Are we misunderstanding each other? I said we do NOT reign with Christ currently - not in the triumphant sense often associated with the millennium.

Also I'm not sure if I missed your point. Let me know.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's not my position. Breathing is a physical gust of substance that can be used to push another physical substance (a soul) into a pile of dirt. If either of the two substances is intangible, the effort fails.

It's about evidence. Here's what the text says:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

Then later when Moses says it was a blast of Breath/Wind from God's nostrils, he uses the term "ruach" which is precisely the term so frequently mistranslated "immaterial Spirit" by Platonic theologians.

This dividing of the sea wasn't magic - it wasn't even instantaneous. It was the divine Wind/Breath blowing all night long.

Again, is God dumb enough to paint for us a false, idolatrous picture of Himself as a figure with nostrils who breathes? You're free to believe that - but let's be clear about one thing. Even if you dismiss all the biblical evidence, what are you left with? Plato! At that point it becomes immoral to pretend that traditional metaphysics came from Scripture.

The church fathers looked to Plato because they believed him equally authoritative as Scripture and they didn't believe that Scripture could be trusted to give us a technically precise picture of God.

I'm wondering what your main point is here. Could you summarize?

 

[ShineyDays2]

I'm not a dispensationalist but I agree with them that Israel's New Covenant is for Israel, not the Gentiles

Well, a lot of people would say they are not a dispensationalist but when they start talking their words comply with dispensationalism. I am on another thread that denies the New Covenant for the church today and claims that "Israel" will recieve it sometime in the future - completely contrary to what Jesus said at the Last Supper....

"For received from the Lord wat i also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, Do this , as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Jesus was speaking to those 11 Jewish disciples at the Last Supper. Now do you think that they misunderstood what Jesus was saying to them?

To deny that the New Covenant is for the Christian church is tantamout to denying Christs' work on the cross. It's that serious.

 

[ShineyDays2]

Are we misunderstanding each other? I said we do NOT reign with Christ currently - not in the triumphant sense often associated with the millennium.

Also I'm not sure if I missed your point. Let me know.

LOL! I think I am missing your point too! Not sure what you mean by "we do not reign with Christ currently....? Christ was crowned King and we are his subjects NOW.

and in what sense is "triumphant associated with the [1,000 year] millennium?

But the New Covenant is definitely for the Christian church NOW - NOT LATER SPECIFICALLY FOR THE JEWS. The New Covenant is for ALL people, both Jews and Gentiles in the current Christian church; the body of Christ from the cross to eternity. That is the New Covenant in a nutshell.

 

[JAL]

Well, a lot of people would say they are not a dispensationalist but when they start talking their words comply with dispensationalism. I am on another thread that denies the New Covenant for the church today and claims that "Israel" will recieve it sometime in the future - completely contrary to what Jesus said at the Last Supper....

"For received from the Lord wat i also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, Do this , as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Jesus was speaking to those 11 Jewish disciples at the Last Supper. Now do you think that they misunderstood what Jesus was saying to them?

To deny that the New Covenant is for the Christian church is tantamout to denying Christs' work on the cross. It's that serious.

No, it's not that serious. Don't make mountains out of molehills. God will put the sheep on the right and the goats on the left. He's not going to put the dispensationalists on the right and...(well you get my point).

Classic dispensationalists, as I seem to recall, agree with me that the verse you cited for "new covenant" is not the same as Israel's New Covenant. I can't really argue the point from their stance, but let me argue it from mine.

Again, the one Promise/Covenant realizes/fullfills itself across a potentially unlimited number of promises/covenants (hence Paul oscillates between singular "promise" and plural "promises" in Galatians 3). This fact afforded Jesus the convenience of declaring the Eucharist (in the verse you cited) as a "new covenant" for the church. This had the practical value of officially terminating the old covenant ceremonies and thus, in the long haul, beneficially pushed both Jews and Gentiles in a better direction. This new covenant (the Eucharist) IS for the church. I'm pretty sure classic dispensationalism agrees with me on that point.

 

[ShineyDays2]

I'm not a dispensationalist but I agree with them that Israel's New Covenant is for Israel, not the Gentiles.

How do you get around the words that Jesus spoke to those Jewish disciples at the Last Supper only hours before he was crucified....

"For received from the Lord wat i also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, Do this , as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

 

[JAL]

I'm wondering what your main point is here. Could you summarize?

Sure. With the Red Sea, God depicts "ruach" as His physical Breath/Wind thereby confirming "The Holy Breath/Wind" as the Third Person's title and nature and excluding (immaterial) "Holy Spirit/Ghost" as His title and nature.

 

[JAL]

How do you get around the words that Jesus spoke to those Jewish disciples at the Last Supper only hours before he was crucified....

"For received from the Lord wat i also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, Do this , as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

That's the verse I just discussed in post 436.

 

[JAL]

LOL! I think I am missing your point too! Not sure what you mean by "we do not reign with Christ currently....? Christ was crowned King and we are his subjects NOW.

Premil, if I recall, postulates a special, unequivocally TRIUMPHANT reign of Christ as an earthly King over the earth, possibly even world-wide theocracy, whereas today's church is still under the thumb of secular governments.

A-mil, I think, claims that NT saints enjoy at least SOME kind of special triumph, reigning more than OT saints reigned. I myself don't see ANY difference between OT and NT saints. For both, there is indeed the potential to reign over the devil, but in fact the devil reigns for the most part if we don't do our job properly. Which we haven't.