Brother Rick

I felt like I made myself clear in other posts, but I guess not. It's not that I don't care about church history and what the heroes of the faith taught, believed, and practiced. I believe it is important to study church history, I own and have studied many books (including Shaff’s History of the Christian Church and Creeds of Christendom) - it's just that it is all secondary to what the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures are the final authority, not history, a man, or a creed.

Let me illustrate. Here are a group of men that are teaching the truth. One man is a liar, the other man is murdering adulterer, another is a drunk who's had family problems, and the last one is a man who struggles with keeping his temper in check. Should I ignore what they have to say? Are they going to be wrong on everything? If I base my decision solely on the above facts I should ignore them. Problem is, their names are Abraham, David, Noah, and Peter. The guy who you thought was the worst one was the man after God's own heart.

Please do not overreact to this and start claiming that Rick thinks a person's character doesn't matter. That's not what I said. I'm simply trying to illustrate that the most important thing is what the Scriptures teach, and everything else is secondary. I believe what I believe because I believe it's what the Scriptures teach. If some rotten guy in the past taught it too I don't care.

That tends to happen to spammers....

I don't know why you have been allowed to ramble on this long. :shootme:

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Again I ask, "If 70 A.D. was when all was fulfilled, how do you explain this verse?"

There were worse tribulations before and after what transpired in 70 A.D. These words spoken by Jesus aren't confined to Israel only...since Jesus is the one who brought up "since the beginning of the world". There was no Israel for thousands of years after the beginning of the world, and the flood happened long before even the call of Abram.

Again I ask, is Jesus a liar?

But this is where we get into the mutilation of Scripture.
1. What were the boundaries of the land that God gave to Abraham, and then later to Moses?

Deuteronomy 11:24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
Deuteronomy 1:7 Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Numbers 34:1-12 also go into great detail about the boundaries.

Here is the problem. I listed 3 references that identify the northern boundary as the Euphrates River. There is no record anywhere in the Book of Joshua of Israel ever going that far north under Joshua's leadership.
Hence, the promises to Abraham were NOT fulfilled in Joshua's day. All Joshua is telling them is that when they depended upon the Lord to deliver them, HE DID.
But even Joshua himself admits and writes that the Israelites did not COMPLETELY eradicate the Canaanites, as they were told. The book of Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel tell the tale of the continuing problems with those that were left in the land.

So, you are simply mistaken in assuming that the Joshua reference means the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled. It wasn't. All the facts and details are listed for us right there in Joshua and Judges.




Yes, but the Mosaic Covenant was made with the NATION of Israel, not any particular individuals. Obviously, every individual had to do their part, but Deut. 28 makes it clear that God was looking for NATIONAL obedience. The OT demonstrates repeatedly that the way God deals with any given nation is far different than the way He deals with any given individual.



Joshua did not declare them fulfilled. You have imposed your system of interpretation on the text. They never conquered the land as far north as the Euphrates in Joshua's day.
But then you make a quantum leap in logic, and miss the entire point of the conversation.
If in fact, things are as you say - that the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled in Joshua's day, then why do the OT prophets AFTER Joshua keep telling us about a PHYSICAL kingdom on Planet Earth, with the Jewish people as the Head of the Nations?


This passage from Ephesians has absolutely NOTHING to do with the LAND! You have somehow imposed your theology into the phrase "the mystery of Christ," and somehow interpretted that to mean that all of the OT writings about the land, the Tribes of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, Mount Olivet splitting in half, the other Gentile nations serving Israel and observing the feast of Tabernacles, and hundreds of other verses, as all SPIRITUAL. Where do you get that idea from?
What Scripture do you have that spefically tells us that these hundreds of verses are not literal?
The question you should ask yourself is, "What is the mystery of Christ?"

Hint - it has nothing to do with spiritualizing/allegorizing ANYTHING from the OT.




You missed the point again. If what you say is true, then why didn't the Apostle Paul tell us directly and plainly that all of the physical promises made to the physical seed of Abraham (i.e. the Jews) have now been spiritualized into something not physical? Where are those verses and passages in the Bible that explicitly state this?
I agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled every letter of the OT Law. But that does not necessarily negate all of the promises of the land made to Israel. He is, after all, the KING of Kings, and the KING of the Jews.



Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Can you show me in Genesis 15 where Abraham received the "promise of the spirit?" All I read about was the promise of the LAND, which was NOT fulfilled under Joshua.

Again, you are imposing your system, and reading it into the text, when it is not there. Paul is contrasting works vs faith, and is using Abraham as an example. Paul never states in Galatians that we REPLACE Israel as a Nation. He never states that we get the promises made to Abraham. He is dealing with a SPIRITUAL SUBJECT, and demonstrating the inadequacy of works. Abraham received his covenant by faith, and so do we. It does not say that we get the exact same promises and rewards as Abraham. Abraham was promised PHYSICAL SEED, PHYSICAL LAND. We never are promised those things.


And here you prove my point. Your system cannot handle the literal interpretation of the passages, so you impose your ideology into them to make it "fit."
It doesn't fit.
If David is resurrected at the 2nd Coming of Christ, and sits on a throne ruling over Israel, and that reign never ends, then it is entirely proper and appropriate to refer to that reign as FOREVER.
"The Bible NEVER defines "tabernacle" as a "restored family line." That is a pure invention on your part. It is nowhere in the text.
Ezekiel 37:24 is crystal clear - David will sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus Christ will rule over the entire world.

Or I could look at Dispensationalists today and see that they are typically the most conservative, missions-minded, soul winning Christians in the world.

What do you believe John?

WHOA! Wait a minute! Did I miss something?
You said above, "The old covenant established at Mt. Sinai...."
But it seems to me that whenever we get into this debate about "Covenant Theology" vs Dispensationalism, the Covenanters always have a tendency to forget a few of the Covenants, and the specific details that accompany them.
1. The Noahic Covenant - in place until Rev. 21
Ge 9:8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Ge 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Ge 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Ge 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

2. The Abrahamic Covenant - unconditional - includes LAND and Physical seed as numerous as the stars, dust, and sand. Also includes the Messianic Line.
If the Covenanter believes that these promises are fulfilled in Christ, and that we are now the benefactors of this covenant, then where, pray tell, is our LAND?
The OT Prophets (all of them) continually point to a FUTURE RESTORATION of a nation to their LAND, and these promises are directed at the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham. The concept of a "spiritual" fulfillment is completely foreign to the OT. Therefore, when the Covenanters say that WE are the recipients of this promise, they can only do so AFTER they shred the OT of its normal, natural, literal meanings, and spiritualize everything away to mean something - anything - other than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

Our "Covenant" brethren always get off track by thinking that Paul's use of Abraham's FAITH is therefore a fulfillment of the entire covenant. They are wrong on several counts:
A. Paul never tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in its entirety. If it is, then Revelation makes no sense whatsoever, because we are right back dealing with the 12 tribes of Israel, the Temple, etc.
B. Paul says we are his SPIRITUAL seed, not his physical seed. Again, the covenant with Abraham was for PHYSICAL seed and LAND.
C. Paul is merely using Abraham as an example of FAITH. Abraham believed what God told him. If you want to know what God told Abraham, read Genesis 15 - it has to do with PHYSICAL PROMISES of children and land!!! Abraham believed what God told him, and accepted it as fact. Paul uses this as an example of how we receive salvation. No works - just faith. Paul never says that we now get all the same promises that Abraham did. It is an example of faith - the kind of faith necessary for NT Salvation.

3. The Mosaic Covenant - a conditional covenant with the NATION of Israel (not the individuals, but the nation), based upon their acceptance of the terms by faith. Deut. 28 is extremely clear that this covenant is a "two-edged sword." If they obey, the Nation of Israel would be blessed. If they broke their end of it, God's curses would come down in buckets.

But wait!!! There's more!!!
4. The Davidic Covenant - an unconditional covenant with David - II Samuel 7
2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Does that verse, and its accompanying passage actually mean what it says?
I believe it does.
THe Covenanter simply denies any LITERAL interpretation of it, and wants us to believe that Christ has ALREADY fulfilled this prophecy, and that Jesus Christ is now currently reigning over the earth RIGHT NOW.
Some Reign!!!
But that is not what the covenant is. It is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant - physical land, physical throne, physical reign - it is all in the passage, and is continued throughout the rest of the OT prophets. Again, their understanding of it was LITERAL and PHYSICAL. Why would we all of a sudden change what they believed because we have not seen it come to pass yet? Is this any reason to deny the plain words of God? Absolutely not. The only other option then is to look for a future fulfillment of these promises.

Now the fur hits the fan:
Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Either that verse means what it says, or God is a liar. It really is that simple.
Somebody earlier said that this verse is fulfilled in Christ. But my friends, the verse does not SAY CHRIST, or Messiah, or anything of that nature. It clearly says DAVID.
Maybe I am crazy, but I am just dumb enough to believe that God is a much better linguist than I am (remember Genesis 11???). I am just dumb enough to believe that God knows how to say what He means in such a way that nobody has to GUESS at what He meant.
I know this - if I want my children to be obedient, I had better give clear instructions.
If I want my employees to produce specific results, I had better give them clear guidelines and instructions.
If I am not clear, then I can only expect catastrophe.

How then, can we have this insane approach to Scripture that starts with the assumption that God didn't know how to tell us what He wanted us to know, and that we are supposed to GUESS at it? How this flies in the face of II Timothy 3:16-17!!! All Scripture is given for DOCTRINE! Well, how can we know what sound doctrine IS if it is not given to us CLEARLY???

Ezekiel 37:24 says plainly and CLEARLY - "DAVID" - not "the son of David", not "the Messiah." It says DAVID. I am therefore FORCED to believe that someday in the future, God will resurrect David, and that David will LITERALLY rule over ISRAEL in the LAND that God promised Abraham.
There are no other options - unless we invent them!!!

5. The new covenant
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Question: Has this "new covenant" been COMPLETELY fulfilled?
Answer: NO!
If we check the OT references, again we see BEYOND this current church age, and we see a LITERAL, physical fulfillment in Israel with the Jews, with David on the throne of ISRAEL, Jesus Christ ruling over the entire world, and an age of righteousness and peace on this earth.
We know absolutely NOTHING of this today.
Isaiah 11 has not been fulfilled YET - but it will be someday.
Zechariah 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

See? This has not yet been fulfilled - we don't KILL those who profess to be prophets - at least not if you are a good Baptist. (All other Protestants have done so in the past, and Catholics are still doing it today - just not in America!)

So there are some aspects of this New Covenant that have not yet been fulfilled. Some have, and we are the benefactors of it. But not all - it points to a future fulfillment of both Jew and Gentile under the literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ.

As to the Lord's Second Coming, again we ask, "Has this verse been literally fulfilled?"
Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And actually we should include the entire last 3 chapters of Zechariah.

And the answer to the question is a resounding "NO!" These verses and chapters have not yet been fulfilled.
So we are again faced with the following options:
Either
1. God is a liar

OR

2. God does not know how to communicate with humans effectively, concisely, and clearly. In other words, He purposefully has written in "coded" language to confuse us all. Somehow we are all supposed figure out this "symbolic" language.
Again, this denies the plain meaning of II timothy 3:16-17.

OR

3. God knows more than we do, and attempts to instruct us in doctrine as simply as possible. Therefore, what God wrote must be true. If it has not yet happened, then it must be prophetic of what WILL happen. (The Book of Revelation bears this out - Jesus does come back on a white horse, and destroys the army of the Antichrist - right where God said it would happen - Armageddon, i.e. "The valley of Megiddo.")

There are actually a few more covenants in the Bible - but I think I have made my point.

Israel is not extinct, and God always keeps His promises.

Brother Nathaniel, please understand that Covenanter is a Preterist. Meaning he believe that there is no such thing as a Great Tribulation as described by Jesus and spoken of in great detail in fifteen chapters of Revelation. He assigns all this to Jerusalem being destroyed in 70 A.D. Though I have no idea what he does when it talks about 1/3 of the Earth's population being killed, 1/3 of life in the sea being killed, and 1/3 of everything green being burnt up. That never happened in 70 A.D.

There are so many prophesies that haven't been fufilled yet: When was the Gospel preached to all the nations? When was the Mark of the Beast implemented? What about the 200-million-man army? When did 100-pound hailstones fall from the sky? And what date was it when the Euphrates River dried up?

He doesn't believe in a Millennium either, though I do give him credit for believing in the future New Heavens and New Earth. If one does believe like Ian, at least he does have hope in that. He relegates all the wonderful prophesies of the Millennium to the NH & NE, ignoring the prophesies that are wonderful indeed, but clearly not of the NH & NE, such as people living to very old ages but still dying (no death in NH & NE) and Millennial prophesies of the sea being filled with the knowledge of the Lord (no sea in the NH & NE).

He would have you to combine the Judgment Seat of Christ (I Cor. 3), the Judgment of the Nations (Matt. 25), and the Great White Throne Judgment altogether in one general judgment. I'm not sure how he handles the Battle of Armageddon and the Battle of Gog and Magog and the thousand years in between. I do know that he thinks the thousand years in Revelation 20 started in 70 A.D., and is still going on. This, of course, would mean that Satan was bound, right now, in the bottomless pit. As in bound during the Dark Ages as well, when Satan ruled the world through the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe he got out for awhile or has a really long chain. In spite of all the war, suffering, and problems since Jesus left this Earth, Covenanter would have you to believe that Jesus is ruling the world right now and that we are in the Millennium. This ignores the fact that Paul calls Satan the god of this world.

Basically, in the end, Jesus said the events in Revelation were going to happen soon. This is what Covenanter bases everything on to backdate Revelation before 70 A.D. and squeeze all of the catastrophic events in Revelation to 70 A.D. Yes, Jesus said that, but He also said that things that happened in the Great Tribulation were so extreme that we've never seen them before and they'd never happen again. To assign that to Jerusalem getting sacked in 70 A.D. is to ignore Nebuchadnezzar's attack in 606 B.C. and Hitler's holocaust.

Another favorite attack is bringing up history and, most recently, claiming that Jesuits invented the idea of pre-Millennialism. I have no idea how pre-Millennialism would help the RCC, because the greatest soul winners over the last two hundred years have all been pre-Millennial and much of the time led people out of the Roman Catholic Church. The history argument against pre-Millennialism and Dispensations is an argument that is to try and get you out of your Bible. Historically, many theologians have been dead wrong, so why should we care? I care what the Bible says.

I have no idea what he thinks about the rapture. Maybe he thinks it happened in 70 A.D. as well, I'd like to know. In the Olivet Prophesy, Jesus talks about how when all these things happen, to look up for your redemption draweth nigh. If the Olivet was limited to only the destruction of Jerusalem, then those looking up saw nothing and were not delivered, and there was no redemption drawing nigh. If you believe Revelation 19 and several Old Testament passages you see Israel being surrounded by her enemies and Jesus Christ returning to Earth bodily and destroying those armies. THAT is redemption drawing nigh.

I'm not trying to smear Ian, and he's more than welcome to correct me if I've said he believes something here that he doesn't. I say all this because I feel it's only fair for you to know what you're getting into when you listen to him and I'd have no problem with someone exposing what I believe. I like Ian, and I know he loves the Lord and has a heart for helping people and spreading the Gospel, but he’s really off on his end times stuff.

How come Jesus said this in Matthew 24:22 about the future 7 year tribulation period (speaking of the last 3 1/2 years):

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Apparently this didn't happen in 70AD.....but there will be a future period that will be much worse than 70AD, because Jesus said that "except those days should be shortened, there should be no flesh saved: ... " The word "worse" is definitely implied here.

Oh. So Jesus just meant that there would never be a time in which all those details would happen ever before or after.

He didn't mean that the Great Tribulation would be the worst period of time in which the world has ever seen?

He didn't mean that the trouble the Jews would go through at 70 A.D. would be the worst they've ever seen, before or after?

He only meant that the situation would be unique, sort of.

That's convenient.

I have noticed that while you say you have received treatment and/or comments that are contrary to Biblical precept and/or principle you have neither listed nor quoted these comments nor given the Scriptures that were violated.

Somebody call the wambulance.

I snuggle my wifey, and when my side gets sore I roll over and snuggle my AK-47. Oh yeah. It's good to be an American.

Ahahahaha......

Just kidding, but if I could afford an AK I just might.... I have a really sweet 10-22 that looks like an assault rifle and I have a couple of 25 round mags. Great for ridding the local farming world of furry underground terrorists.

Who and what do these questions remind you of?

These are leading questions, not the questions of one sincerely looking for biblical truth.

Jesus has always been perfect, He is God. Even in His humanity He was perfect and sinned not.

Quick answer: 'perfect' in the Bible often has the idea of 'complete, finished.'. Jesus was perfect in the sense of being holy, without sin at all times. His work of salvation, though, and Himself as the sole Author of our salvation, was not completed - perfected - until He rose. By His death, He paid the penalty of our sins and redeemed us - salvation from the penalty of our sins in hell. By His resurrection, He demonstrated victory over the power of sin in our life - sanctification. A full salvation! that was not complete - perfect - until He rose.

WW1 and WW2 were much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70AD....BUT the Tribulation, especially the last 3 1/2 years (called the Great Tribulation or Time of Jacob's Trouble - Jeremiah 30:7) will be much much worse than both World Wars. In fact, WW1 and WW2 will look mild compared to what is going to happen during those 7 years when God pours out His wrath upon the Christ rejecting world. I believe that there will be a period when people will want to die but will be unable to do so.

Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Revelation 9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Men will also ask that the rocks fall on them to hide them from God's wrath:

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Much worse than 70AD and both World Wars combined.

There is no such thing as "spiritual Israel"....the term is nowhere found or even implied in Scripture. The Apostle Paul called the Body of Christ/the Church, "one new man" (Ephesians 2:15) and saved Gentiles are the "spiritual SEED of Abraham" (Galatians 3:28-29)

Israel is the nation chosen and created by God to preserve His truth in the world and to prepare the way for Christ’s coming. The first mention of Israel is in Genesis 32:28 where God renamed Jacob Israel. Therefore, Israel didn't "exist from day 1 consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ." It began with the calling out of Abraham. (Genesis 12:1-3)

The Abrahamic Covenant was not fulfilled in the New Covenant. The national physical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant have not yet been fulfilled. That will happen at the Second Advent of Christ when He sets up His earthly 1,000 year Kingdom in Jerusalem.

Every New Testament believer partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant through Christ, but there is nowhere in Scripture that states that this covenant has been transferred from national Israel to the church.

The Tribulation period temple will be built by the Jews...they are preparing for it now...they have the implements, the priestly robes, a school for priests, etc...

I agree that this future temple will be built in "unbelief" and go against the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ; however...

Jesus, himself, will build the Millennial Temple...

Zechariah 6:12-13
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.


____________________________________________________________________________________________


I'm not trying to be argumentative or rude, but I'm interested...

If 70 A.D. is when all was fulfilled, how is this explained (v. 21)?

Matthew 24:15-21
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:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Was not WW1, WW2, and other wars much worse than what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? The answer of course is yes. Would not this make Jesus a liar?

Respectfully,
No Nicolaitans

Linda
Yes, I agree with you that Revelation 20 is the "Great White Throne Judgment" and I also agree that there will be a resurrection of Israel at the beginning of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. I don't know if Martha understood that distinction in John 11. I know from the Gospel accounts that the Jews believed in a general resurrection and judgment, but it seems as if their understanding of it put those two events together.
Also, the Great White Throne Judgment would include all those who are born during the Kingdom Age, so there will be SOME saved people there, but the vast majority of those at this judgment are the lost from Genesis 4 up to the end of the Kingdom Age.

In Christ,

Why can't we read it in a literal sense and understand it that way?


Jesus Christ is a JEW - the Lion of the tribe of JUDAH, and KING over Israel, sitting on DAVID's Throne in JERUSALEM. We simply cannot overlook the direct references to Israel just because it is an inconvenience.


There are a lot of things that I APPLY to my congregation that are not necessarily DOCTRINALLY pointed at them, particularly when I preach or teach from the OT. The NT writers quoted extensively from the OT, as we would expect them to. This does not deny what we believe from a dispensational point of view.



These are only partial fulfillments. Reaching all the way back to Joshua as part of that fulfillment is a huge stretch, and simply doesn't fit the context, which is what you are demanding from us. The verses were not COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY fulfilled with the Median destruction of Babylon, and you did not answer the issue raised concerning Lucifer in the passage.
The fact that Lucifer is mentioned should alert us to the idea that there is something else being pointed to other than Nebuchadnezzar.



The point is that there should have been some OBVIOUS clues to a future fulfillment beyond what they knew from a physical perspective....(i.e. Lucifer...i.e. the Virgin Birth of Isa. 7:14...etc)


Brother, this is the ALLEGORICAL method. Overlooking the SPECIFIC wording of the passage, and trying to force generalities into a specific that don't fit. This is why I simply cannot accept the Covenant Theologian's position. It denies a LITERAL interpretation of any passage, and seeks to impose partial fulfillments as complete fulfillments.....it doesn't work!
The view you describe above does not account for LUCIFER in Isaiah 14.

It only works out this way if you DENY a LITERAL interpretation of Scripture! I reject that proposition!




Oh, I see - just get rid of the LITERAL interpretation that comes from simply reading the passage, and then spiritualize it all away - or should I say Allegorize?




I don't see what your problem is with their being a temple built in Jerusalem for use in the 1,000 year reign of Christ. At the END of that 1,000 years, the entire UNIVERSE is destroyed - including the Ezekiel temple - and an entire new universe is "created" where sin has no place. II Peter. 3:9-13, Revelation 21.
P.S. - THEN it comes to pass as you say, that Jesus Christ becomes the Temple of God (Rev. 21)


The connection between John 4 and Zech/Revelation is not the right connection. Zechariah and Revelation are describing specific PHYSICAL events, while John 4 is referring to the new birth. The contexts of these passages are not even remotely related. So there you go, stretching things again to find an allegorical interpretation, instead of "rightly dividing" the word of truth to see the DIFFERENCES between the passages.



Strong words - mockery, anti-semitic, etc.
And it is based upon two faulty assumptions.
1. We do believe in an entirely sin free/Satan free FUTURE, as recorded in Revelation 21-22. How does this "mock" the glorious hope we have in Christ?
2. Your treatment of Scripture is abhorent to me - stretching things to fit that don't fit, overlooking obvious LITERAL references, and allegorizing things instead of simply believing what it says, where it says it, to whom it is said. Not everything in the Bible is directed to NT Christians. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible is directed at Israel. Furthermore, your treatment of Scripture denies several specific promises made to Abraham, the land, and his offspring.

I think we're starting to get off track. The important thing here to realize is that there is a future physical, earthly, Jewish, Millennial kingdom.

The King and this future kingdom are the focus of the Old Testament, and the kingdom is also referred to in the New Testament. The physical promises of a land grant and national salvation for the Jews, given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David are not done away with in the church. Post #32 clearly lays this all out.

Blatant anti-Semitism? Are you saying that God never used nations to judge Israel? I don't agree with everything Brother Eric is saying but he is correct when he said, "God used nations to judge Israel all through history..."

I think saying that God is through with the Jews as a nation is anti-Semitism.

I think saying that God won't keep his Earthly promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David is anti-Semitism.

Besides all that, isn't is a little hypocritical to suggest that dispensationalists are so anti-Semitic when you think God could save everyone, but rather chooses to purposefully and willfully send the vast majority of his creation to burn forever? Where does that put you? That's a lot worse than being anti-Semitic to me, and it paints God out to be something He's not.

Name three super models.
God knows more supermodels names than I do, if fact he know every single one. Does that mean God failed the Carnality Test? He did not even make it past the first question.

Any other way means standing the entire Bible on its head for the sake of a quirky interpretation, not Scripture.