Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I just wanted to let everyone posting know that I'm reading these posts and giving them due consideration. I hope it remains civil and productive. Looking forward to the next installments. :coffee2:


So do I brother John.

Matt 24: 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
They didn't. That doesn't make me a preterist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Rick:
1. Whether Revelation was written before or after 70 A.D. makes no difference to the futurist, everything after Revelation 4 has not yet been fulfilled and no amount of twisting and turning and squeezing and shoving will change that.

Ian:
Such emotive language does not contribute to understanding. You say "everything" but does that mean some things have been fulfilled? If so, what?

Rick:
1. I know what hasn't been fulfilled. How about all the oceans of the world being turned to blood and all sea life being killed? :blink: How exactly does that fit into 70 A.D. again? :o What about those 100 pound hailstones and the boils all over the kingdom of the Beast? Did all the Romans get boils in 70 A.D.? :huh:


I asked "does that mean some things have been fulfilled? If so, what?" and you answer "I know what hasn't been fulfilled."

My point, of course is that there is general agreement (I hope) that much of the Olivet prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. (Read Luke 21 if you don't agree.) The close parallel between the seals & Olivet, and Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. , as well as the destruction in Rev. 11 demand consideration.

===============

Can no-one refute my post #82 on the millennium?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I asked "does that mean some things have been fulfilled? If so, what?" and you answer "I know what hasn't been fulfilled."

My point, of course is that there is general agreement (I hope) that much of the Olivet prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. (Read Luke 21 if you don't agree.) The close parallel between the seals & Olivet, and Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. , as well as the destruction in Rev. 11 demand consideration.

===============

Can no-one refute my post #82 on the millennium?


Yes, I agree that the part of the Olivet Prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem has been fulfilled. The times of the Gentiles are right now. Where I disagree is when you say that because the Seals resemble part of the Olivet Prophecy therefore Revelation has been fulfilled.

1. The Seals in their entirety do not resemble the Olivet Prophecy, only the Sixth Seal does. We could go into detail, but it's obvious to anyone with a Bible.

2. Even if all the Seals did resemble the Olivet Prophecy, that doesn't satisfy the fact that most of the Trumpets and Vials do not.

3. The Sixth Seal is the bodily return of Christ, which is yet future. It resembles the part of the Olivet Prophecy that is yet future as well.

What do I think has been fulfilled in Revelation? Typical futurist stuff: Rev. 4:1 is the rapture, so everything before it (seven church ages) we're either in it or it has been fulfilled.

In answer to post #82, you claim that we are in the Millennium. Then you claim that at the end of this age there is to be a battle, Armageddon and Gog and Magog. The problem is, Armageddon is in chapter 19, then the 1,000 years are in chapter 20, and then following that time span there is Gog and Magog. You're off by at least 1,000 years on Armageddon. If we're in the 1,000 years - then you 1) can't reference Armageddon as a future battle and must spiritualize it, or 2) show me in history where Jesus came down on a white Horse in war?

By the way, if everything before Revelation 19 is spiritual or doesn't mean what it says, why should we expect anything different from Revelation 20 and on? :smilie_loco:4 Don't you think that's a little inconsistent? The language of the book remains constant all the way through, but you're trying to say that Gog and Magog and everything that follows it is literal - but most everything before it is spiritual and applies to 70A.D.? Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
S-D:
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Christ's answer also spans all three events.


What is the meaning of "world" in context? Should we understand it as "age," i.e. the OC age - which is clearly prophesied with the destruction of the temple?

"World" is used in various ways, & several words are translated "world":
Mat 24:3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? αἰῶνος

Jhn 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. κόσμος

Luk 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. οἰκουμένης

Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: αἰῶνος

Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. κόσμος x3

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. κόσμου

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. οἰκουμένην

Kosmos, aiōn, oikoumenē, all translated "world" (& with other translations in the KJV) but have a different significance. I'm not correcting the KJV, but seeking a right understanding.
In 1 Peter 3:3, [worldly] adornment is κόσμος, giving us the word "cosmetics."

Note that Mat. 24:3 is aiōn, variously translated: AV — ever 71, world 38, never + 3364 + 1519 + 3588 6, evermore 4, age 2, eternal 2, misc 5.

Is it right to understand the disciples question as as referring to the end of the world in the sense of creation - the physical universe? Is that what they would expect in the light of his prophecy of the temple destruction?

His coming was the prophesied judgement of the generation that rejected him. (Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. That coming would bring about the end of the OC world, or age - aiōn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Old Covenant ended at Calvary with the veil being rent in twain, not 70 A.D. From what you're saying, if the OC ended at 70 A.D then for about forty years after the resurrection people still had a reason to offer animal sacrifices.

I agree, BUT, during that transitional period, sacrifices did continue, although OC worship was obsolete.

AD 70 brought all the symbols of the OC to an absolute & visible end.

Even Paul joined in sacrificial worship.

Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem:

Act 21:26 ¶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Hbr 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.
Edited by Covenanter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I agree, BUT, during that transitional period, sacrifices did continue, although OC worship was obsolete.

AD 70 brought all the symbols of the OC to an absolute & visible end.

Even Paul joined in sacrificial worship.

Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem:

Act 21:26 ¶ Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Hbr 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.


Wow, something you and I agree on! :clapping:

Well, maybe not: we sort of agree. I'm still sketchy on this and still trying to work it out, but I believe the OC ended at the cross (as you do), but that the NC hasn't begun yet. The reason why I believe that is because I think the OC and the NC are entirely centered on the Nation of Israel. You and I are under the New Testament, and the NC will begin with the Nation of Israel at the Second Coming when they accept Christ.

The passages in Hebrews and Joel that refer to the NC are speaking of Israel. You take that to mean spiritual Israel, I take it to mean ethnic Israel. If it's ethnic, then the New Covenant hasn't begun yet and won't begin until the Jews accept Christ.

Hebrews tells us that a testament is in force after someone is dead, as in "my last will and testament...." Therefore, technically, the New Testament began with the death of Christ, putting us under the New Testament. A covenant is an agreement or contract involving two or more parties. Before the Old Covenant, there was an Adamic, Noahic, and Abramic covenant which involved something on the part of man and a performance or benefit on the part of God. Those are bilateral contracts.

The Davidic covenant was an example of a unilateral contract, only one side is obligated to perform - that side was the Lord. It's like saying, "Son, you'll have this house one day..." The kid isn't obligated to do anything - he's getting a house "some day," and that's all there is to it. Regardless, under this covenant, David is given the "sure mercies of David" that Saul never had, and promised that a member of his line would reign in Israel forever. This is highly significant because one of the last kings of Israel, JeConiah, of the line of David, was rejected of God and told that no one from his line would ever reign with the blessing of God. Jesus Christ is from the earthly line of David, but not the genetic, therefore He can take advantage of one blessing and dodge the curse of the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Wow, something you and I agree on! :clapping:

Well, maybe not: we sort of agree. I'm still sketchy on this and still trying to work it out, but I believe the OC ended at the cross (as you do), but that the NC hasn't begun yet. The reason why I believe that is because I think the OC and the NC are entirely centered on the Nation of Israel. You and I are under the New Testament, and the NC will begin with the Nation of Israel at the Second Coming when they accept Christ.

The passages in Hebrews and Joel that refer to the NC are speaking of Israel. You take that to mean spiritual Israel, I take it to mean ethnic Israel. If it's ethnic, then the New Covenant hasn't begun yet and won't begin until the Jews accept Christ.

Hebrews tells us that a testament is in force after someone is dead, as in "my last will and testament...." Therefore, technically, the New Testament began with the death of Christ, putting us under the New Testament. A covenant is an agreement or contract involving two or more parties. Before the Old Covenant, there was an Adamic, Noahic, and Abramic covenant which involved something on the part of man and a performance or benefit on the part of God. Those are bilateral contracts.

The Davidic covenant was an example of a unilateral contract, only one side is obligated to perform - that side was the Lord. It's like saying, "Son, you'll have this house one day..." The kid isn't obligated to do anything - he's getting a house "some day," and that's all there is to it. Regardless, under this covenant, David is given the "sure mercies of David" that Saul never had, and promised that a member of his line would reign in Israel forever. This is highly significant because one of the last kings of Israel, JeConiah, of the line of David, was rejected of God and told that no one from his line would ever reign with the blessing of God. Jesus Christ is from the earthly line of David, but not the genetic, therefore He can take advantage of one blessing and dodge the curse of the other.


Rick

I find your reasoning hard to understand. Your view seems to omit the scriptures that say we, as gentiles are grafted in to Israel.

Ro 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Ro 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Ro 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Ro 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

We are one church or congregation., not separarte.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rick

I find your reasoning hard to understand. Your view seems to omit the scriptures that say we, as gentiles are grafted in to Israel.

Ro 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Ro 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Ro 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Ro 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

We are one church or congregation, not separarte.


Great question.

There are two Israels in Romans.

Romans 9:6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

One is ethnic and the other is spiritual. We're spiritual Israel, lost Jews are ethnic.

You stopped short of a very important verse:

Romans 11:25, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Now, that can't be talking about spiritual Israel. We're not blinded by God for a specific time because we rejected the Gospel. It's ethnic Israel that is blinded for a certain amount of time.

Very next verse...

Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Still talking about the same Israel, the ethnic one that is blinded right now until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. THAT Israel will be saved one day. What follows next is THEIR covenant:

Romans 11:27, "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

When all of national Israel is saved is when all of their sins are taken away and the New Covenant comes in. If you think this verse is talking about spiritual Israel, you and me, read the very next verse:

Romans 11:28, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

You and I, spiritual Israel, are not enemies of the gospel - but ethnic Israel in her current state is. Israel in her current state is partially blinded as well, but the nation of Israel will one day be saved and have all her sins taken away. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Davidic covenant was an example of a unilateral contract, only one side is obligated to perform - that side was the Lord. It's like saying, "Son, you'll have this house one day..." The kid isn't obligated to do anything - he's getting a house "some day," and that's all there is to it. Regardless, under this covenant, David is given the "sure mercies of David" that Saul never had, and promised that a member of his line would reign in Israel forever. This is highly significant because one of the last kings of Israel, JeConiah, of the line of David, was rejected of God and told that no one from his line would ever reign with the blessing of God. Jesus Christ is from the earthly line of David, but not the genetic, therefore He can take advantage of one blessing and dodge the curse of the other.


You want to re-phrase that? I think I have a good idea what your talking about but I want to make sure your saying what I think you mean rather than what it looks like you said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



You want to re-phrase that? I think I have a good idea what your talking about but I want to make sure your saying what I think you mean rather than what it looks like you said.


Sure, maybe I didn't word it right. Jesus is in the geneology of David, and He was of the seed of the woman, born of a virgin. Because He came from the line of David He is entitled, as a man, to the right to sit on the throne of Israel. The seed of David was cursed with JeConiah though, but because Jesus came from the seed of the woman, not the seed of any man, He doesn't bear the curse that came from JeConiah.

That make better sense? Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure, maybe I didn't word it right. Jesus is in the geneology of David, and He was of the seed of the woman, born of a virgin. Because He came from the line of David He is entitled, as a man, to the right to sit on the throne of Israel. The seed of David was cursed with JeConiah though, but because Jesus came from the seed of the woman, not the seed of any man, He doesn't bear the curse that came from JeConiah.

That make better sense?


Ah ok, that is what I thought it sounded like you were saying, but I thought you meant what I am about to say.

The "seed of the man" vs. "seed of the woman" in and of itself makes no difference in this particular area. A descendant of JeConiah is a descendant of JeConiah one way or the other. However, the "seed of David" was not cursed with JeConiah, the curse was that none of JeConiah's decedents were ever going to sit on Davids throne. When you look at the NT genealogies Joseph's line was the royal line and came through JeConiah, BUT Mary's line was not the royal line and did not go through JeConiah. Their genealogies split after David and go through different sons. Mary's line has no curse attached to it. This OT prophecy about JeConiah had to be true.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Since Jesus is going to reign on the throne of David one day, Mary, as his physical mother, could not be of the seed of JeConiah. Christ received the "legal" right to reign from being the "legal" son of Joseph, but bypassed the prophecy that none of JeConiahs descendants would sit on the throne of David by not being the physical son of Joseph and therefore not being a descendant of JeConiah. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Ah ok, that is what I thought it sounded like you were saying, but I thought you meant what I am about to say.

The "seed of the man" vs. "seed of the woman" in and of itself makes no difference in this particular area. A descendant of JeConiah is a descendant of JeConiah one way or the other. However, the "seed of David" was not cursed with JeConiah, the curse was that none of JeConiah's decedents were ever going to sit on Davids throne. When you look at the NT genealogies Joseph's line was the royal line and came through JeConiah, BUT Mary's line was not the royal line and did not go through JeConiah. Their genealogies split after David and go through different sons. Mary's line has no curse attached to it. This OT prophecy about JeConiah had to be true.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Since Jesus is going to reign on the throne of David one day, Mary, as his physical mother, could not be of the seed of JeConiah. Christ received the "legal" right to reign from being the "legal" son of Joseph, but bypassed the prophecy that none of JeConiahs descendants would sit on the throne of David by not being the physical son of Joseph and therefore not being a descendant of JeConiah.


:amen::amen::amen: :amen:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Rick:
There are two Israels in Romans.

Romans 9:6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

One is ethnic and the other is spiritual. We're spiritual Israel, lost Jews are ethnic.

Agreed, except, of course that saved Jews are also spiritual Israel together with saved Gentiles.


You stopped short of a very important verse:

Romans 11:25, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Now, that can't be talking about spiritual Israel. We're not blinded by God for a specific time because we rejected the Gospel. It's ethnic Israel that is blinded for a certain amount of time.

Agreed. Paul is spending much of Romans explaining that true Jews & true Israel have faith in Christ, & are circumcised in heart, as are believing Gentiles.

Very next verse...

Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Who comprise all Israel? Paul has been using the olive tree analogy for believing, spiritual Israel, with believing Gentiles & Jews grafted together into the one tree.

Note that Paul writes "and so..." NOT "and then." Using his analogy, all Israel is saved by grafting & regrafting. The deliverer is Jesus, who has completed that saving work. Paul is quoting Isaiah, not making a fresh prophecy.

"All Israel" comprises believing Jews & Gentiles, both before & after AD 70, certainly many more Jews than the 7,000 reserved to the LORD in Elijah's day. Sadly their national rejection of Jesus occasioned Paul's comments throughout Romans.


Still talking about the same Israel, the ethnic one that is blinded right now until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. THAT Israel will be saved one day. What follows next is THEIR covenant:

"And so" indicates that Paul isn't prophesying, but explaining. Down the ages, from Abraham to the last repented sinner, all Israel is being saved.

Romans 11:27, "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

When all of national Israel is saved is when all of their sins are taken away and the New Covenant comes in. If you think this verse is talking about spiritual Israel, you and me, read the very next verse:

Romans 11:28, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

You and I, spiritual Israel, are not enemies of the gospel - but ethnic Israel in her current state is. Israel in her current state is partially blinded as well, but the nation of Israel will one day be saved and have all her sins taken away.

The NC came in at Calvary. That's why we eat the Lord's supper.

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The same Gk word is used for both "testament" & "covenant." There may now be legal differences, but the words in Scripture are interchangeable. Notice for e.g.

Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

2Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.

Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Hbr 9:20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...