951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


  

Matthew 22:1-14 ( NASB)

“Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.” But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. Then he *said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, and he *said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Do I understand this entire parable? NO

Do I understand part of it? Absolutely

First we know God called the Children of Israel to serve and obey him. Many of his prophets spoke to the people and they would not listen Jesus being the last. Did they listen to him? Some but very few.

Who’s getting Married? Jesus Christ to His Church!!! Do think that’s going to be a celebration? I’d say It’s gonna be a Shindig, the biggest one every!!!

God did allow armies to raise up against his people for their disobedience? YES and basically destroyed them as a nation, for a season.

The Other slaves he sent out are, the called out who believe on GOD’S Messiah (The Lord Jesus Christ)

This could be you and I going out to call the evil and the good because it’s our job to simply speak and teach. We are not required to force them to listen but simply speak!!!

The ones that do listen and desire to come to the feast what do we do as Good and Faithful servants? Do we just tell were the door to the banquet is and leave them on their own and not tell what kind of clothes they should be wearing?

The doorway is Jesus Christ Everything hinges on this doorway. Only one way to the father is Jesus Christ. We not only tell them who he is, but we must tell people about him so they can cloth themselves with the proper banquet attire.

Food For Though

Love You, JimT

219 Responses to “The Kings Wedding Feast, Food For Thought”

  1. on 08 Aug 2011 at 10:16 amWolfgang

    Hi

    in the parable in Mt 22:1ff, we are told what this parable is about:

    THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. …

    Jesus is speaking about to what the kingdom of heaven may be compared. The parable thus does contain teaching about aspects of the kingdom of heaven.

    Now, I find it rather interesting that neither the point of this parable nor any detail mentioned in the parable indicates anything about the kingdom of heaven being “worldwide rule of Jesus here on earth”, nor about a “nation of Israel”, etc. in any political sense … I quickly read a few more parables in which Jesus also made reference to “the kingdom of heaven is like …” and in none of these parables is there any indication about Jesus teaching that the kingdom of heaven was a political nation with him as a political ruler sitting on a physical throne somewhere (where?) in the city of Jerusalem located in Palastine

  2. on 08 Aug 2011 at 11:40 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …in none of these parables is there any indication about Jesus teaching that the kingdom of heaven was a political nation with him as a political ruler sitting on a physical throne somewhere (where?) in the city of Jerusalem located in Palastine.

    What is the KOG then? And when did the Jewish expectation of the KOG as a “political [earthly/physical] nation” change to something other?

  3. on 08 Aug 2011 at 12:02 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    What is the KOG then?

    IF you recognize that Jesus in his parables obviously was not identifying nor even comparing the kingdom of heaven to a political world rule or a political nation of Israel with himself as king at earthly Jerusalem, then you should begin to study the scriptures in order to learn what the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God is

    And when did the Jewish expectation of the KOG as a “political [earthly/physical] nation” change to something other?

    Perhaps the Jewish expectation of the kingdom of God as a “political [earthly/physical] nation” did not change when it should have changed had they recognized the nature of the kingdom {rule} of God as Jesus expounded it to them ?

  4. on 08 Aug 2011 at 1:08 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    …then you should begin to study the scriptures in order to learn what the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God is.

    I’m asking for your opinion on the matter.

  5. on 08 Aug 2011 at 1:21 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    I just gave you my understanding in the initial post and also in my reply to your earlier post …

    From what I read Jesus having taught in the many parables about the kingdom of God, it seems very clear that he was not teaching that the kingdom of God was to be a political [earthly/physical] kingdom with himself as a political world ruler living at earthly Jerusalem …

    As for what you seem to understand to be the Jewish expectation, according to which you seem to define your understanding of the kingdom of God, I set forth my understanding in form of a question … in case you missed it, I understand the Jewish expectation of a political Messiah re-establishing an earthly political Israel nation and a political rule over the world to have been in need of adjustment seeing that it was obviously incorrect.

  6. on 08 Aug 2011 at 5:14 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    I understand the Jewish expectation of a political Messiah re-establishing an earthly political Israel nation and a political rule over the world to have been in need of adjustment seeing that it was obviously incorrect.

    So all the men of God from Abram to the Davidic Kings and prophets all died believing an error? If so, how does this apply to some of the Jesus sayings like…

    The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached… Lu 16.16; Mat 11.12

  7. on 09 Aug 2011 at 7:18 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    So all the men of God from Abram to the Davidic Kings and prophets all died believing an error?

    no, those men of God were quite correct in their expectations, for example, as we can read in Heb 11, Abraham was looking for a “heavenly country” and not an “earthly country” …

    The ones who are in error are those whose interpretations of various scriptures about the kingdom of God as being an “earthly country” and who then – since an earthly country promise has not come to pass, twist other scriptures which tell of the kingdom of God having been “at hand” and “soon” already almost 2000 years ago …

    As I encouraged you before, study the Scriptures in light of the truth that the kingdom of God obviously is NOT a political nation of Israel or a one world kingdom with Jesus residing in earthly Jerusalem. For example, consider carefully what Jesus taught concerning the timing of the coming of the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God, and consider carefully what Jesus taught regarding the nature of the soon coming kingdom …

    Is there even one place where Jesus spoke about reigning from earthly Jerusalem as a political ruler over a political nation of Israel? My answer to this question would be a clear, “There is no such scripture!” Instead, when reading the many parables in which Jesus made reference to and/or compared the kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God , it is obvious that he had a rule of a different nature in mind, NOT a political reign over an earthly nation or land at all.

  8. on 09 Aug 2011 at 7:40 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    no, those men of God were quite correct in their expectations, for example, as we can read in Heb 11, Abraham was looking for a “heavenly country” and not an “earthly country”

    So Abram went to heaven?

    Is there even one place where Jesus spoke about reigning from earthly Jerusalem as a political ruler over a political nation of Israel?

    Jesus said to them, “I can guarantee this truth: When the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the world to come, you, my followers, will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mat 19.28

  9. on 09 Aug 2011 at 8:43 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Jesus said to them, “I can guarantee this truth: When the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the world to come, you, my followers, will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mat 19.28

    interesting translation you quote there as “in the world to come” … some English translations speak of “in the regeneration”, but none supports the idea of Jesus reigning as a political ruler over an earthly nation

    As far as I can tell, there is no text from which Mt 19:28 supports the idea of Jesus declaring that he will be reigning on earth over an earthly political nation of Israel as a political ruler residing in earthly Jerusalem …

  10. on 09 Aug 2011 at 8:44 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    So Abram went to heaven?

    Where else would you think a “heavenly country” is located as opposed to an “earthly country” ?

  11. on 09 Aug 2011 at 8:46 amWolfgang

    Xavier ,

    oops … clicked the send button too soon … had meant to add the following to the above about Abraham:

    When Abraham died, did NOT go to heaven, but to the grave, hades, where all dead went prior to the resurrection. His hope for a “heavenly country” was obviously for a time after the resurrection, not before …

  12. on 09 Aug 2011 at 9:37 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Forgive me for jumping into the conversation, but I am curious about your view of Ezekiel 40-48 (the future temple) as it relates to the return of Christ?

  13. on 09 Aug 2011 at 9:46 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …none supports the idea of Jesus reigning as a political ruler over an earthly nation

    Shouldn’t Jesus have corrected the Apostles’ understanding at Acts 1.6 then when they ask:

    Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?

    And why did the Jews, everytime Jesus was near the city of Jerusalem “thought that the kingdom of God would appear immediately” [Luke 19.11]?

    His hope for a “heavenly country” was obviously for a time after the resurrection, not before…

    So they will be resurrected to heaven and NOT to a “new heaven and a new earth” [Rev 21.1; cp. Isa 65.17]?

  14. on 09 Aug 2011 at 3:52 pmWolfgang

    Sarah,

    Forgive me for jumping into the conversation, but I am curious about your view of Ezekiel 40-48 (the future temple) as it relates to the return of Christ?

    This temple described in Eze 40 ff was obviously in the future at the time when Ezekiel received this revelation and at the time of the writing of the book. Now, I would think that the information given there must be viewed and understood in light of the overall concept of “temple” and how the Scriptures tell us about a physical tabernacle and temple during the OT age as being foreshadows of the real and spiritual temple reality in the NT age.

    You may be aware that theologians throughout the centuries have argued back and forth about the passages regarding this temple in Ezekiel, and of different opinions there seems almost no end. However, just about all the interpretations given are rather speculative (due to the fact that they place this temple in the yet future, and since none of us knows the future and what things will be like, these ideas are nothing more than speculation and assumptions) and oftentimes contradictory to the overall scope of “temple” in the Scriptures (cp my comment above). IF the temple in Eze is a physical temple of brick and stone located in earthly Jerusalem, then there is a dilemma with the other NT Scriptures which indicate rather clearly that the age and time for physical temple buildings was already over in the 1st century with the advent of the Christian church as being the true temple of God (cp various passages in Paul’s writings). How can there by a reversal from the spiritual reality back to yet another physical foreshadow with sacrifices, etc … that are similar to those offered under the old covenant at the then standing temple which was destroyed in 70 AD?

  15. on 09 Aug 2011 at 4:07 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Shouldn’t Jesus have corrected the Apostles’ understanding at Acts 1.6 then when they ask:

    well … as far as I can read, Jesus did sort of “correct” the apostles’ idea, without having to say something like “you have a wrong idea, fellows, it’s all different, you know … let me explain …” When you read carefully what Jesus did say, and in particular, how and with what information he immediately continued on … it should be clear, that he was NOT supporting the idea of setting up a political kingdom over the earthly nation of Israel or Judah …

    Yes, such was apparently the idea of many Israelites in that day, but was it correct? Were those folks correct expecting Jesus to set up a kingdom which would be “of this world”, seeing that Jesus had rather clearly declared when questioned about his kingdom/rule that “My rule is NOT of this world” ?

    See, folks like you explain away rather simple statements such as “kingdom not of this world” … BUT such doing does not really help your case, because there are too many other passages that are very clear about Jesus’ rule being not a political one (despite the fact, that the Jews of his day — as obviously many Christians of even today — were expecting such a political ruler of Israel and/or the whole world.

    And why did the Jews, everytime Jesus was near the city of Jerusalem “thought that the kingdom of God would appear immediately” [Luke 19.11]?

    They may have thought that because of the way they had been taught (not by Jesus, but by Jewish tradition) … Now, do you want to make Jewish thought the measure for truth? Or could it be that since what they thought did not come to pass it is evident that their thinking and expectation was wrong (and should have changed, which would perhaps have made it possible for them to understand the truth about Jesus being the Messiah)?

    So they will be resurrected to heaven and NOT to a “new heaven and a new earth” [Rev 21.1; cp. Isa 65.17]?

    In light of the various points already discussed, why would you want to insist on “heaven and earth” speaking about the literal physical “heaven (atmosphere) and earth (physical land or planet earth)” ? Don’t you realize yet, that it is such a view that causes the dilemma with various other scriptures regarding the timing of the “soon” coming and true nature of God’s rule and the Messiah’s kingdom?

  16. on 09 Aug 2011 at 4:44 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    When you read carefully what Jesus did say, and in particular, how and with what information he immediately continued on … it should be clear, that he was NOT supporting the idea of setting up a political kingdom over the earthly nation of Israel or Judah …

    What exactly is NOT being said that makes it clear in your mind? I don’t see it.

    …seeing that Jesus had rather clearly declared when questioned about his kingdom/rule that “My rule is NOT of this world” ?

    So we’re all going to heaven after we are raised from the dead? BTW, has the resurrection of the dead taken place in your view?

    …do you want to make Jewish thought the measure for truth?

    Based on what the scriptures say? Of course. What other “thought” would there be?

    …why would you want to insist on “heaven and earth” speaking about the literal physical “heaven (atmosphere) and earth (physical land or planet earth)” ?

    I’m not “insisting” on anything Wolfgang. Its what the scriptures say and they talk about a “new heaven and a new earth” throughout.

    Isaiah 66:22 As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares YHWH, “so will your name and descendants endure.

    2 Peter 3:13 But in keeping with His promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

    Heb 2.5 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.

  17. on 09 Aug 2011 at 5:17 pmDoubting Thomas

    Wolfgang,
    I was just wondering how you interpret Isaiah 9:6-7;

    “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given;
    and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
    and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    (7) Of the increase of his government and of peace
    there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
    to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness
    from this time forth and forevermore.
    The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” (ESV).

    In your opinion, What is this government that shall be upon his shoulder???

  18. on 09 Aug 2011 at 7:13 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Hebrews 11.9 says that Abraham "lived in the land of promise" and not in heaven. Which means that "the promised land" [i.e., KOG] is not in heaven but here on earth. Hence the Lord's prayer:

    Thy Kingdom Come, your will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven.

    DT brought up another good point. According to Isa 9.6-7 the Messiah will occupy “the throne of David”. Where do you place this on earth or in heaven? And please provide scripture as we are doing to prove your points!!

  19. on 10 Aug 2011 at 1:37 pmSarah

    IF the temple in Eze is a physical temple of brick and stone located in earthly Jerusalem, then there is a dilemma with the other NT Scriptures which indicate rather clearly that the age and time for physical temple buildings was already over in the 1st century with the advent of the Christian church as being the true temple of God (cp various passages in Paul’s writings). How can there by a reversal from the spiritual reality back to yet another physical foreshadow with sacrifices, etc … that are similar to those offered under the old covenant at the then standing temple which was destroyed in 70 AD?

    This is an excellent point. On the flip side, the temple building and associated temple activities are described in such minute detail that I find it very hard to believe that it is purely symbolic. Somehow there must be a way to fit these contrasting pictures together. Anyway, thanks for your input. Good food for thought.

  20. on 11 Aug 2011 at 6:52 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    What exactly is NOT being said that makes it clear in your mind? I don’t see it.

    are you going by what is NOT said for your interpretations of the Scriptures?
    I was pointing to that which Jesus has said and simply recognizing that when he spoke of the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven, he did describe it as something different from your ideas of a political earthly kingdom …

    So we’re all going to heaven after we are raised from the dead?

    I would say that the Scriptures indicate this rather clearly. Now, what would be so terrible about resurrected and changed believers living in heaven in the presence of God after having been raised from the dead or having been changed ?
    Please note, I am NOT talking about “believers go to heaven when they die” WITHOUT resurrection … which is what many denominations teach, when they talk about people now going to heaven when they die and at the same time they teach that the resurrection is still future and has not happened as of yet. I am talking about what happens AFTER the resurrection is a reality.

    “… do you want to make Jewish thought the measure for truth?”
    Based on what the scriptures say? Of course. What other “thought” would there be?

    How about God’s thought and truth? The Jewish thought as expressed by the Jews in the time of Jesus regarding the coming of the Lord and the coming of the kingdom was obviously false … and this false expectation of a political ruler and a liberations of the political nation of Israel had very much a major role in the Jews’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
    Only those who changed their “Jewish thought” about these matters, actually did realize who Jesus of Nazareth truly was and followed him as their Messiah (and – please note – WITHOUT him being a political liberator king!! )

    I’m not “insisting” on anything Wolfgang. Its what the scriptures say and they talk about a “new heaven and a new earth” throughout.

    Sure, you are “insisting” on your current view and understanding … and I would advise to learn the first lesson regarding studying the Scriptures:
    What we understand and believe could be wrong and NOT be what the Scriptures say. Claiming that “this is what the Scriptures say” is a rather arrogant approach because it means that one puts oneself in the position of being of necessity correct and a sort of “know it all” attitude. In addition, people reading or listening to someone like that are made to feel like they cannot have a different understanding, because if they did, they would be questioning “God (as the One Who inspired the Scriptures)”, when in reality they are only questioning that preacher’s or person’s understanding, and it may well be that they are right and the preacher is wrong!

    Sure, we read in the Scriptures “heaven and earth” … the question however is: What do the Scriptures MEAN with the expression “heaven and earth” on those particular contexts? !

    For example, do those terms mean “the atmosphere, that area of air above the ground” => “heaven” and “planet earth” or perhaps “land, ground” => “earth” with that expression? or does the expression perhaps mean something else in the respective contexts with those terms “heaven and earth”?

  21. on 11 Aug 2011 at 7:00 amWolfgang

    DT,

    you asked above in reference to Isa 9:6-7:

    In your opinion, What is this government that shall be upon his shoulder???

    I understand this to be a reference to that person’s rule over his kingdom …

    The passage itself does not define further what nature of rule or kingdom it will be, therefore other passages in Scripture containing information regarding such aspects will need to be taken into account when exploring that aspect of the kingdom.

    Just because an English translation uses the word “government”, and because we today are used to the term being mainly applied to the governing bodies or authorites of a country in a political sense, does NOT mean that this is its meaning when we read it in a verse of Scripture. Even in today’s English, the terms “government” / “to govern” are not solely used for a political rulership.

  22. on 11 Aug 2011 at 7:07 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …when he spoke of the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven, he did describe it as something different from your ideas of a political earthly kingdom …

    Okay where is my question? Where does Jesus do away with the known Jewish expectation of a political/earthly/physical KOG?

    I would say that the Scriptures indicate this rather clearly.

    Once again…Where?!

    The Jewish thought as expressed by the Jews in the time of Jesus regarding the coming of the Lord and the coming of the kingdom was obviously false…

    How can it be if its based on their own scriptures? Which in turn are supposed to be inspired by God?

    …does the expression perhaps mean something else in the respective contexts with those terms “heaven and earth”?

    Like what? Again, you love questioning the scriptures without providing any shred of evidence or solid scriptural argumentation on your part.

    You going to deal with my comment and question in post #18?

  23. on 11 Aug 2011 at 7:18 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Hebrews 11.9 says that Abraham “lived in the land of promise” and not in heaven. Which means that “the promised land” [i.e., KOG] is not in heaven but here on earth.

    Actually, Abraham sojourned in the land of promise … and – of course – that land was ground here on earth which God had promised to Abraham that his progeny would eventually take possession of and live in. This promise of that part of land in the region of the world we today call “Near East” or “Palestine” was reiterated to Isaac and Jacob …. and after the Israelites eventually returned from the captivity in Egypt under the leadership of Joshua, they did take possession of that land and thus what God had promised to Abraham and the fathers had been fulfilled and given to the children of Israel already in Joshua’s day

    Joshua 21,43 (KJV)
    And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

    Now, this earthly land/country is obviously NOT the land or country Abraham and all the other believers mentioned in the list in Heb 11 were looking for as a “better and heavenly [country]” as their hope and which they would enter after being raised from the dead …

    Heb 11:13-16 (KJV)
    13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
    14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
    15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
    16 But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

    Please note that “earth” (in verse 13) was the place that they all confessed as having been the place in which they had only been “strangers and pilgrims” !! “Earth” was NOT the place which they hoped to eventually return to and permanently live in … instead “earth” is contrasted (in verse 16) with a “better, that is, an HEAVENLY [country]” …. What they desired was NOT another or the same “earthly country”, but a better “HEAVENLY country”. This “heavenly country” is obviously NOT on to be looked for and found on the earth.

  24. on 11 Aug 2011 at 7:41 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …what God had promised to Abraham and the fathers had been fulfilled and given to the children of Israel already in Joshua’s day

    Fulfilled in part though because of what Jesus and Paul later have to say about God’s promises in connection to the KOG:

    …you will see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God…Lu 13.28

    If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3.29

    Yes, the “country/earth” we desire [along with all those who died in faith] is a “heavenly” one since, as James 1.17 says, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights…” I do not think the patriarchs nor those early Christians were looking forward to going to heaven to receive “the new heaven and a NEW EARTH”. It makes no sense whatsoever.

    “The land of promise” is earth and not heavenbound. As Heb 13.14 says, “For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city WHICH IS TO COME.” Things are constantly said to be “coming/at hand”, as Jesus says in Rev 3.12:

    He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God…and the name of the CITY of My God, the new Jerusalem, which COMES DOWN OUT OF HEAVEN from My God

  25. on 11 Aug 2011 at 9:01 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Please note that “earth” (in verse 13) was the place that they all confessed as having been the place in which they had only been “strangers and pilgrims” !! “Earth” was NOT the place which they hoped to eventually return to and permanently live in … instead “earth” is contrasted (in verse 16) with a “better, that is, an HEAVENLY [country]” …. What they desired was NOT another or the same “earthly country”, but a better “HEAVENLY country”. This “heavenly country” is obviously NOT on to be looked for and found on the earth.

    You’re misunderstanding what is being said. Stephen explains it in his sermon from Acts 7:

    ((2) And Stephen said: “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, (3) and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’ (4) Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. (5) Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. . Acts 7:2-5 ESV

    It’s not that Abraham & co were strangers in the land as opposed to some other place besides earth. Rather, they lived as nomads in the very land that was promised to be their permanent home (because it was occupied by others). So that is the conundrum. Abraham was told he would live to receive the land inheritance, and yet he died without receiving it. God’s solution is for this land inheritance be distributed at the coming resurrection.

  26. on 11 Aug 2011 at 12:39 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Okay where is my question? Where does Jesus do away with the known Jewish expectation of a political/earthly/physical KOG?

    If you claim a chair is “green”, and someone else says that the chair is “red”, does that someone else thereby do away with your “green”, or does he first have to say something like “the chair is not green but the chair is red” ???
    Why is it so difficult for you to recognize most simple logic, such as the one above? What Jesus DID say about the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven DID AWAY with the common Jewish expectation of a political/earthly/physical kingdom of God !

    Now, your only option really is to continue to claim that the Jewish view was correct and Jesus’ ideas were false … just as you could continue to claim that the chair is “green” and accuse the one who claims that it is “red” is wrong

  27. on 11 Aug 2011 at 12:45 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Why is it so difficult for you to recognize most simple logic…

    You mean like how “new heaven and a new earth” can refer to somewhere other than earth?! Or do you mean the one about “the promised land” somehow meaning “the promised heaven”?

    Your only option is to stop propagating an idea that obviously has no support whatsoever in this site.

  28. on 11 Aug 2011 at 3:11 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    ” The Jewish thought as expressed by the Jews in the time of Jesus regarding the coming of the Lord and the coming of the kingdom was obviously false…”

    How can it be if its based on their own scriptures? Which in turn are supposed to be inspired by God?

    Well, Xavier, the point is that it was NOT based on their own scripture .. but rather was a misunderstanding of their own scriptures! I suppose you must be of the opinion that the Jews in Jesus’ day understood the Scriptures correctly? IF so, why were they constantly reproved and confronted by the Lord Jesus?

    At one time even his followers wanted to make him their political king right then and there – most likely because that’s the idea they had in mind from how they (mis)understood the Scriptures … BUT their understanding was false, seeing that Jesus refused (!) to take on such type of “kingship”.

  29. on 11 Aug 2011 at 3:17 pmWolfgang

    Sarah,

    did you notice from Joshua 21:43 (which I quoted in an earlier post) that Abraham’S descendants did in fact live in the land and did receive it as their inheritance and that God had kept his promise and given them “all the land” which He had promised to their fathers?

    Abraham was told that he and his descendants would receive the land … and this did already come to pass in the time of Joshua. To take the promise God made to “Abraham and his descendants” as if Abraham himself would also live and inherit that land/country and then to put this by means of assumption into the future as happening after the resurrection is a misunderstanding which does not take into account the above scripture from Joshua as well as not take into account the various scripture passages speaking about the resurrection from the dead and its spiritual nature.

  30. on 11 Aug 2011 at 3:26 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    You mean like how “new heaven and a new earth” can refer to somewhere other than earth?! Or do you mean the one about “the promised land” somehow meaning “the promised heaven”?

    Once again, you display rather clearly your apparent ignorance of the use of figures of speech as used in the Bible. I’d suggest that you invest some time to at least get a basic understanding of the field … perhaps a careful reading of E.W. Bullinger’s book “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible” will provide some basic knowledge of the field of figures of speech. (Note: My suggestion of this work does NOT mean that I subscribe to Bullinger’s theology and interpretations of the Scripture … I am solely suggesting the book because in it the author does provide a tremendous amount of linguistic information about the field of figures of speech )

    Your only option is to stop propagating an idea that obviously has no support whatsoever in this site.

    Hmn … I thought those writing on this site were interested in an exchange about biblical topics by which all may learn from one another?

  31. on 11 Aug 2011 at 7:30 pmRay

    The Lord who had the wedding prepared called many who were supposed to come, but many of them were occupied by worldly things and so the poor were called.

    But just because one is poor and a nobody in the eyes of the world, it doesn’t mean that such a one is “in”, for one must be clothed in righteousness to attend such an event.

    Wasn’t Jesus speaking this to the religious leaders of that day, first, and then to everyone else?

    I take it that the religious class likely were not attending unto the needs of the poor and in effect, were not entering into the kingdom.

    Wasn’t it Israel that received the things pertaining to the kingdom, at the hand of angles? Were not they the ones who first received the Word, and the promises of God? Are not the angels the slaves or servants of God who prepared the event for his Son?

    It was God who wanted a big family wasn’t it? At a wedding doesn’t the family usually show up?

  32. on 11 Aug 2011 at 9:06 pmDoubting Thomas

    Ray,
    You said, “But just because one is poor and a nobody in the eyes of the world, it doesn’t mean that such a one is ‘in’, for one must be clothed in righteousness to attend such an event. Wasn’t Jesus speaking this to the religious leaders of that day, first, and then to everyone else?”

    That is an excellent interpretation of the parable. I agree completely…. 🙂

  33. on 11 Aug 2011 at 9:23 pmJimT

    Parables are fictional analogies that translate points of truth to a non-fictional reality. No matter what any of us believe Jesus had a point to make. It will always best serve us to seek out his truth, and to serve him with a pure heart!! When the last day does come, were will you and I be. If still alive I hope tending his sheep because that, and only that is true mark of a servant of the shepard. If not alive at time I hope we would have serve along with the Great Shepard. If we are truely called (and all men are, some just don’t hear it) then the light, the love, the compassion of Christ that shines forth from us is the only thing that MARKS us as true christians. Jesus said that they will know us by our Love. Thats the kind of Love that reaches out to lepers, if you look through the eyes of Jesus there are lepers everywhere!!!
    So lets never let our knowledge cloud our judgement, so we don’t see those lepers, there right at your finger tips just reach out!!!

    I Love You All,
    JimT

  34. on 11 Aug 2011 at 10:44 pmDoubting Thomas

    Jim T,
    You said, “Jesus said that they will know us by our Love.”

    Amen brother!!!

    Y’shua also said in Matthew 22:37-40;

    “And he (Jesus) said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (38) This is the great and first commandment. (39) And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (40) On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets’.” (ESV).

    Love is the key to being a true follower of God and his Son our Lord and King, Y’shua…

  35. on 12 Aug 2011 at 7:29 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    I suppose you must be of the opinion that the Jews in Jesus’ day understood the Scriptures correctly? IF so, why were they constantly reproved and confronted by the Lord Jesus?

    Because they did not believe he was the promised Messiah, Son of God. And that he had to “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again” [Mar 8.31; Lu 9.22; Mat 16.21]. That’s what they could not accept seeing as how a Second Coming of the Messiah figure was yet to be fully explained to them from the Scriptures. Nothing about the KOG somehow being anything more or less than the actual restoration of Zion-Jerusalem here on earth.

    …you display rather clearly your apparent ignorance of the use of figures of speech as used in the Bible.

    I guess we will just have to wait and find out whose in the dark.

    So just to be clear again…in your view has the resurrection of the dead taken place yet? How do you interpret the Secong Coming then?

  36. on 12 Aug 2011 at 12:15 pmMark C.

    Hmn … I thought those writing on this site were interested in an exchange about biblical topics by which all may learn from one another?

    We are. But you have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to look into the evidence for our view, and just continue to expound your view without providing solid Scriptural evidence. It’s a waste of time.

  37. on 12 Aug 2011 at 1:05 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Because they did not believe he was the promised Messiah, Son of God.

    And why was that? Because they had an understanding of the promised Messiah as a political leader / liberator who would re-establish to them the grand nation of Israel etc … which was a FALSE understanding, because it did NOT come to pass and Jesus never once even hinted that he as the promised Messiah would at some time be such a political king.

    Nothing about the KOG somehow being anything more or less than the actual restoration of Zion-Jerusalem here on earth.

    Now, where did Jesus teach that the kingdom of God was “an actual restoration of Zion-Jerusalem here on earth”??? Nowhere … thus, from where do you get such an idea?

  38. on 12 Aug 2011 at 1:09 pmWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    We are. But you have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to look into the evidence for our view, and just continue to expound your view without providing solid Scriptural evidence. It’s a waste of time.

    Eh, am I not constantly looking at “the evidence of your view”? I am commenting on your “evidence” and showing it to be questionable and I am pointing out by referring to Scripture or by means of rhetorical questions that your “evidence” is not in harmony with what the Scriptures say … cp. the various posts in this thread, where I did question certain claims made.

  39. on 12 Aug 2011 at 2:10 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    …where did Jesus teach that the kingdom of God was “an actual restoration of Zion-Jerusalem here on earth”??? Nowhere … thus, from where do you get such an idea?

    Jesus came to preach about the coming KOG, that is why he was sent [Luke 4.43]. Furthermore, he made promises to those closest to him that “in the new world [at the renewal/restoration of all things], when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Mat 19.28

    And according to Acts 3.21 Jesus “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” Does this mean that the Apostles continued to live with a false hope and teach in error?

  40. on 12 Aug 2011 at 3:43 pmWolfgang

    Xavier

    Does this mean that the Apostles continued to live with a false hope and teach in error?

    It seems to me that IF they taught that the Son of Man was to come soon and even during the lifetime of some of them and in that generation, then he did come and the then world (“heaven and earth” / old covenant age / biblical Israel as a nation with OT temple worship) did come to its end .. or else, if what they taught did not happen, then they lived with a false hope and their teaching was in error .
    Not only would their teaching about the imminent coming of the end of the world, the coming of the imminent / soon / at hand kingdom of God, etc. have been in error, but also Jesus’ teaching concerning these matters would have been in error and Jesus was a false prophet.

    I rather believe that Jesus and the apostles were indeed correct in their teaching and instead would say that those who propagate a teaching that says what they taught would happen soon and was at hand in their day and time did not happen and in fact after about 2000 years still has not happened are in error.

  41. on 12 Aug 2011 at 5:24 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Okay so for you Jesus has come and the dead have been raised?

    Also, you said KOG is not on earth but in heaven if so is it going on now and we who are on earth cannot see it?

  42. on 12 Aug 2011 at 5:57 pmMark C.

    Eh, am I not constantly looking at “the evidence of your view”? I am commenting on your “evidence” and showing it to be questionable and I am pointing out by referring to Scripture or by means of rhetorical questions that your “evidence” is not in harmony with what the Scriptures say … cp. the various posts in this thread, where I did question certain claims made.

    First of all, the majority of your claims have been without Scriptural evidence, even when you have been directly asked to provide chapter and verse for your claims.

    Secondly, I found it particularly ironic that you said, “I thought those writing on this site were interested in an exchange about biblical topics by which all may learn from one another?” I refer you back to the numerous instances in which I have provided links to extensive research and lists of references, which you specifically stated you had no interest in reading.

    Since nothing we say is received by you, I think the best thing now is to agree to disagree. You have made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe what we do about the coming kingdom, but meaningful exchange has long since been absent from these arguments. I suggest we let it go and I ask that you refrain from continuing to post argumentative comments when you have demonstrated no real interest in exchanging ideas.

  43. on 14 Aug 2011 at 1:55 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Okay so for you Jesus has come and the dead have been raised?

    Seeing that Jesus prophesied that “the coming of the Son of man” would be during the lifetime of some of those who heard him speak about it (cp Mt 16:28), and seeing that the apostles taught that the coming of the Lord would be soon and some of those whom they were teaching and to whom they were writing would be alive at his coming (cp. 1Co 15, 1Th 4), and seeing that James wrote that the judge was already then so near as to “stand at the door” (cp Jam 5:9), and reading that the in Hebr 10,37: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.”, I prefer to believe that Jesus, the apostles, James, the writer of Heb were correct and that Jesus’ coming did in fact happen within the short while, soon, while some of those who heard Jesus and the apostles were still alive.

    Why should I have Jesus “waiting at the door” for already 2 millenniums (that is 2 x time of the alleged duration of his 1 millennium reign) ?
    Why should I believe and teach that Jesus has already tarried for almost 2000 years, when the writer of Hebrews clearly states that he that shall come “will NOT tarry”?

    Should I really insist on the idea of Jesus coming as a political world leader re-establishing a political nation of Israel reigning as a political “king” which then necessitates that I view the coming of Jesus as still being future because such most certainly has not happened during the last 2000 years?

    Or would it be more logical and advisable, in order to concur with the truths revealed in the Scriptures about his coming that I accept what Jesus and the apostles taught and themselves believed about the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom, to re-think such ideas and interpretations about “a future political kingdom of God on earth” and see what the Scriptures indeed do reveal about the nature of the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven and how such harmonizes with those scriptures that speak about the timing of the coming of the Son of man and his kingdom?

  44. on 14 Aug 2011 at 7:29 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    So the dead have been raised and all the events described in Mat 24 has taken place? If so where are all those people since Jesus said we would wine and dine with them and himself?

  45. on 14 Aug 2011 at 9:45 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    do you disagree with what I mentioned and what those scriptures I gave teach regarding the timing of the coming of the Lord?

    So the dead have been raised and all the events described in Mat 24 has taken place? If so where are all those people since Jesus said we would wine and dine with them and himself?

    The answer to your question is rather simple, Xavier. Where is Jesus now? Where would then those resurrected dead believers therefore have to be in order to “dine with him”?

    As for Mat 24, the events mentioned there describe the end of that age (as some call it “old covenant age” or “Jewish age”) and Jesus links that end of the age and his coming to the siege and finally destruction of Jerusalem and the temple … are you doubting that those events have come to pass, and that in the face of the historical evidence?

  46. on 14 Aug 2011 at 10:56 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    Could you answer my questions with anwers instead of more questions please? I am not debating your point anymore as such but trying to understand your views.

    Does this mean the the judgment of ALL THE LIVING AND THE DEAD has taken place [Rev 19-20]? As well as all the events described in the book of Revelation?

    If the saints are presently in heaven, as you suggest, so the resurrection and the Second Coming happened in 70AD.? If so, when we die do we go to that KOG now in heaven?

  47. on 14 Aug 2011 at 12:18 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Could you answer my questions with anwers instead of more questions please?

    In this case, I find it far better to point you to the answer by means of questions, so that you not only are presented with an answer, but can consider the reasoning behind the answer and thus have the immediate opportunity to “process” the matter in your mind.

    Does this mean the the judgment of ALL THE LIVING AND THE DEAD has taken place [Rev 19-20]? As well as all the events described in the book of Revelation?

    Unless the book of Revelation is speaking about some totally unrelated matters, it would follow that if it is speaking about the same end of the world/end of the age that those events spoken of in the book of Revelation, which are described largely in figurative (some call it “apocalyptic”) language, have already taken place.

    If the saints are presently in heaven, as you suggest, so the resurrection and the Second Coming happened in 70AD.? If so, when we die do we go to that KOG now in heaven?

    The resurrectoin is linked in Scripture with the coming of the Lord at the end of the world … since that world/age did come to its final end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (as prophesied by Jesus), the resurrection became a reality on the last day, with the events in 70 AD.
    Since the resurrection of the dead and the coming of the Lord are a past reality, we now — just as those who lived at the exact time of his coming — no longer go to hades (hades has been emptied and then destroyed… cp relevant passages in Rev), but are changed in a moment to put on immortality and enter the heavenly kingdom and presence of God to live there forevermore (cp passages in 1Co and 1Th 4 which address what happens to those living at the time of his coming).

  48. on 14 Aug 2011 at 12:24 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    …hades has been emptied and then destroyed… cp relevant passages in Rev.

    I guess your referring to passages like Rev 19.19-21; 20.7-15? If so, what happens to the wicked post-resurrection/Second Coming/judgment Day?

  49. on 14 Aug 2011 at 12:30 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    an additional note about the believers who live at the time of his coming and afterwards …. I would like to point your attention to 1Th 4,17

    1Thes 4,17
    Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

    Please note, there is NOWHERE any mention that the saints will be caught up and only for a short time be with the Lord in the air and then return to planet earth to ever be with the Lord on the earth. Does this passage not clearly tell the story that the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and SO shall we ever be with the Lord, namely be with him NOT on the earth, but in heaven?

  50. on 14 Aug 2011 at 12:39 pmWolfgang

    Xavier,

    I guess your referring to passages like Rev 19.19-21; 20.7-15? If so, what happens to the wicked post-resurrection/Second Coming/judgment Day?

    The Judgment Day happened at his coming … and the Scriptures speak about it mainly in reference to those who had died before and who were awaiting the resurrection, which for those who had done good and were believers in the Messiah was a “resurrection to life” and for those who had done evil was a “resurrection to judgment”. The Scripture speak only of “ONE resurrection event” (not of TWO resurrection events, separated by some period of time), and in that event at the last day, all who were in hades were resurrected, however to two different ends …. “life” and “judgment/condemnation”

    As far as those living at the time of his coming and afterwards, the Scriptures do address in detail only the believers and what will happen to them (cp passages in 1Th 4, for example), the others who do evil and who reject the Messiah Jesus are “judged already” (cp Jesus’ words regarding “being judged already”), and with their physical death will experience the second death sharing the same fate as those wicked who were judged on the last day judgment day and experienced the second death.

  51. on 14 Aug 2011 at 4:11 pmWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    First of all, the majority of your claims have been without Scriptural evidence, even when you have been directly asked to provide chapter and verse for your claims.

    you do not seem to realize that I am quite often in a reply refer to exactly the same scriptures (chapter and verse) you and others are using … which other chapter and verse would you like me to use when trying to show you that in my view your understanding of a given passage is incorrect and could be understood differently ?

    For example, when I have pointed to well known passages which speak of the imminent, soon, coming of the Lord, and you interpret those passages as if they meant “soon” but really already almost than 2000 years ago plus counting, which chapter and verse would you like me to give you to point out that “soon” does NOT mean “2 millenniums plus yet undetermined more time” ? When you go to some other unrelated scripture and interpret it as if it would prove your idea that “soon” could be “millenniums”, why is not sufficient that I point out to you that such interpretation is “far fetched” and “not applicable” or “beside the point” and “proves nothing” ? What chapter and verse would you like me to use, except the very chapters and verses you are using?

  52. on 14 Aug 2011 at 5:16 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Does this passage not clearly tell the story that the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and SO shall we ever be with the Lord, namely be with him NOT on the earth, but in heaven?

    Where does it say we will fly away with the Lord to heaven? It says people will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air“.

    …with their physical death will experience the second death…

    So when did they suffer the first death?

    Lastly, so the New world described in Rev 21 has already come about? If so, where is it exactly?

  53. on 14 Aug 2011 at 5:43 pmMark C.

    What chapter and verse would you like me to use, except the very chapters and verses you are using?

    How about all the ones that I reference in those writings which you refuse to read or consider? In order to reach your conclusion it is necessary to ignore or radically twist nearly all of the Old Testament, not to mention the fact that NOWHERE in the New Testament is the Kingdom redefined by Jesus or the Apostles as anything less than a literal worldwide Kingdom.

    But as I have said before, you are clearly not interested in meaningful exchange of ideas, so why keep posting here? It has been suggested by the other moderators here that you conduct your discussions on your own website, rather than repeatedly hijacking threads on this one.

  54. on 14 Aug 2011 at 11:32 pmAntioch

    For what its worth, I am interested in hearing Wolfgang’s opinions. While I do find him a bit argumentative, I do find that his interpretation addresses questions that arise in me as I read the Bible. I do get the impression that Jesus was to return shortly after his ascension – before the apostolic age ended (Mt 16:28).

    I do have a question for Wolfgang – Satan does get thrown into the lake of fire, right? In your interpretation then, that has already happened?

  55. on 15 Aug 2011 at 7:01 amMark C.

    Antioch,

    The questions that Wolfgang’s interpretation addresses are also addressed in the writings which present the Kingdom Message. Without that foundation, it becomes very easy to be misled.

    I exhort you to look into the following resources:
    The Kingdom of God link at the top of this page.
    Anthony Buzzard’s site: http://focusonthekingdom.org/index.html
    Biblical Truth Seekers in the UK: http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/
    My website: http://godskingdomfirst.org/index.htm

    The short answer regarding Matt. 16:28 is that in both Gospel records where he said this, it is followed immediately by the Transfiguration. We learn from Jesus and from Peter’s own description in his second epistle that it was a vision of the future parousia, or return of Christ in power and glory.

    There are a handful of verses that refer to the timing of his return, which have been interpreted in various ways. The most reliable way to determine which is the correct understanding is to examine them in light of the clear overall message of the coming Kingdom which is found throughout the entire Bible. Only by beginning with this understanding can we hope to understand more difficult verses.

  56. on 15 Aug 2011 at 7:24 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    Where does it say we will fly away with the Lord to heaven? It says people will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air“.

    who said anything about “flying away” with the Lord to heaven? Does “caught up to meet the Lord in the air” mean anything like “flying away into the air”? or is such language a figurative description of a spiritual reality such as what other people describe with “going to heaven”?

    ” …with their physical death will experience the second death…”
    So when did they suffer the first death?

    I would think that what I mentioned as “physical death” (meaning the end of their earthly life) qualifies as “first death”.

    Lastly, so the New world described in Rev 21 has already come about? If so, where is it exactly?

    I would think that the question about WHERE the new world (new “heaven and earth” is located is somewhat asking the wrong question … would we ask WHERE the old covenant world is or was?
    The former “heaven and earth”, just as the new “heaven and earth” is not a place … it describes “a world” not in terms of location but in terms of order (hopefully this communicates) … sort of like when we speak of “today’s world” and we certainly do NOT mean a certain location somewhere on planet earth or somewhere in the sky or space …

  57. on 15 Aug 2011 at 7:38 amWolfgang

    Antioch,

    I do have a question for Wolfgang – Satan does get thrown into the lake of fire, right? In your interpretation then, that has already happened?

    Since this is linked in the book of Revelation with the coming of the Lord etc. and since at the end of the book of Revelation Jesus is quoted by John as saying that he would come shortly and the things revealed in the book must come to pass shortly, I conclude that the casting of Satan into the lake of fire has happened. Compare the following verses in Rev

    Rev 1,1
    The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:
    Rev 1,3
    Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.

    Rev 22,10
    And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
    Rev 22,12
    And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    Rev 22,20
    He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    At the time of writing of the book of Revelation, the time for the fulfillment of its prophecy was “shortly” / “at hand”.
    There is no indication anywhere that Jesus “revised” what is declared in the above mentioned passages both at the beginning of the book as well as at the end of the book.

    Perhaps those who have changed the meaning of what is rather clearly stated in those passages should consider what is said in the following verse regarding the contents of the book

    Rev 22,18
    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    Rev 22,19
    And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

    Until several years ago, I was among those who propagated a yet future coming of the Lord and preached that what we read in the book of Revelation was yet future … I have changed my views after re-considering what the above mentioned passages very clearly state, and in turn have re-evaluated and changed a load of other previously held views regarding related topics, such as the nature of the kingdom etc …
    It was sort of like the time when I first changed from being of a trinitarian belief to realizing that the Scriptures do not teach God to be a “Holy Trinity”, that realization brought with it also a change of view on quite a number of related topics.

  58. on 15 Aug 2011 at 8:45 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    or is such language a figurative description of a spiritual reality such as what other people describe with “going to heaven”?

    You tell me, your the one using that verse to suggest we go to heaven. Since that is where the KOG is right?

    I would think that what I mentioned as “physical death” (meaning the end of their earthly life) qualifies as “first death”.

    In post #50 you said that the wicked since 70 AD. “with their physical death will experience the second death sharing the same fate as those wicked who were judged on the last day judgment day and experienced the second death.”

    Care to clarify your point?

    sort of like when we speak of “today’s world” and we certainly do NOT mean a certain location somewhere on planet earth or somewhere in the sky or space …

    You lost me bro.

  59. on 15 Aug 2011 at 9:15 amWolfgang

    Xavier

    You lost me bro.

    hmn … throughout your various posts your references to the kingdom of God seem to indicate that you think of the “kingdom of God” as A PLACE, perhaps because of how you understand the term “kingdom”.
    I was trying to give you an illustration that it does not of necessity mean a place, just like we are not referring to a place when using the term “world” when we speak of “today’s world”

  60. on 15 Aug 2011 at 10:24 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    …just like we are not referring to a place when using the term “world” when we speak of “today’s world”

    So its all figurative? Like when it says “the meek shall inherit the earth/world”?

  61. on 15 Aug 2011 at 11:37 amTim (aka Antioch)

    Wolfgang,

    So if Satan has already been cast into the Lake, then he no longer has any influence here on earth, right? I am going to have a tough time reconciling that.

  62. on 15 Aug 2011 at 11:52 amWolfgang

    Xavier,

    So its all figurative? Like when it says “the meek shall inherit the earth/world”?

    when understanding the terms used as translated and possibly with their modern meanings, one can easily get a wrong impression about what is said. The term translated “earth” or “world” is actually from the Greek texts the term “land”. The context determines to what the term “land” refers.

    For example, in one context “land” may refer to “dry ground” as contrasted with or opposed to “water/sea”, in another it may refer to “the land [of Israel]” (that literal “promised land” which God had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their descendants and which promise was fulfilled (cp. Josh 21:43 !) when the tribes took possession of it after coming out of Egypt, in another context it may be a figurative use referring to the ultimate spiritual reality (“the heavenly country”) to which Abraham and the believers of the OT days looked forward to and of which the earthly land if Israel was a foreshadow (cp Heb 11)

    When reading the so-called beatitudes, it seems clear to me that those “blessings” with which the meek, the poor in spirit, those who are pure in heart, the peacemakers, etc. etc. are not necessarily earthly “rewards” they are promised in this earthly life or things they will experience on earth, rather they are things of a spiritual nature which they can look forward to and which they are promised for their future life after the resurrection under the reign of God as they endure hardships and keep their heart right before God and live in godliness now.

  63. on 15 Aug 2011 at 2:09 pmXavier

    Wolfgang

    Thank you for your explanations. Now just so I am clear in what you belief…

    So everything the Bible talks about in regards to “the day of the Lord/God/Christ” and the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment…everything happened almost 2000 years ago in 70AD?

    Which means that the gospel about the KOG and all its promises is happening right now but in heaven right?

    Meanwhile, back on earth, when believers die they go to that “heavenly KOG” which has been going on for 2000 years. And the wicked are left in the grave when they die a physical death, i.e., cease to exist.

    Is this right?

  64. on 15 Aug 2011 at 2:56 pmWolfgang

    Tim,

    So if Satan has already been cast into the Lake, then he no longer has any influence here on earth, right? I am going to have a tough time reconciling that.

    I can imagine that you might have a tough time reconciling that … the real point of that would be more “reconcile with what?”

    I can assure you that I had plenty of tough times reconciling quite a bit of my previously held “belief system” with what I learned reading the Scriptures after I decided to take a different look at my dilemma of “soon” not having been “soon” and Jesus seeming to have turned out to be a false prophet …

    I would think that you have a tough time reconciling the above mentioned truths from Rev about Satan and the lake of fire with some of the beliefs you may currently hold about “Satan” / “evil” / etc. …

    For me, the principal key to gain a better understanding of many of these matters was to indeed observe the contexts properly and to realize the “to whom”, “about whom”, “about which situation”, etc. of the Scripture passages I was reading. I realized that far too many times I had been reading passages sort of like as if they had been written yesterday and were directly addressed to me, or I read passages as if they were giving a general truths when in reality the context was about a particular matter and could not be interpreted of other matters or other people in general, etc.

    Perhaps what is mentioned in Rev 22 can help you find an understanding or a possible reconciliation for this aspect about Satan and the lake of fire …

    Rev 22:14-15
    14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

    There we can read that AFTER the new Jerusalem has come down from heaven, there will still be “bad guys” and “evil” present on the earth outside the city, just as there will be those who will keep his commandments and thus have the right to enter the city through its gates.

    This does tell us, for example, that the Scriptures know of evil being done by people separate from or independent of “Satan” being the author or instigator of such evil being actively doing something. These passages describe what is happening AFTER the events mentioned earlier, such as the resurrection of those who had been held by Satan in hades, the destruction of hades and casting of Satan into the lake of fire.

  65. on 15 Aug 2011 at 4:01 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    One of the most important principles in Biblical interpretation is that when you have an abundance of clear, unambiguous verses that all clearly teach one thing, and a small handful of unclear verses that seem to contradict, it is poor exegesis to reinterpret all the clear verses in light of an assumed interpretation of the few unclear ones.

    I have been waiting literally years for you to address the MANY clear OT passages that clearly define the Kingdom message (outlined and referenced in these articles), and am still waiting. I expect I will continue to wait, since you have categorically refused to consider it.

  66. on 15 Aug 2011 at 4:24 pmWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    One of the most important principles in Biblical interpretation is that when you have an abundance of clear, unambiguous verses that all clearly teach one thing, and a small handful of unclear verses that seem to contradict, it is poor exegesis to reinterpret all the clear verses in light of an assumed interpretation of the few unclear ones.

    I agree …

    John the baptist and Jesus were rather clear in what they taught / prophesied regarding the coming kingdom …were they not? Almost 2 millenniums ago, when they spoke, it was “AT HAND” / it was to come “SHORTLY”, yes?

    By the way, ALL (and not just a few) verses in the book of Revelation which provide information regarding the timing of the Lord’s coming and the timing of when those events prophesied in the book were to take place are clear that these things MUST COME TO PASS SHORTLY.

    I have been waiting literally years for you to address the MANY clear OT passages that clearly define the Kingdom message (outlined and referenced in these articles), and am still waiting. I expect I will continue to wait, since you have categorically refused to consider it.

    If one was to apply your exegesis and the many clear verses about the tabernacle and the temple, one should certainly do away with those supposedly “unclear” verses which speak about a “temple” that is not made of stone …

    In interpreting the NT passages about the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven, there is nothing much to deal with from the many OT passages dealing with the then kingdom (which was an earthly nation, the nation of Israel), except pointing out — which I have done before ! — that one can no more try and interpret the Scriptures regarding the NT kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God as a literal political kingdom because of the many OT passages than one can try and interpret the scriptures regarding the NT temple as a literal temple made of stone because of the many OT passages about the temple.

  67. on 15 Aug 2011 at 4:43 pmMark C.

    If one was to apply your exegesis and the many clear verses about the tabernacle and the temple, one should certainly do away with those supposedly “unclear” verses which speak about a “temple” that is not made of stone …

    No, because Paul specifically refers to the church as being a temple not made of stone. But he does NOT specifically state that the coming Kingdom prophesied throughout the OT is now replaced by a spiritual one (nor does Jesus say any such thing).

    But moving away from the tabernacle and the temple, what about the abundance of clear verses that speak of Israel being restored again to the LAND, and the coming Messiah ruling the world in perfect righteousness? These are prophesied IN DETAIL in the OT (especially the Prophets) and you have to ignore all of those verses in order to redefine the Kingdom as a merely “spiritual” one.

    …there is nothing much to deal with from the many OT passages dealing with the then kingdom (which was an earthly nation, the nation of Israel)…

    First of all, the many OT passages I refer to are NOT about the “then Kingdom” – they are prophecies of what is to happen in the future. You’d know that if you bothered to read the articles I linked to.

    Second, there is VERY MUCH to deal with the Kingdom of God and the prophesies pertaining to it throughout the NT, especially Paul’s epistles.

    As I have said before, you don’t even understand the viewpoint that you argue so vehemently against. There’s nothing more I can say that I haven’t said many times before. This is why such debates are a waste of time until you give at least as much consideration to our view as Xavier has tried to give to yours.

  68. on 16 Aug 2011 at 6:44 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    No, because Paul specifically refers to the church as being a temple not made of stone.

    Ah …

    But he does NOT specifically state that the coming Kingdom prophesied throughout the OT is now replaced by a spiritual one (nor does Jesus say any such thing).

    Actually, Paul nowhere speaks about the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven as being a political nation with Jesus as political ruler … and he does speak about the rule of God as a spiritual reality, not a political reality! Furthermore, he does speak about the resurrection and eternal life indicating that the believers will not be physical beings of flesh and blood living on earth forever more, BUT does plainly write to the Thessalonians, that believers will be “caught up to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (1Th 4:17b) … which is NOT what you and others interpret to mean that believers will only briefly (btw, how long or how brief?) be “with the Lord in the air” and afterwards “come down to earth again to live on earth forever”, is it?

    Jesus very plainly in word and deed taught that the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven was NOT the same type of political nation kingdom as Israel (in a manner of foreshadow) had been in the OT age. The whole of Jesus’ teaching never once concerned establishing an OT like “nation of Israel” and being a king in a political sense.

    First of all, the many OT passages I refer to are NOT about the “then Kingdom” – they are prophecies of what is to happen in the future. You’d know that if you bothered to read the articles I linked to.

    This statement reflects a fundamental error … you are interpreting statements about “the (earthly) kingdom” which were at the time of writing yet future as being still future even 2000 years after the old covenant age had come to its end and when the kingdom nation of Israel was judged and destroyed. Yes, some prophecies about the earthly kingdom (which also was NOT termed in OT as “kingdom of heaven/kingdom of God” !!) were future at the time they were made, but have since come to pass, for example when some of Israel / Judah returned from the Babylonian captivity to the land of Israel and Jerusalem. Other prophecies (such as the ones in Daniel !!) concerned a kingdom which God would establish at the time of “the 4th beast” (Roman empire) and which would not be destroyed (as the previous ones symbolized by the “beasts”) but last forever and which is contrasted to and is NOT described as being a political kingdom as the others were ….

    As I have told you before, I know what you are propagating and how you interpret various scriptures in order to “support” this “future earthly kingdom” theory … consider the above as a general summary type comment about your articles on the many OT passages.

  69. on 16 Aug 2011 at 2:02 pmMark C.

    Your “summary” confirms my statement. You do NOT know what we believe in, and most likely never will because you think you understand it and refuse to actually exchange ideas. Debating you is a waste of time.

    God bless.

  70. on 16 Aug 2011 at 5:14 pmXavier

    Mark C.

    God bless.

    😛

  71. on 16 Aug 2011 at 10:41 pmMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    In light of the guidelines in the Communication Policy, I would like to remind you that hijacking posts repeatedly is unacceptable. Once a debate has reached the point where you agree to disagree, to keep bringing up the same argument elsewhere, especially in a post that has nothing to do with the point, is just trolling and looking for arguments.

    Specifically, unless an article specifically deals with the kingdom being on earth then you should not continuously fight against it being so. You’ve made your point clear but continue to refuse meaningful exchange of ideas.

    Consider this a formal warning. Sean and the other moderators are in agreement that this trolling will not be tolerated any more.

    Mark

  72. on 17 Aug 2011 at 12:34 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    aren’t you guyes the ones who pretty much make “gospel of the future political kingdom on God on earth” to be part of just about any topic / post?

    Xavier,
    what’s you “smilie” comment above supposed to mean?

  73. on 17 Aug 2011 at 12:43 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    Consider this a formal warning. Sean and the other moderators are in agreement that this trolling will not be tolerated any more.

    I consider this rather a way of wanting to get rid of someone who happens to ask about and point out what he believes to be error in points made in a post

    As someone else mentioned in this thread, they did find my questions to be valid … from your post above it seems that you are the one who falls in exactly the category you want to put me in, that is, be not willing to consider what is said.

  74. on 17 Aug 2011 at 1:19 amMark C.

    I consider this rather a way of wanting to get rid of someone who happens to ask about and point out what he believes to be error in points made in a post

    Someone who just asked and exchanged ideas would not be a problem. It’s the fact that you keep trolling for arguments and hijacking threads that’s the problem, as well as the fact that you continually refuse to deal with our evidence.

    As someone else mentioned in this thread, they did find my questions to be valid … from your post above it seems that you are the one who falls in exactly the category you want to put me in, that is, be not willing to consider what is said.

    Yes, your questions are valid, but far from having been unwilling to consider them, we have dealt with and answered those questions, but you refuse to read or consider the evidence. You also claim that you know what our position is, but clearly demonstrate you do not. This does not make for meaningful exchange of ideas.

    In addition, we have had complaints about the argumentative attitude of your posts, and the moderators all agree that your trolling is inappropriate. This is first and foremost a Christian site, and we need to demonstrate Godly love, so as to be an example to the world. If people come on this site and see Christians arguing and sniping at each other, what kind of message does that send?

    Please take this exhortation seriously.

  75. on 17 Aug 2011 at 7:25 amXavier

    Wolfgang

    what’s you “smilie” comment above supposed to mean?

    Found Mark’s comment amusing. Saying your a waste of time with a “God bless”. 😉

  76. on 17 Aug 2011 at 3:55 pmMark C.

    Just to clarify, please note that I didn’t say Wolfgang was a waste of time, but debating with him was. I don’t want to be accused of being harsh or unkind.

  77. on 18 Aug 2011 at 12:35 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    just to clarify …. I thought being “argumentative” was desired here, that is, providing arguments for points and asking for proper arguments when questioning a point someone else has made.
    I have NOT made “personal attack” type comments about anyone, but have argued solely about the subject matter others have posted …

    I would say that your earlier comment about “waste of time” concerning me had more of a “sniping at each other” character than my critical and argument based comments about the views or positions regarding the kingdom that some or many here hold.

  78. on 18 Aug 2011 at 2:49 amMark C.

    Wolfgang,

    No, what is desired here is debate, discussion, and exchange of ideas. What I mean by “argumentative” is the tendency to bring up the same arguments over and over again just for the sake of argument, even after having reached a point of agreeing to disagree.

    It’s true you have not made any personal attacks, and I appreciate that. But as I stated, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to actually exchange ideas and consider what we have written. You keep throwing out the same questions but refuse to read anything I have linked to that answers them, or to handle the actual evidence I have included in my writings.

    My comment was not intended to be sniping, but a statement of fact. It is a waste of time to try to debate ANYONE who continues to adamantly proclaim his viewpoint and refuses to consider the other points of view.

  79. on 18 Aug 2011 at 3:39 amWolfgang

    Mark C.,

    It’s true you have not made any personal attacks, and I appreciate that. But as I stated, you have demonstrated an unwillingness to actually exchange ideas and consider what we have written.

    could it be that you are mixing up “unwillingness to actually exchange ideas and consider what we have written” with “unwillingness to actually change my position and be convinced by what we have written” ???

    I have consistently asked and/or commented on points raised in what you (various posters) have written … and in doing so, I have most certainly considered what you have written and replied in detail and oftentimes with arguments and points which had not been mentioned before (!) … cp. in this thread, the point about what Jesus actually did say in his parables about the nature of the kingdom of God/kingdom of heaven … I don’t recall that this was brought up in earlier threads.

    See, what you write above shows — and indeed seems to be the reason — why you consider any debate, discussion or exchange as a “waste of time” => it is the fact that others do NOT agree with you or “agree to disagree”. In other words, aren’t you therefore the one who displays the very unwillingness you are assigning to me ?

  80. on 15 Dec 2012 at 3:03 pmTerry Robinson

    I guess I’ve read about half or maybe only a third of this discussion this morning. It seems I am late on the scene. Since this discussion halted over one year ago. I assume this discussion was with Wolfgang Schneider as the one who believes the eternal Kingdom of God will not be on this earth. I love Wolfgang who tried to convince me, many years ago now, of the truth that Jesus (Yeshua, if you prefer. I do.) was the fully human son (Messiah) of God, and not YHWH, years ago. He was right about that and his site, with several authors on that subject, helped me greatly. I was aware that he seemed to have adopted a preterist stance, when we corresponded by email after I had come to recognize the truth of the Father being YHWH alone. I wonder if Jesus did not set up his kingdom, in prospect, or as a frontier, back in the first century, but that is only to come in its fulness in the regeneration. I heard one Church of Christ minister put it this way – “Christians are like the Romans in the sense that they are setting up communities or outposts to show the world the correct way of life and thinking – the Christian culture. The Romans did the same with their culture – set up outposts to demonstrate their way of life and to proselyte others to it.” He went on to describe how Jesus’ kingdom was not of this current political system nor is our allegience to this current system (world). However, and I think many of you agree, as did the C of C minister that I tried to quote (His name is Lindsey Garmon, and I heard him on CD at the request of my father-in law.), the kingdom is yet to be established on this earth with the Christ righting the world. There are passages that indicate that believers are yet to enter into that glory, such as II Peter 1:11. So, could it be that the nearness passages were, at least in part, discussing the kingdom first coming in the hearts of believers, as a frontier? II Peter 1:16-19 seems to lend itself to this “currently frontiersmen” idea. I have often struggled with the reconciliation of “this generation shall not cease” and “end of all things is near” type passages and the other passages that indicate the kingdom is yet to be fully ushered in. That seems to be the case at the heart of the discussion here.

  81. on 16 Dec 2012 at 1:07 amDoubting Thomas

    Hi Terry,
    Welcome to K.R.!!! I’m glad to see you have become a Biblical Unitarian. I also believe that the kingdom is yet to be established on this earth with the Christ righting the world. However like you point the preterists do offer a few difficult verses for us partial preterists… 🙂

  82. on 17 Dec 2012 at 1:41 amTerry Robinson

    Yes they do. Kermit Zarley has presented the idea that the urgency passages beginning and ending the Revelation of John have more to do with certainty than immediacy to near the first century. I am not certain [Play on words, I guess – “certainty” versus “not certain” :-)]. I tend to believe the 1000 year reign makes sense, as it would sure make sense that such is required for the immortals to right the world under the reign of Christ. I ask my C of C friends, “Does it really look to you like Christ is reigning now?” Good question, I think. The kingdom cannot be here in its fulness. My Messiah will certainly make it clear that he is in charge when his reign begins. And then, when he gets everything in order, something Adam, David, and Solomon were short on, he will have the world suitable for the full presence of the Father. It makes sense that it would take but a little longer than Methuselah’s lifetime to get this accomplished. Fallen man has taken at least several millennia to wreck the planet. As Jesus said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” And then I reference I Cor. 15 where Jesus will ultimately turn the kingdom back to the Father. But yes I love Wolfgang and he used to be a member with me on a site “Generic Christian” which is no longer in operation, where we had many interesting biblically oriented discussions. Anthony Buzzard has told me he believes the “generation” (genea in Mat. 24:34) is the present evil generation. I have discovered that it can carry this broader meaning. But “Jewish race” would probably be denoted by “genos.” So there are some difficulties presented by both positions. Perhaps we are so far removed from the language and its usage in that period that we are missing some finer points in the usage. I hate to see the full preterists figurizing any passage that does not fit in with their imminency thoughts. It seems a robbery of the future hope of Israel and us, the new Israel of God, of many of the tangible promises made since ancient times by YHWH. That has been made abundantly clear by others here. On the other hand, I think millennialists ought to realize the full preterist’s problems with our seeming to ignore some of their points on the “shortly to come to pass… time is at hand… end of all things is near,” and other such language of New Covenant writings. It seems so polarizing, often, with neither side agreeing that the objections of the opposing side are worth acknowledging. Good Night! Thanks for the welcome.

  83. on 17 Dec 2012 at 5:43 amWolfgang

    Terry,

    well … what a pleasant surprise to see you here and a hearty “Welcome!” from me as well. I am grateful to read that our conversationis from may years ago on the other list did in fact make sense to you and you found them to be helpful in your further study of the topic regarding God being only One, and not Three.

    Perhaps we can have some further discussions on various topics here as different articles are written and comments are made ..

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  84. on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:27 amWolfgang

    Terry,

    you mention above

    I hate to see the full preterists figurizing any passage that does not fit in with their imminency thoughts.

    nobody on either side ought to be “figurizing” or “literalizing” any passage in order to fit with their imminency or futurist view … The text itself and how it makes any sense in its immediate and overall context determines, if an author has used an expression in its literal sense or as part of a figure of speech.

    How do you think I should feel when I see futurists literalize passages even though they thus make such passages contradict many other passages which are rather plain and clear in setting the time frame when those things they put in the future were to happen?

    It seems a robbery of the future hope of Israel and us, the new Israel of God, of many of the tangible promises made since ancient times by YHWH. That has been made abundantly clear by others here.

    “a robbery of the future hope” ? Are you saying that there always has to be a time when there will be this “future hope”? If so, do you realize that you thereby make it impossible for such hope to actually ever be fulfilled ? because the moment it is fulfilled, any folks from then on would — according to your logic – have been robbed of their “future” hope ?
    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  85. on 17 Dec 2012 at 10:17 pmTerry Robinson

    Pleasant that it is really the Wolfgang that I thought it was! So greetings back to you and a Happy Holidays when many are celebrating the Messiah’s birth! Good to hear from you.
    Let me see what I meant when I said that…
    First, I agree with your first point, on the fact that no one should be figurizing or literalizing anything without good reason from plain passages. I also sympathize because I didn’t see much reflection, here, on the clear passages which you describe. That is why I took care to acknowledge that there are many passages which seem to clearly state… Well, you read it. No need to repeat it.
    I want to be fair, because I have not read all of the preceding posts, yet, but I do see eye to eye with those that believe in a future reign of Y’shua on this planet. I believe the meek really will inherit the earth. Jesus (Yeshua) also said that, as well as the Matthew 24:34 statement by him. So, with my beliefs, and also having read many of the preterist publications, I see problems with the dogmatism of BOTH sides, inasmuch as they fail to acknowledge that either Yeshua and Peter and Paul said some clearly contradictory things or perhaps we are having great difficulty being so far removed from the language. I even wonder if there has perhaps been some interpolation. But there are passages, no matter which stance that I adopt, that I have not satisfactorily reconciled in my mind. Still working on it. But I think that I see both sides clearly, even though I eventually settled on the stance of the land promise which seems to have been a fairly well-defined consistent message since Abraham, to me. I think the others pointed out passages in Acts and Hebrews and there is no need to rehash that. And you pointed out the land promise fulfilled under Joshua and I am familiar with that. But still in Acts and Hebrews there are writings that point to the same land promise that was Abraham’s, the land he had his feet on, and the land that, although promised to him, he has yet to receive as a possession.
    I can see that “the robbery of a future hope” was biased language on my part. I really am sorry. I really think well of you, Wolfgang, and should have been more careful. BTW, I think I made it 1/3 the way through the book “The Parousia” and read completely “Matthew 24 Fulfilled” by Bray. I have read a few other works, along that line, but cannot remember their names. One I think was “The Left Behind Delusion.”
    As I said, and I guess I will here summarize, I do not think we should ignore the parallels between Matthew, Mark, and Luke on eschatology (much of what does most certainly fit the circa AD 70 event). Jesus spoke those words, and I believe we essentially have them correctly. However, it is equally as wrong to go to such clear passages as Matthew 5:5, Revelation 5:10, and I Timothy 6:14 and II Timothy 4: vv 1-8 and verse 18. These, when taken in total, are pointing toward a future kingdom entering in for those who are already believers and an inheritance on the earth that the hearers of the Messiah’s words understood it to be. Yes, it is “heavenly” in the sense that it will be restored. This seems to me to be the thought in Acts 3:19-21. So yes, we have imminency passages and future passages (even after Pentecost) which point to the kingdom. So I believe that the kingdom was near in the first century and that believers will be ushered in at Christ’s return. Oh, that is more than enough typing for now. Got to go spend time with the wife and a friend.
    I know you’ll write me back and I count you a scholarly friend – not to be ignored. That’s for certain! You still know more about the biblical languages than me. G-Night!

  86. on 18 Dec 2012 at 12:23 amTerry Robinson

    Wolfgang:
    Made it down up to post 34 above and so I see your thinking on “heavenly” and the contrast. I differ with you on how you see this term and the contrast. As you may know, calling something “heavenly” can mean “of heaven” and not necessarily “in heaven.” We lay up treasures in storage (a bank), but do not live in the bank. We lay up treasures in heaven, but are not necessarily headed there because of that. We lay up treasures there, but the scriptures say, do they not, that Yeshua will bring our reward “with him.” Thus our reward does not remain there. II Corinthians 5 has our heavenly tabernacle prepared in heaven with which we will be clothed. But when? In the resurrection – I Corinthians 15. But scanning further, I thought I saw something where you thought that I Corinthians 15 (the resurrection part) was to occur, at least in part, for some of those still living (post 43??). Do I have that right about your belief on the resurrection – that some of those alive, during the writing of I Corinthians 15 were to experience “we shall all be changed,” and not be resurrected after our current day – meaning after today? Just because Paul said “We shall not all sleep?” If that is your understanding, then what do you make of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18? Do you think because he said “from among your brothers” that they may have understood a fulfillment within their lifetime? Yet this is speaking ultimately of the Messiah. So, because Paul said, “We shall not all sleep…,” could this not be speaking collectively of the church through the ages? Simply put, that there would be believers alive at the resurrection, even if far future? In other words, “Not all will need to be resurrected. Some will be alive and so will simply be changed.” I must read further when I am awake and discover if that is your stated belief But I’ll plan to get back with you later on it. My fatigue, at this time, requests some sleep of me 🙂 Yes that’s a figure. My fatigue is not really talking to me per se. I personified my fatigue. Good Day in your part of the world, probably (though it is night here)!

  87. on 18 Dec 2012 at 3:30 amWolfgang

    Terry,
    a few comments on your summary

    As I said, and I guess I will here summarize, I do not think we should ignore the parallels between Matthew, Mark, and Luke on eschatology (much of what does most certainly fit the circa AD 70 event). Jesus spoke those words, and I believe we essentially have them correctly.

    I agree … unfortunately, these rather clear statements are basically ignored or else “figuralized” when the matter spoken of (the coming of the son of man, the coming of the kingdom, the resurrection, etc.) are placed in even our future almost 2000 years later

    However, it is equally as wrong to go to such clear passages as Matthew 5:5, Revelation 5:10, and I Timothy 6:14 and II Timothy 4: vv 1-8 and verse 18. These, when taken in total, are pointing toward a future kingdom entering in for those who are already believers

    Yes … at the time when these passages were written and spoken, the coming of the Lord with the resurrection, etc was still future! However, it was imminent future! And we should not read those passages, as if they had been written yesterday and were still in our future

    and an inheritance on the earth that the hearers of the Messiah’s words understood it to be.

    well … is this indeed what his hearers understood him to be talking about? or is this what some people living thousands of years later think Jesus’ hearers understood them to be?
    What about those passages, where Jesus’ hearers actually did understand him to be talking about a literal political kingdom and him being a political king and liberator from the Roman occupancy, etc? Did Jesus confirm that their understanding was correct? or did he rather correct their misunderstanding of what he had said? Yes, he was a king … but obviously not in the sense of a political leader reigning over a political earthly kingdom!

    Now, some want to claim that at that time 2000 years ago, Jesus was not yet a political king but would be later on in the future, in order to maintain the idea of a future political kingdom with Jesus as an earthly / world ruler … IF indeed that were the case, why did Jesus not explain that to them? Why did he rather explain that his kingdom (his rule) was not of this world?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  88. on 18 Dec 2012 at 9:14 amWolfgang

    Terry,
    a few more comments on something you wrote above

    But scanning further, I thought I saw something where you thought that I Corinthians 15 (the resurrection part) was to occur, at least in part, for some of those still living (post 43??). Do I have that right about your belief on the resurrection – that some of those alive, during the writing of I Corinthians 15 were to experience “we shall all be changed,” and not be resurrected after our current day – meaning after today? Just because Paul said “We shall not all sleep?”

    my understanding is rather simple: before the resurrection of the dead became reality in the last day of the age, those who died went to hades (the realm of the dead) and awaited the resurrection from the dead and then were raised/resurrected from the dead in the last day. Those believers who were alive at that day (just as those who are alive after that day) did/do not go to hades and be resurrected but will be changed in a moment and receive eternal life and be caught up to ever be with the Lord.

    It seems to me that Paul was rather clear that not all believers would have to go to hades to await the resurrection, but rather those who had not died would be changed at the time of their passing and not go to hades … because he plainly stated that the resurrection of the dead is linked to the coming of the Lord, and he declared that the coming of the Lord would be within the time frame while some of those to whom he wrote were still alive.

    If that is your understanding, then what do you make of Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18? Do you think because he said “from among your brothers” that they may have understood a fulfillment within their lifetime?

    why should there be such understanding on their part? there is no mention of any time frame (such as “while you are alive”, etc) Moses was declaring to those people then (he was NOT speaking to people centuries later !! ) that the promised Messiah would be a prophet from among Israel (their brethren) … but he did not make any reference as to when this would happen or that they themselves would see it happen.

    Yet this is speaking ultimately of the Messiah. So, because Paul said, “We shall not all sleep…,” could this not be speaking collectively of the church through the ages?

    How would this be speaking “collectively of the church through the ages”? It seems to me that this idea of reading the NT scriptures as if they were addressed collectively to the church through the ages is at the core of various wrong interpretations and misunderstandings … in principle, the mistake is in interpreting something as “written to me” when it is not written to me.

    Simply put, that there would be believers alive at the resurrection, even if far future? In other words, “Not all will need to be resurrected. Some will be alive and so will simply be changed.”

    Indeed, there would be believers alive at the resurrection … but the point that does not agree with the scriptural statement is “in the far future” ! There are plenty of clear passages in the very same NT scriptures which set the time frame for which “last day” is being spoken of, and that it would be “soon, while some standing there with Jesus were still alive, during the lifetime of the generation who heard Jesus, etc. etc .

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  89. on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:48 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Would any of these variants of 1 Corinthians 15:51 be problematic for you

    “we all will sleep, but we will not all be changed”

    “we will not all sleep, but we will not all be changed”

    “we will all rise, but we will not all be changed.”

    Also where do get the understanding that after the last days the resurrection will still occur.From what I see to hold your belief would require also the belief that the promise of the resurrection ended with those in the 1st century.
    This all vanishes for me by understanding the those that are alive are still alive at that time because the promise of a prolong life in the land promised as a possession to Abraham by the 1st resurrection of the dead which if those of the seed of Abraham as a nation would have repented would have come when the sign of Jonah was completed, but they didn’t so they joined their nation in exile instead

  90. on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:46 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    Would any of these variants of 1 Corinthians 15:51 be problematic for you

    “we all will sleep, but we will not all be changed”

    “we will not all sleep, but we will not all be changed”

    “we will all rise, but we will not all be changed.”

    all three are problematic … for scripture says “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”
    They are even more problematic if you mean us today with your use of the pronoun “we” …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  91. on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:54 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    Also where do get the understanding that after the last days the resurrection will still occur.

    ?? I get my understanding that the resurrection happened in the last day at the Lord’s coming from various passages in Scripture. I get my understanding that “the last day” is in reference to the then existing biblical “age” from various passages which link the last day and the resurrection and the coming of the lord with “the end of the world [age]”

    Are you saying we are still living in the OT age which was the age in which Jesus was born and lived and taught?

    From what I see to hold your belief would require also the belief that the promise of the resurrection ended with those in the 1st century.

    ?? In a sense, and as I explained, yes … after the coming of the Lord and after the new biblical age became reality, believers who pass do not enter hades (since hades has been already destroyed) to await a resurrection, but rather they are changed immediately at the passing, just as was set forth by Paul when he spoke of those who would not be asleep at the time of the last day.

    Do you apply “last day” not to the biblical age in which Jesus and the apostles spoke and wrote but to some later or even still future age?

  92. on 18 Dec 2012 at 12:00 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    So you believe the resurrection ended in the first century because it would be problematic for “we” to apply to us today.
    I agree “we” doesn’t apply to us today but the problem vanishes when applied to a time after the 1st resurrection into the land promised as a possession to Abraham

  93. on 18 Dec 2012 at 12:40 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    All 3 of those variants come from early NT MSS, so all were considered the Word of God by early christianity

    “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”
    So only the 1st “we” is a problem for you

  94. on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:30 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    All 3 of those variants come from early NT MSS, so all were considered the Word of God by early christianity

    careful … just because a certain reading shows up in a certain mss or family of mss does not mean, that reading was considered the Word of God by early Christianity ! Some mss were used only in certain places … and some changes in copying were even made intentionally, if a wording looked like it could support a particular doctrine which may have been taught there

    “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”
    So only the 1st “we” is a problem for you

    No … I suggest to read “we” in the proper context of to whom something was written and to whom it initially applied …
    I do NOT believe that the Scriptures were written to an unknown audience living thousands of years later … although, I do believe that what has been written long time ago and to different people from us may apply to certain degrees to us as well. However, there is an important difference between to whom something is addressed and to whom it may apply.

  95. on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:34 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    So you believe the resurrection ended in the first century because it would be problematic for “we” to apply to us today.

    No … not “because it would be problematic for ‘we’ to apply to us today”…

    Actually, it’s more like the resurrection happened at the end of the age because the Scriptures declare such … and therefore, because the resurrection has happened, particular passages about going to hades and awaiting the resurrection do not apply to us today

  96. on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:36 pmWolfgang

    all,

    I’ll leave it at this for the time being …. need to attend to other items in the next few days and will therefore most likely not have time and opportunity to join in on the exchange and comment in detail or answer questions …

    Wishing you a profitable exchange nevertheless

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  97. on 18 Dec 2012 at 1:43 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    Pardon me for speaking up?

    I have been trying to better understand your view now for several years.

    Just one step at a time, you believe Jesus Christ has returned and those who slept have been raised and the others(the ones who heard with their own ears Jesus’ words) have been changed. So this all would be in the “past tense”(# 1 simple past tense/imperfekt, # 2 present perfekt
    and # 3 narative past/imperfekt)?

    You have written:
    “Those believers who were alive at that day (just as those who are alive after that day) did/do not go to hades and be resurrected but will be changed in a moment and receive eternal life and be caught up to ever be with the Lord.”

    What about this ?: (all past tense after 70 CE)
    Those believers who were alive at that day(just as those who were alive after that day) did/did not go to hades and be resurrected, but were changed in a moment and received eternal life and were caught up to ever be with the Lord.

    timothy 8)

  98. on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:06 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    My point in showing these variations was to show you we do not know which variant is the original. Everyone could be false but everyone was believed orignal by some christians. Yes doctrines could cause changes and the most prominent and powerful doctrine was those who believed in the immortal soul which is not a biblical truth.
    As far as your flip-flop when it suits you I find very problematic in taking your belief serious .Eiither both “we” apply to us or dont apply to us ,you cant flip-flop within a single statement.

  99. on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:43 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    If it is appointed that all must die once than how does that work with those that were just changed.What happened to the bodies of those that were changed.
    Our example of the resurrection was bodily so why are the bodies of those changed at death still with us.Why did Jesus tell those to flee when if what you say is true they could be changed anywhere they were.
    Hurry up with your chores because I can hardly wait

  100. on 18 Dec 2012 at 6:40 pmTerry Robinson

    Look guys. I’m really glad I joined this site. What a wonderful thought-provoking exchange! I think that the reasons for the differences in understanding of eschatology passages (the end of some age or era – that’s for sure!) is being brought into vivid focus. And that provokes me to dig deeply into why I believe what I believe and to make sure my beliefs are more consistent with all scriptures – seems impossible, at times, to be completely honest! This is why I pray that we are honest with each other when we really are not certain about a meaning of a passage. That admission, I think is humble and keeps the honest heart open to further understanding which may come our way.
    One example: You are probably familiar that Revelation, written sometime after the middle of the first century and prior to the second century (Sholars differ – Some preterists have it written in the 60s and millennialists have it written in the 90s. Some start the “beasts” with Pompeii and some with Julius and some with Augustus, I think, because Julius was not considered an emperor but a dictator.), begins and closes with very clear “the time is near” assurances. That, to the people of the first century, must have sounded like a certainty for them seeing at least the beginnings of its fulfillment. Yes, I know Irenaeus seems to give a later date with his comment about what emperor the book was delivered under. Didn’t he say Domitian? But even the word “delivered” is debated. Does it mean “written” or does it mean “widely circulated.” So, what I am saying is that we look at these matters and admit our doubts as well as our certainties. So here I go. As I alluded to, in an earlier post, Kermit Zarley offers that these words indicating nearness or quickness, of the Revelation (as it stands in the way they were translated) events, are actually words meaning essentially “certain to occur” and that the events “will unfold rapidly as stated once they begin.” What do you think or what is your understanding and why? Some full preterists put all the events in the generation of that day and have the millenium being a figure of perfection 10x10x10. I think that Wolfgang, in particular, has been good about getting us to look at the nearness, to the generation in which the New Testament was written, passages. We must look at them, brothers and sisters, and attempt to get a handle on them, as well as some other clear passges, on the kingdom, where I believe many of us do have a clear understanding. I would like Wolfgang, who at least agrees with the unitarian belief that God is an absolute one and disagrees with many of us on the timing and location of the kingdom and on the nature of hades (I correct this upon reading more closely, Wolfgang’s comments above. He could indeed agree with our ideas about hades – that the dead know nothing, and still believe that the righteous dead no longer go to hades.) to give us his timeline (He did hint at his timeline, I think. Was it circa 70 CE you believe Yeshua returned, Wolfgang? At that time, did they look upon him whom they had pierced?).
    Questions arise if I adopt his understanding. Has the dragon already been thrown into the lake of fire that he should deceive the nations no more? Are we in the age that all creation (I am pretty sure that this is the cursed earth and all suffering creatures on it. But, Wolfgang, how does this fit in with your idea of going to Heaven, that “all creation groans toward redemption?”), along with God’s children, looked to see (Romans 8)? Has Yeshua really returned and the ancients knew it not (In all honesty, here, I know there is an earlier writing, not found in our Bibles, that speaks of Yeshua, in his spirit, going to deliver souls from hades after his death sometime. But does this not contradict clear scriptural teachings on death – that the “dead know nothing [Yes, written while we all agree they were still going to hades.]?”)? Has Yeshua conquered all enemies and made them subject to him? Has he delivered the kingdom over to the Father that God may be all in all? Have the pure in heart now seen the Father face to face? If these events did happen, then I would like to see the timeline and then wonder why this planet is still such a mess and creation seems still accursed and not delivered (Wolfgang, will the earth ever be delivered from its current bondage?). Did those in Christ already meet him in the air? (Sorry, now I see that you say they did.) Did Yeshua return in the same manner that he left, as he said that he would, and yet no record survives to show such an event? Wolfgang, help us on these questions. You may be able to show us. But if you know not the answers, please let us know that too, My Internet Friend, I am serious. You may know. But it may take a while to explain to us these things. Perhaps we have been blinded by our thorough drenching in wrong understandings and because we want to defend positions that make sense to us. I know that I am using a questioning technique that someone above accused you of. But many here differ with your view of the kingdom. Your patience, in helping us, is appreciated.
    I do notice this and want to address it. You do not answer us, do you, when Abraham is to receive the land that his feet were on and that God promised him? Yes, it was promised to his dexcendants too and some eventually received it in Joshua. But not all. Many of Abraham’s descendants had already died. So was Joshua only a partial fulfillment?
    Now to some other points in keeping with integrity:
    Your argument actually makes the most hermeneutic sense regarding that I Corinthians was delivered to the Corinthians and that Deuteronomy 18 did not say “In this generation…” regarding the messianic promise. Didn’t say you were right. Just admitting this is what I would have thought in receiving it as a Corinthian citizen.
    I understand that “the resurrection,” as you understand it, was the deliverance from death in the sleep of hades, to life in an immortal body in heaven – and thus to the kingdom. Correct? If so, when did this occur? So to you, the kingdom is still very tangible and real. It is simply that it is in heaven – now, and from the first century?
    So those living at Christ’s coming were not chnged until they died, just as all believers will be from that day on? Have I got that right about your understanding? I have to ponder all this and see if it fits all the scriptures. It could make sense, maybe, as far as the Corinthian timeline goes. Even II Corithians 5 might fit nicely in. I’m still a bit troubled about Abraham and the land promise, though. Talk to all of you later, God permitting.

  101. on 18 Dec 2012 at 6:52 pmTerry Robinson

    Two other things:
    What about Hebrews 11 saying all would receive the promise together and not one would precede the other in the reception of the promise? Isn’t that poblematic if some have already received it in Heaven? Isn’t it even problematic, in the first century, if some received it, and yet some alive did not receive the promise at the same time? Or perhaps, Wolfgang, have I misunderstood this? Doesn’t one of the Thessalonian letters lend support to this by speaking of the alive being caught up in the air at His coming?
    Will the earth be destroyed at his coming (and made new if my current beliefs are correct)? So the earth has been destroyed since Yeshua did come? Wolfgang, please help me understand this, in II Peter 3 in light of your understanding.

  102. on 19 Dec 2012 at 12:43 amTerry Robinson

    Well, I’ve made it through post 57 :-). Looks like much of what I was thinking about or somewhat confused about has already been touched on in some way or another.

  103. on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:32 amTerry Robinson

    Some start the “beasts” with Pompeii and some with Julius and
    some with Augustus, I think, because Julius was not considered an
    emperor but a dictator.), begins and closes with very clear “the time
    is near” assurances.
    The above comment, from post 100, probably should have read “horns” in regard to kings, and not “beasts.”
    I’ve read all the posts now and it has provoked much reconsideration and examination of what I thought to be true. I’ll let that ride for now, since I see other posters have not been lately active.

  104. on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:08 pmJas

    15:51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – 15:52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

    If the last trump was in 70AD which the duration of that trump was the blink of an eye how can that include those after 70AD?
    How can we lengthen that trump to include present day?
    Maybe we are all just left behind because the last trump can not come twice much less several billlion times the last 2000 years . So Wolfgang what would be the reason to even bother believing anything?

  105. on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:38 pmTerry Robinson

    I understand. But I think Wolfgang’s point is that it did happen and that those, to whom this was addressed, did experience it. Then, because of that event, it allows us (“Us,” being those who come much later and to whom the Thessalonian letters were not addressed.) to die and immediately receive our glorious bodies. I’m still thinking on this. Was there really a trumpet call? If so, why was it not heard? Is “the trumpet call” not literal? Did they “look on him whom they had pierced,” – the ungodly included, since they pierced him? Is it just a figure that there are two resurrections in Revelation? I know that the book has many figures in it – beasts and horns for governments, enemies of good, and kings. Or does I Corinthians 15 imply two, because of the phrase, “then those who are Christ’s at his coming?” Doesn’t John 5: 28 and 29 talk about the resurrection of the just and the unjust? Then might the Revelation passage be more literal than some see it – i.e., two different resurrections (with about 1000 years separation)? I really am wondering. And still the land that Abraham had his feet on was promised to him and not only his descendants.

  106. on 19 Dec 2012 at 2:05 pmJas

    Terry
    The one thing to consider about the last trump whether literal or figurative is if the dead were raised and those living were changed then the last trumpet sounded .
    You are correct that 2 resurrection are mentioned and if you put the last trump at the end of the 1000 years you will find Paul and some who he was addressing would be living because they were apart of the first resurrection and the last trump can mean just what it means.
    Revelation is a very confusing book which covers a long span of time and some of the accounts a wrongly applied to pre first resurrection when they actually apply to a time after the 1000 years when satan is loosed and deceives the nations then causes them to come against the holy millennium kingdom.

  107. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:01 pmtimothy

    Terry,

    KR has many free online classes:

    segment # 16 is about the seventh trumpet in revelations

    http://lhim.org/resources/classes.php?id=32

    Timothy

  108. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:05 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    with just a few minutes for commenting, I wanted to comment on what you wrote above

    Revelation is a very confusing book which covers a long span of time and some of the accounts a wrongly applied to pre first resurrection when they actually apply to a time after the 1000 years when satan is loosed and deceives the nations then causes them to come against the holy millennium kingdom.

    how can it be that the book of Revelation is a very confusing book? I suppose you regard it as uninspired … seeing that if it were God-inspired it could hardly be confusing, since God is not the author of confusion?
    Reading the first few verses of the book and reading the last few verses of the book will give the time frame. To me, it’s no wonder when people make up their own time frames that they are confused … as I’ve done so myself and been there for almost 2 decades of my involvement with Christianity and more serious Bible study, I know about being confused while trying to understand the book. However, once I decided to adhere to the introductory and closing passages of the book, confusion disappeared.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  109. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:29 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Confusion is a state of a man not something that can be authored,as an example you are very confusing to some and less confusing to others but you speak the same message to all.
    I believe Revelation as inspired as it was authored but as we have it I must test it against everything available .
    BTW all confusion that I had when I first read it has also disappeared

  110. on 19 Dec 2012 at 4:35 pmTerry Robinson

    Thank you, Timothy, James, and Wolfgang. I think Wolfgang, being the only one, during this discussion, to argue a full preterist position, has argued his points very well. Therefore, I am thankful to look at some courses explaining the literal millennial position more fully (a viewpoint oppositional to Wolfgang’s understanding), as Timothy, and I think Mark in earlier posts in this discussion stream have directed readers to.
    I want to examine both sides more fully. I have joined the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith, and come out of a Church of Christ background. I wanted to let you know some of the influences upon my life. But I am more loyal to YHWH and His Messiah than to defending a position because a church believes it. Hence, my departure from the Church of Christ because the deity of Jesus and also of the Holy Spirit (as being another person from the Father and not simply being the Father’s Pneuma, breath or power) is often therein affirmed by those that preach and by those that teach preachers. Not all C of C members agree with the trinity and I still consider myself to be a member of the biblical church of Christ and church of God. Both beings are over the universal body of believers and I regret the fact that these titles or descriptions of believers have been misused as sectarian terms instead of descriptions of believers at large. I am intrigued and much want to understand all of the “end of age” or “end of current world” passages. And I want to understand these passages as the authors intended them to be understood (Ultimately, I believe the author to be God through His Spirit.).
    Furthermore, there are some convincing arguments from the time perspective and also from the resurrection from hades perspective, by Wolfgang.
    Also, it is evident to me that Wolfgang has not answered the land promise (for Abraham to receive it) to my satisfaction. Maybe to some of you he has answered this objection to his idea, successfully, and maybe he has answered the best he could. But, at this time I am dissatisfied that his answers do not seem sufficient. There are other things, but this is a main point and seems to be where “the promise,” of inheritance rests (to me, of course).
    I think someone above made an excellent point that the transfiguration followed one of Y’shua’s nearness statements and seems to, contextually, give an answer to part of the nearness controversy from “the kingdom came in appearance (the transfiguration) but not in its fulness” viewpoint. However, this does not negate the fact that other passages indicate the nearness of the return of Christ to those with whom he spoke. At least, this is what the most natural reading of the language seems to mean as I look at some of those passages.
    I don’t want you men and women (I noticed at least one woman commenting early on) thinking that I am ignorant of this controversy. I have literally read volumes on Revelation. One, by a Church of Christ ThD graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, Robert Shank, wrote, in his book, “Until the Coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom,” very convincingly of the argument that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of them seeing the coming kingdom in their generation. He was not typical Church of Christ and I think he would have fit in well with the “Abrahamic faith” churches, except for his objections relating to mechanical instruments, in the assembly, and church organization issues. Why? He argued that the kingdom message was being missed by the modern churches, and that the millennial reign was still to come and was literal. I wonder if he was right.
    But each person is responsible to God for their own beliefs. And I have read several volumes that lend a fair amount of support for the full preterist position and partial preterist positions. My internet friends, this is not counting the hours and hours of videos and Bible college training that I have sat under regarding eschatology. I am not tooting my own horn here because I truly do know that anyone may be well-schooled in the issues and still miss the truth about any particular issue. And maybe I have. But just to say that I am not ignorant of the scriptures though I might really have a wrong belief about some issues therein. No need to start with square one with me. I need some teachings that give answers to the nearness passages, that can be contextually plausible and, at the same time, give answers about the land promise to Abraham.
    Another point of interest: Do you know how many views there are concerning when the kingdom came or will come? Wolgang’s is just one full preterist view. There are others that do not believe the dead were resurrected by being delivered from hades. Some believe the Kingdom came by the reception of the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost, but that still the resurrection is yet future. Some believe that the kingdom came in the transfiguration but is yet to come to the earth and set up. Some believe the Kingdom came in 70 CE, with Titus being Christ’s representative (Study the meaning of coming/ “parousia (Grk)” and see that, in koine Grk [not modern Grk] one may come through a representative.) in destroying an ungodly Jerusalem. Some believe in the Kingdom to come at the resurrection, but think the unjust will also be raised at that time and that there is no millennial reign (not literally, any way). Some believe in the millennium in the sense that the kingdom is here now and that the earth is gradually being converted to Christ (Alexander Campbell seemed to believe that and wrote a periodical called “The Millennial Harbinger.” However, the War Between the States seems to have broken his heart and possibly dampened his belief that the millennium was currently in progress.). Alexander was a Bible scolar in his own right, with an earned ThD and many well-publicized and gentlemanly debates in his day.
    But, a person may be as well-learned as the scholars that I’ve mentioned (Not me. Although familiar with the Bible and biblical interpretation issues, I am not fluent in the original biblical languages, as some of you are.) and still be very wrong. For example, many scholars believe the trinity is an excellent description of the nature of God. I’m shutting up, again, here. People will tire of my ramblings.

  111. on 19 Dec 2012 at 9:50 pmJas

    “I need some teachings that give answers to the nearness passages, that can be contextually plausible and, at the same time, give answers about the land promise to Abraham.”

    Terry
    One of the signs given by Jesus to that generation was the sing of Jonah which both Wolfgang and I agree that the 40 days in Jonah represents 40 years. Jonah was sent by God to preach destruction was imminent ,40 days but this destruction never happend because the whole city changed their evil ways but they did this without the guaranty , nothing was preached about them having a chance to stop their destruction . So even though Jesus preached the Kingdom coming he also preached destruction which came instead of the Kingdom because that evil generation did not repent.

  112. on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:41 amTerry Robinson

    I had never heard this, before you told me, Jas (Is it James or is Jas your name?). It is something to consider. I am very much hooked on the land promise to Abraham that has not been fulfilled to him. Then there is the “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in heaven.” This prayer seems to indicate that the kingdom would come to be on earth as well as God’s will. They both seem to be tied up in the same package to be delivered to earth. But does anyone know if the Greek construct, of the language here, indicates this?

  113. on 20 Dec 2012 at 2:06 amtimothy

    Terry Robinson,

    Hello again…I am making another exhortation to help you better understand about the coming Kingdom of GOD/Heaven. I share the KR and LHIM belief about the future return of Jesus Christ and all the wonders it holds for the followers of our Lord and Savoir.

    I believe Jesus is the only human being born as High Priest, King and prophet after the order of Melchizedek. Jesus’mother=Mary=sire/Juda and dam/Livi(as with cousin Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist).

    “Mark C” has repeatedly ask for one of the debaters here, to read his teachings which are a basis for much of what I currently believe. Along with “The Final Words” class I am sure you too will see the true logic from GODs word.

    http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/

    Timothy

  114. on 20 Dec 2012 at 2:20 amTerry Robinson

    I just looked up this prayer, in Matthew 6, in , an online interlinear. It translates something like this. “They kingdom, Let it be coming! Thy will, Let it be becoming, on earth as it is in Heaven.” It has this as two distinct statements, the first an expectant exclamation, and the second a supplication that God’s will be done with us here on earth. I am researching. But still there is that land promise to Abraham. Could it be that we have the apples and oranges all mixed in together – that some passages have to do with the promise to Abraham and some about the kingdom of God…? Well, that was a fleeting thought and a big “No!” because it is obvious that the promise to Abraham and the kingdom are all tied together;
    All from New International Version:

    Hebrews 11: 8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. 11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12 And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

    13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

    In the foregoing passage we can see, at least I think that we can, that the land promised to Abraham and that he went to, he did not yet receive as an inheritance. So, when does he get it? He gets it later, of course – a heavenly country (THAT HE HAD ALREADY SET HIS FEET ON: If I am wrong in my reading, here, I cannot see it. Really I can’t and I truly want to believe truth and not falsehood.)

    Acts 7: 2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran. 3 ‘Leave your country and your people,’ God said, ‘and go to the land I will show you.’

    4 “So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Harran. After the death of his father, God sent him to this land where you are now living. 5 He gave him no inheritance here, not even enough ground to set his foot on. But God promised him that he and his descendants after him would possess the land, even though at that time Abraham had no child.

    There it is, again, it seems to me (in Acts). Note verse 5. How could it be more clear? Are we really missing something here? Seems to me that he was promised the land that he went to but has not yet received it. Does not YHWH always deliver on His promises? And that land that he was promised was here on the earth. Just because it is called “heavenly,” in that it was prepared of God (And if we are correct, many of us on this site, it will be restored to original pristine glory), does not mean the same as “in heaven” does it?

    Note the following on restoration of the land or of the creation (Again, though some of these passages have been reviewed, previously, in this thread.):
    Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’

    24 “Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. 25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

    That word “until” in verse 21, is as important as it is in Matthew 1:25 “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
    Matthew indicates that Joseph did have conjugal relations with Mary, after the birth of Christ. Or else “until” would be superfluous. For the restoration of all things, then, Jesus would need to leave Heaven that had received him.

    And then Romans 8: 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

    22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

    Note verse 21 “…creation itself will be liberated from its bondage, to decay, and brought into the freedom…” This is in addition to “…the children of God…” in verse 19. So, is the rest of creation, besides the children of God, not inclusive of this earth?

    On the other hand, Wolfgang hangs on to the nearness passages, and makes his case from them. He makes some good points. But will he provide plausible answers to the scriptures, above, that seem to greatly involve the redemption of our earth and the deliverance of the land promised to Abraham? He might, when he has the time. Let us be patient. Good Night all. Keep helping me, Jas, Wolfgang, and all. I may be way off base in my understanding. I do want to make sure we’ve carefully examined this kingdom as it does or does not relate to the earth tipic.

  115. on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:28 amJas

    Terry
    James is my given name but is also my Father and Grandfather’s name so my family used Jas except for when I was in trouble.

    Wolfgang
    You claim a timeline for the events because you see at hand to mean it being finished but you reject that just the beginning was at hand.You also ignore the millennium reign which even if the 1000 years are figurative the place where it takes place is here upon this earth because after the 1000 years there is another timeframe given where satan is loosened and deceives the nations into coming against the kingdom and fire comes DOWN from heaven to consume them.This is victory not destruction and this victory is desribed in the prophets.There are many more problems with your belief that you never really address but dance around using unclear verses to redefine clear ones.

  116. on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:48 amWolfgang

    Terry

    a short note … perhaps it will help to recognize that the word translated “kingdom” actually in its basic form means “rule”. The understanding of it being a reference to “an earthly country with a king as its political head” should not be applied to the term when used in reference to “God” … it should be clear to all that God is NOT the political head of a state or country, never has and never will be!
    The “kingdom of God” or “God’s rule” therefore is not a country or state with God or His Son as political head of state, president or whatever “king”.
    Jesus confirmed that he was “a king” (a ruler) when questioned by Pilate … but quite obviously he was not claiming to be the political head of any country or state.

    Yes, some of the folks then would already have liked him to be a “political king” who would liberate them from the Romans and give them lots of food to eat … but, those folks were wrong in their expectation! Why do folks today think that they are right in their speculation about the future in which they want to make Jesus a political head of country or even head of a united nations of the world ?

  117. on 20 Dec 2012 at 2:10 pmWolfgang

    Terry,

    you mention above

    Also, it is evident to me that Wolfgang has not answered the land promise (for Abraham to receive it) to my satisfaction.

    how could I answer it to your satisfaction?

    The promise was made to “Abraham and his descendants”, and I would think that the key to understanding this correctly is to acknowledge what the Scriptures tell as about the fulfillment of this promise of the land …

    I would say that one could think that the promise was meant in the sense of Abraham himself, Isaac himself, Jacob himself, and each of their descendants “individually” would actually receive the promise … an understanding I held for many years. One could also think that the promise was meant in the sense of “Abraham and his descendants” viewed “collectively”, which could mean that the promise could be fulfilled to Abraham’s descendants at some time, and in being fulfilled to them it would be fulfilled to any descendants and back to their forefather Abraham himself.

    Now, there is a record in the Scriptures which tells of the fulfillment of this “land promise” as far as the earthly land is concerned …. cp Josh 21:43

    Josh 21:43 (NASB)
    So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.

    We rather plainly read that God, YHWH, gave Israel (Abraham’s descendants) ALL the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers (which included Jacob, Isaac and Abraham himself). This surely sounds like a statement of the fulfillment of the land promise made to the fathers, yes?

    Now, some interpret this verse as if it said, God gave Israel only some of the land which He had promised … I would consider this attempt to hold on to a particular interpretation of the land promise as a straight forward denial of what this scripture in Josh 21:43 says.

    Some say, God only gave some of Abraham’s descendants the land, but did not give previous descendants or Abraham, nor Jacob, Isaac or Abraham himself the land … and thus this verse is not telling of the fulfillment of the land promise. I would say this is an attempt to maintain the above mentioned idea and understanding of the promise having been made to each one of Abraham and his descendants “individually” … but to me, it does not “flow” with the overall scope of what we read about the land promise.

    I would say that this scripture does indeed tell of the fulfillment of the land promise to “Abraham and his descendants” … and I would understand the promise as having been made to Abraham and his descendants “collectively” rather than “individually”.

    See, after this, there is no further mention in Scriptures about the land promise having yet to be fulfilled, is there? Such idea is solely an assumption and interpretation in order to maintain the idea of Abraham as well as his descendants “each individually” receiving the land.
    Consider Acts 7:5

    Acts 7:5 (NASB)
    “And He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground; and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that HE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM AS A POSSESSION, AND TO HIS OFFSPRING AFTER HIM.

    What is capitalized in this translation is of importance to note: God promised He would give it to Abraham as a possession, AND (or perhaps better translated EVEN) to his offspring AFTER HIM! Here we read that the land was not given to Abraham but to his offspring AFTER HIM !!

    Perhaps these thoughts will prove to be helpful …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  118. on 20 Dec 2012 at 3:03 pmWolfgang

    Terry,

    And then Romans 8: 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

    22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

    Note verse 21 “…creation itself will be liberated from its bondage, to decay, and brought into the freedom…” This is in addition to “…the children of God…” in verse 19. So, is the rest of creation, besides the children of God, not inclusive of this earth?

    I’ve had questions about this section in Rom 8 now for many years … and the questions revolve around the meaning of the word “creation / the whole creation” etc. as mentioned alongside and/or in contrast to “the children of God”
    What is meant with “the creation” / “the whole creation”? is this supposed to mean that trees and plants “groan”? what about animals, are they meant or included here? will plants and animals be “liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God”? in what sense? will animals also experience a resurrection and receive eternal life? or is “creation” not talking about plants and animals in the first place?

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  119. on 20 Dec 2012 at 4:27 pmTerry Robinson

    I’m caught up again, fellow readers, Jas, Timothy, and Wolfgang. I plan to do some studying on the sites mentioned, and Wolfgang, do you also have a site to recommend which is a thorough exposition of your position? I would be glad to hear of it since I plan to do a comparative study. Your understanding that the word “and” could be translated “EVEN (to his descendents)” will be examined by me. Interesting thoughts all. And important subject. The resurrection and kingdom seem to be at the center of the good news message. I surely do not want to miss the boat by missing the message!

  120. on 20 Dec 2012 at 6:54 pmTerry Robinson

    “kai” in Acts 7:5 can be translated “even” as in “EVEN to his descendants after him.”

    The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
    Strong’s Number: 2532

    Original Word

    Word Origin

    kai

    apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force

    Transliterated Word

    TDNT Entry

    Kai

    None

    Phonetic Spelling

    Parts of Speech

    kahee

    conjunction

    Definition

    and, also, even, indeed, but
    Frequency count based on 1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament.

    NAS Word Usage – Total: 1000
    accompanied 1, actually 2, after 2, again 1, again* 1, along 4, also 535, although 1, although* 1, besides* 1, both 37, both* 1, certainly 1, continue 1, either 2, else 1, even 132, forty-six* 1, if 1, including 1, indeed 20, indeed* 2, just 3, likewise 1, more* 2, moving about freely* 1, nor 4, now 2, only 2, only* 1, or 11, same 1, so 30, than 2, than* 4, then 105, though 1, though* 6, together 1, too 34, until 1, very 3, well 13, when 7, whether 1, while 1, whose* 1, without* 4, yet 9

  121. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:16 pmTerry Robinson

    In Genesis 17:8, the article translated “and” is pronounced “ayth” and is noted as “an untranslatable mark of the accusative” article (part of speech) and the meaning seems really unclear. So the Hebrew (and I checked a few other of the land promise passages in Genesis) seems more difficult to discern – especially to me, since I am no linguistic scholar.

  122. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:22 pmJas

    Terry
    That use count sounded very low

    kai
    kai kai
    Pronunciation: kahee
    Origin: apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force
    Reference: –
    PrtSpch: conj
    In Greek: kai 8911, kai] 1, [kai 16, [kai] 36, [[kai 6
    In NET: and 5003, And 413, Then 301, also 226, So 151, He 112, but 108, Now 75, But 73, too 64, When 59, even 55, or 38, both 23, Yet 22, yet 20, so 17, then 16, Thus 7, Even 6, even though 5, along 5, nor 4, and then 4, with 3, along with 3, indeed 3, The 3, Also 3, as well as 2, so that 2, forty-two 2, Furthermore 2, Indeed 2, when 1, On each side 1, two of you 1, Though 1, so also 1, though 1, They 1, thus 1, whether 1, As 1, Both 1, And so 1, without 1, After 1, Consequently 1, suffered violence 1, Just 1, again and again 1, Get away from 1, For 1, Neither 1, thirty-eight 1, else 1, the 1, either 1, eighteen 1, by 1, one on each side 1, financial support 1, more than one 1, on 1, human being 1, hence 1, forty-six 1, testified 1, powerful 1, and although 1, and so 1, they 1, also and 1, not 1, ten thousand times ten thousand thousands times 1, and thus 1, because 1, associated 1, answered 1, and yet 1, said 1
    In AV: and 8173, also 514, even 108, both 43, then 20, so 18, likewise 13, not tr. 350, misc 31, vr and 1
    Count: 9251
    Definition: 1) and, also, even, indeed, but

    here is the link
    http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=2532

  123. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:25 pmJas

    Acts 7:5 (NASB)
    “And He gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot of ground; and yet, even when he had no child, He promised that HE WOULD GIVE IT TO HIM AS A POSSESSION, AND TO HIS OFFSPRING AFTER HIM.

    Wolfgang
    If the meaning is “even” it doesnt change the fact it was promised as a possession to Abraham . There is one more word in this verse that could be translated differently which is “after”,the greek word is meta which is usually translated “with” and always carries the sense of accompaniment when it is used

  124. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:36 pmTerry Robinson

    When thinking whether the kingdom of God was to be on earth, or not, the following might be worthy of consideration:

    Matthew 26:
    29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

    Luke 22:
    15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
    17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
    18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    For if Y’shua was to drink of the juice of the grape and eat passover bread and lamb, in the kingdom, then it seems like grapes, wheat or barley, and lamb will be in the kingdom. So either they will be in Heaven or this earth or another place called “a new Heaven and a new earth” (I like one author’s take on it – “an earth made new… not a new made earth…” And that makes sense to me, since, in the context of 2 Peter 3 is drawn a comparison between the then future earth and the previous, to our time “earth” which was “destroyed” by water. Yet here it is.)

    The foregoing scriptures were lifted from the following site, which was recommended to me:

  125. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:40 pmTerry Robinson

    I am continuing to appreciate the well-reasoned comments, James. i had thought that “even” wouldn’t change the fact that it was promised to Abraham in addition, but had not posted my thought. Still studying…

  126. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:43 pmTerry Robinson

    http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/near.htm Just making sure I give credit to the site, since I didn’t see it in my previous post though I felt certain I had posted it.

  127. on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:15 pmSarah

    Hi Terry,

    I’ve been tracking the recent conversation on this thread and have enjoyed reading your thoughts. Welcome to KR (if you’re new) and I look forward to interacting with you in the future!

    Hi Wolfgang,

    At the risk of rehashing old ground, I notice you’ve revisited this theory that Abraham “received” his portion of the land promise via his descendants.

    With repspect to your reading of Acts 7:5, are you suggesting then that we should read Gen 17:10: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me EVEN you EVEN your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.” ?

    Some additional questions: Can you explain why God would have promised Abraham something that in reality he was actually going to be excluded from? Why didn’t he simply tell Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that their *descendants* were going to inherit the land, as this would have removed any hint of dishonesty on God’s part? Can you also please explain why Jesus is referred to as Abraham’s son (Matt 1:1) and the heir who has an inheritance (Matt 21:38) if this is not referring (at least in part) to the land promise God made to Abraham and his SEED?

  128. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:39 amTerry Robinson

    Hi Sarah:
    Thanks. I guess I’ll still be studying until I die or Until… Oh, well. That was just a hint at being humorous. I’m 57 and only some parts of some days do I feel it. There are indeed many theories that sound good and I was convinced of Full Preterism (that Jesus had come in the first century) years ago for a few months – a guy named “Jim” (last name forgotten), on the Generic Christian internet discussion group where I met Wolfgang, had sent me the book
    Matthew 24 fulfilled by John L Bray(1998). I read it through. Pretty convincing – especially that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD seemed to fit Y’shua’s Olivet prohecy in Luke 21, Matthew 24, and Mark 11. Another man on that site, Frank Daniels, I remember argued for full preterism. He had an internet site as well, and from what I gathered, had taught himself Greek, was an avid student of it from classical to koine, as well as a translator, liked the Beetles, and was into mathematics as a professor, or teacher, at some college. He would debate the finer points, of the meaning of Greek words, with Wolfgang.
    Then somewhere I received the very thick book:
    Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, by J. Stuart Russell, and read part of it.
    Then another friend, who had become convinced of full preterism, who was a face to face and not just an internet friend, sent me: Shattering the Left Behind Delusion by John R. Noe(Sep 2000) and I read it thoroughly. This friend kept saying, “I just don’t think Jesus lied,” in reference, especially, to Matthew 24:34. I would say, “Well I don’t think he lied, either. But could it be that we are misunderstanding him.” I just could not accept this book’s explanation of how Christians were to meet Christ “in the air” but that it really was not up in the atmosphere, etc., as he seemed to be trying to explain away Acts1:9-11 “And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.” and I Thessalonians 4:17 “then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
    Afterwards, it began to bother me that too much scripture was not taken as the words suggested to me (That is, that the preterists were redefining so much, it seemed. It seemed that the full preterists were trying to re-explain and give the “real meaning.” Yet, it would not seem to me to be the “real meaning” from a natural reading of the text. Actually, Wolfgang seems to have a different and more convincing take on the resurrection as being from hades. I hadn’t been exposed to that belief. It seems more to fit several passages – better that most of what I’ve read and heard from and about full preterism. But you can see that we, several of us, have come up with scriptural objections to his beliefs. I am having some trouble with some explanations from both sides of the debate. But that is why I am still digging.
    Being in the Church of Christ, I had also thought, for many years, that the Kingdom had come on Pentecost. In that group, although I had thought that the Kingdom had come on Pentecost, I still looked forward to going to Heaven and then reuniting with my body at the resurrection. I had been taught that when Christ sat down at the right hand of the Father that he sat on David’s throne. But I did have the question, in a school of biblical studies (C of C two year crash seminary), of where we could find that the throne of David had now reference to “beside the Father in Heaven,” when it used to be on earth. The instructor, Jim Young, said that it was clear from scripture, that the transfer had taken place, because the Kingdom began at Pentecost in Acts 2 when the apostles received power from on High (from Jesus). So I have indeed been exposed to different theories and believed each for a time and believed that I had a firm scriptural foundation for my beliefs, each time. It did trouble me, by the way, that the throne of David was nowhere, in scripture, found to be transferred to Heaven. But I ignored that nagging thought since I “knew,” at that time, that the Kingdom had come on Pentecost. Good Night! Oh, since I’ve mentioned some books from the full preterist viewpoint, I must mention, too, that I’ve read the following, from the viewpoint of many on this site: Two by Sir Anthony Buzzard: The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah and Our Fathers Who Aren’t in Heaven. And two by Robert Shank: Until the Coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom, and Sources of Power of the Apostolic Witness. Anthony and Robert are excellent and scholarly authors, and I have read more books, by both, but not on the subject of the Kingdom.

  129. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:09 amWolfgang

    Terry,

    Language uses words and expressions in two ways: (a) words and expressions are used in their literal sense, or (b) words and expressions are used as part of figures of speech for emphasis and differ from their normal and literal use.

    The matter or difficulty of this topic can be summarized rather briefly into this (as far as I am concerned):

    (a) The various types of time references mentioned by Jesus and his apostles concerning his coming and associated events are meant literally and the various passages speaking of earthly, physical, land, changed behavior of animals, etc are meant figuratively …
    (b) those passages with references to earthly, physical, etc … are meant literally and the time references have a figurative meaning

    Obviously, I have come to the conclusion that (a) above is what the Scriptures teach …. and the main reason for that the time references can only be meant literally seeing that they are not used figuratively.

    If someone wants to argue differently, please list the various time reference passages and tell me which figure of speech changes the meaning of “soon” to “2 millenniums plus years”, or “while some are still alive” to “2 millenniums plus after they have died”, etc …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  130. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:47 amWolfgang

    Hi everyone,

    in the above posts reference was made to “the throne of David”. It is argued that “the throne of David” is on earth and that Jesus will therefore some time in the future sit on that “throne of David”.

    Could those who argue in that manner perhaps let me in on he secret where on earth that “throne of David” on which David approx 3000 years ago was sitting and on which Jesus at some time in the still future will supposedly sit down is to be found? Or will someone build a new throne, because that literal throne of David, the one David was sitting on during his reign over the nation of Israel, doesn’t even exist anymore ? Who will be the carpenter to construct that literal throne? or will it be a throne of marble stone or perhaps a metal construction? or will someone rediscover that old throne after those thousands of years and fix it up again?

    Or is expression “throne of David” not even talking about a literal wooden, stone or metal “throne” ?

  131. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:52 amWolfgang

    oops … too bad one cannot edit one’s own posts here after they have been submitted ….

    The above paragraph

    in the above posts reference was made to “the throne of David”. It is argued that “the throne of David” is on earth and that Jesus will therefore some time in the future sit on that “throne of David”.

    should be edited as follows:

    in the above posts reference was made to “the throne of David”. It is argued that “the throne of David” was on earth and that Jesus therefore will at some time in the future again sit on that “throne of David” and reign here on earth as a political ruler as David did. However, is the expression “throne of David” even speaking about that literal throne on which David sat and from which he reigned?

  132. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:02 amWolfgang

    Terry

    so you recognize that throughout the Scriptures there is a scope of that which was/is temporal, physical and earthly is pointing as a foreshadow toward that which is eternal, spiritual and heavenly?
    or do you discard such scope and consider all to be eternal in an earthly, physical manner?

    Cheers
    Wolfgang

  133. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:12 amWolfgang

    Terry,
    you mention above

    Afterwards, it began to bother me that too much scripture was not taken as the words suggested to me (That is, that the preterists were redefining so much, it seemed. It seemed that the full preterists were trying to re-explain and give the “real meaning.” Yet, it would not seem to me to be the “real meaning” from a natural reading of the text.

    would you be equally bothered by futurists redefining such simple words as “soon” or “at hand” or “in this generation” or “some standing here shall not see death before the coming of the Son of man”, etc ?

    As far as “redefining”, I would like to point out that authors use language either in expressing themselves with words that they mean literally, or in words which they mean figuratively. Such has nothing whatever to do with readers redefining what they read … but rather with recognizing from the context and overall scope how the author has used the words and expressions.

    As a matter of fact, after all the reading I have done of literature of both preterist and futurist views, and after been in both camps for longer periods of time, I would say I have not come across preterist literature where words or expressions were “redefined” by those who wrote those books, but rather they have pointed out the use of figurative (sometimes they call it “apocalyptic”) language … while futurist authors were the ones have most definitely “redefined” the terms such as “soon”, “at hand”, “this generation”, “end of the age”, etc. … and I say “redefine” because they could not and did not point out any figure of speech by which such terms might be used with the meaning they give them.

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  134. on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:33 amSarah

    Wolfgang,

    Have you any thoughts on my questions in #127?

  135. on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:46 amSarah

    Terry,

    But you can see that we, several of us, have come up with scriptural objections to his beliefs. I am having some trouble with some explanations from both sides of the debate. But that is why I am still digging.

    I completely agree – there are definitely problems with certain elements of the futurist camp. Wolfgang has rightly identified some of these difficulties. I may disagree with the solutions he proposes, but I do think the challenges should prompt futurists to re-examine problematic areas with an open mind (and ditto on the preterist side).

  136. on 21 Dec 2012 at 11:16 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Should we now redefine the Jonah’s prophesy as figurative since it was near,at hand and given to a certain generation but never came as spoken.The most important message in the sign of Jonah was there are always 2 paths to follow and God decides what lays at the end of both. Yes I see language that suggest the Kingdom was at the end of 1 path but also see destruction and exile at the end of the other. If those of Judah would have repented the promise to Abraham would have come and the exiled of Israel and Judah would have been gathered to be priest and kings to the nations for an extra 2000 years with satan locked up and Revelation would only be a prophesy about a time after satan was loosened and deceives the nations into Israel

  137. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:06 pmWolfgang

    Sarah,
    you had written (in post 127)

    With repspect to your reading of Acts 7:5, are you suggesting then that we should read Gen 17:10: “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me EVEN you EVEN your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.” ?

    no, we should not do so … because the word can mean (a) “and” as well as (b) “even”, and the expression and context will determine which meaning it would be. Thus the statement in Gen 17:10 could very well be translated as “…my covenant, between me AND you, even your offspring …” It should be obvious that the first use should be translated “and” (because the word “between” would dictate such), and the second could be translated “even”, thus indicating that the covenant was not just individually with one person, but included the offspring as well, actually putting some emphasis on that very fact.

    Some additional questions: Can you explain why God would have promised Abraham something that in reality he was actually going to be excluded from?

    but Abraham was not excluded from the promise … the promise did come to pass in that it was fulfilled to him through “even his descendants”

    Why didn’t he simply tell Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that their *descendants* were going to inherit the land, as this would have removed any hint of dishonesty on God’s part?

    I have no clue why God formulated the promise as He did … except for the fact that if He had worded it the way you suggest, God would indeed have excluded Abraham from the promise, whereas He did not exclude Abraham by speaking collectively of “you [Abraham]” and then added with emphasis “even your offspring” … I would think that this is somewhat of a way of expression unfamiliar to us but familiar in semitic languages, and I am also quite sure that Abraham understood this to mean that the actual fulfillment would come with his descendants at some later time.

    Can you also please explain why Jesus is referred to as Abraham’s son (Matt 1:1) and the heir who has an inheritance (Matt 21:38) if this is not referring (at least in part) to the land promise God made to Abraham and his SEED?

    Jesus is referred to as “the son of Abraham” because he was that specific son out of Abraham’s line who would be the Messiah. As for the other question, I would say that due to what Scripture reveals about the land promise being fulfilled in the days of Joshua many centuries before Christ, what is spoken of in Mt 21 cannot involve the land promise, but has reference to other points more specifically relating to Jesus being the promised “Messiah”

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  138. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:20 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Should we now redefine the Jonah’s prophesy as figurative since it was near,at hand and given to a certain generation but never came as spoken.

    we should not redefine anything … but properly understand what is stated in the Scriptures.

    Also, the message did not come to pass as spoken because the situation changed (the people of Niniveh, from the king down) repented and as Jonah knew (cp 4:2, and as the king of Niniveh also knew as a possibility cp 3:9) there was certainly the possibility of God being merciful and gracious to withhold the announced judgment IF the people repented.

    What happened there was indeed a sign for “this evil generation” to whom someone greater than Jonah preached … apostate Israel was given several opportunities to adhere to the message spoken by the Messiah, but they — contrary to the Ninivites — did not repent and actually added further to their evil until finally 40 years later their measure was full and the prophesied doom and destruction came upon them.

    The sign of Jonah did not involve preaching of the kingdom … but rather involved the truth of destruction of apostate Israel IF they did not turn from their evil ways. Actually, a small remnant did turn and did repent and did believe on Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and they indeed were spared (just as the Ninivites had been) because they adhered to Jesus’ words (cp Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21) of warning and what to do when they saw Jerusalem compassed about with armies … and they fled from the doomed city of Jerusalem into the hill country and were saved (they came away with their lives) wheras the rest met destruction and the wrath of God in “the burning of the tares”

  139. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:32 pmJas

    4:2, and as the king of Niniveh also knew as a possibility cp 3:9) there was certainly the possibility of God being merciful and gracious to withhold the announced judgment IF the people repented.

    The king did not know nor was it preached by Jonah
    Jonah preached the message with complete certainty because there was no IF in his message.
    I dont call for any redefining of the sign of Jonah because hindsight provided the possibility of 2 paths not the prophesy. Jesus Knew this and so did those who had hindsight and uinderstood the meaning and reason it was given. If the kingdom was come then there was no reason to flee because all would be changed ,dead or alive no matter where they were.

  140. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:47 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    You have concluded:
    “in the above posts reference was made to “the throne of David”. It is argued that “the throne of David” was on earth and that Jesus therefore will at some time in the future again sit on that “throne of David” and reign here on earth as a political ruler as David did. However, is the expression “throne of David” even speaking about that literal throne on which David sat and from which he reigned?”

    No, I do not think so! “Throne”, the throne, the thrones are a figurative way of speaking about leadership positions of rank as king.

    Jeremiah 2: (kjv)
    13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.

    At Sinai, YAHWEH went to great length to have Moses build a tabernacle with an actual throne, where He would spiritualy sit on the mercy seat to forgive the Children of Israels their sins. In effect GOD was, as he wanted to be, their king.

    Israel, with their stiff necked ways, wanted to have a King from their ranks. Saul was anointed, crowned and reigned as king until, he Saul forsook GODs ways and was replaced by David.

    Israel chose the broken cistern over the foundation. Frankly speaking, when I try to muse at night about this preterist position, it shortly runs dry and there is no more conclusion to hope for. It is like a cracked crock/jar.

    Preterism is a “fracture” in our commanded Christian Unity.

    And worst of all it puts a stumbling block in the path way for young believers to be trapped. It is a pure “skandalon trigger”.

    The Ark of the covenant was still in existence and King David had it brought and his son Solomon build a permanent Temple/Tabernacle to rest GODs throne in. Neither David nor Solomon sat on or used GODs throne.

    Solomon, however commissioned the making of an elaborite throne to sit upon as he ruled/judged Judah during his reign.

    1 Kings 10: (kjv)
    18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold.

    19 The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays.

    20 And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps: there was not the like made in any kingdom.

    Some how the Ark of Covenant disappeared and to this day Utube has videos of archaeologist digging under the Temple Mount seeking to recover the lost Ark.

    I have found the lost Ark for my spiritual family here on KR:

    Revelation 11: (kjv)
    11 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

    I am afraid that most are not listening to Jesus Christ and the cipher he has given his church to understand the parable. That they may see that they see and may hear that they hear or “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
    –Revelation 1:3

    John 14: (kjv)
    25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

    26 But the [Comforter]parakletos, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    parakletos= paraclete, comforter, mediator, advocate, helper, “the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus after Jesus ascends to his Father”

    1 Timothy 2: (kjv)
    5 For there is one God, and one [mediator] between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;……..

    Jesus Christ, the first fruits from the dead, now lives as a resurrected human being in his new spiritual body. At his return, those who remain faithful and receive the prize of being resurrected/changed, will also live with him in his Kingdom. This is all about a spiritual Kingdom, with a spiritual King sitting on a spiritual throne and spiritual bodied subjects living in a new spiritual world serving their High preist and King who serves their GOD, father and King, YAHWEH.

    agapao se’

    Timothy

  141. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:08 pmWolfgang

    Terry,
    you mentioned above the following website article http://www.godskingdomfirst.org/near.htm as a reference for a futurist understanding of the kingdom of God. I looked up the article, which starts out as follows:

    Jesus Christ announced that the Kingdom of God was “at hand.” Many interpret this to mean that it had arrived. But “at hand” means “near” not “here.” Jesus taught his disciples to pray, “Thy Kingdom come…” (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2). If it was here, why would he tell us to pray for it to come? Even at the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea still “waited for the Kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51). Clearly it had not arrived yet. In addition, when Jesus spoke of the signs in the heavens that would precede his coming, he said, “…When ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.” (Luke 21:31). Even at that future point, the Kingdom will not have come, but will be “near” and about to come to pass. …

    The author of the article seems not to recognize the historical background of when that which is stated in these verses was spoken … and he seems to believe that the events spoken of must be still in our future, because they are stated as being in a future in those verses. This reflects is a somewhat typical and widespread error in reading the Scriptures … those Scriptures were not written just yesterday, and what may have been future at the time when it was spoken, must not at all still be future at a time when it is read 2 millenniums later !!

    Most certainly, at the time these statements were made, what was spoken of as being future was most definitely future! BUT, please note (!!), at that time it was to be in the rather imminent or immediate future … not in a far distant and totally undetermined future.

    Folks, if you happen to read the newspaper from last year and find an article of December 29 which looks forward to the upcoming (note => future !) playoffs to determine the two teams who will play (note => future !) in the Superbowl, will you understand the article as being about something still in your future? Or will you realize that what you read there as happening in the future has already now been past for almost a year ?

    Same principles of correctly considering the historic context as part of a correct reading apply to reading the Scriptures …

    Cheers,
    Wolfgang

  142. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:10 pmTerry Robinson

    Luke 18:8: “I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”
    This question, to me, seems to imply that repentance was not a prerequisite for the return of Jesus. So, in that sense, Ninevah might not be applicable. This is in reference to Jas’s thoughts on Ninevah.

    Wolfgang, How do you answer that the transfiguration is a manifestation, or a coming, in that generation (following at least one of Jesus’s generational statements, at least in sequence), without being the final coming that you discuss? Would you use Matthew 24:34, for example, which says “all these things?” Maybe I just answered my own question 🙂

    Sarah, I hate to say this, but for the sake of complete integrity/disclosure. I have some real difficulty with the nearness language as applied to futurist interpretations. There are so many passages where nearness, in time, is said in so many different ways (e.g., I Peter 4:7 “The end of all things is near. Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.”). So, yes, I would think the futurists, as you say, need to look nearness language square in the face and prove that it is not talking about nearness in time – possibly by showing nearness in proximity by examples from extra-biblical Greek literature from the koine period. Like, for example, are such terms ever used of being near an object or a person in distance instead of time? If there are such clear examples, let’s bring them out to view. I only say “extra-biblical” because this, I think, in addition to biblical, is how lexical definitions are developed. Or perhaps, not from koine Greek. But from the Septuagint such as perhaps when an “army came NEAR a city.” I don’t know. Some of you linguistic scholars may bring forth clear examples.

    Or, the nearness language may need to be examined text by text as I feel that is probably true that not always the same grammar is used – e.g., quickly, near, at hand.

    So, Wolfgang, did Y’shua partake of the juice of the grape, in Heaven, after he resurrected the saints from hades? It certainly is an earth plant. Do you see it as being present in Heaven? Or, in what way would “partaking of the juice of the grape,” be something other than literal?

    I am honestly trying to show my problems with both sides of this issue in relationship to the language involved.

  143. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:44 pmJas

    11:29 As 89 the crowds were increasing, Jesus 90 began to say, “This generation is a wicked generation; it looks for a sign, 91 but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. 92 11:30 For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, 93 so the Son of Man will be a sign 94 to this generation. 95 11:31 The queen of the South 96 will rise up at the judgment 97 with the people 98 of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, 99 something greater 100 than Solomon is here! 11:32 The people 101 of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them 102 – and now, 103 something greater than Jonah is here!

    Terry it wasnt me that tied Jonah and Niveveh ,it was Jesus who preached repent,repent,repent
    the verse you used has an unrighteous judge speak those words not Jesus

  144. on 21 Dec 2012 at 7:14 pmTerry Robinson

    Jas:
    I am sorry. I wasn’t thinking well, I guess. does the point not still stand that Jesus would not need to wait for either repentance nor unrepentance to come? Isn’t there scheduled to be both evil and good (by his blood) persons at his return, whenever it is or was? Don’t Christ’s words, in these verses, prove such when he speaks of that generation being condemned? So, I don’t know that YHWH was wating on repentance to send him back. Though the point might be applied to Israel’s repentance according to Romans 11. Maybe so. I haven’t visited some of these passages in a while.

  145. on 21 Dec 2012 at 8:08 pmJas

    Terry
    You correct that the return of Jesus was not dependent on repentance but the restoration of Israel was which could have come if the remnant of Judah would have repented as did Niveveh then Israel would have been restored and the exiled of Judah(southern kingdom) and Israel(northern) would have been gathered from where they were scattered as the prophets spoke of.They would of been called again his peple in the place where they were called not his people when they exiled
    This was the purpose of the sign of Jonah and understanding God always gives us 2 paths whether it is prophesied or not.

  146. on 21 Dec 2012 at 8:45 pmTerry Robinson

    This, Jas, may lead to another topic that is Kingdom related. Seems natural to flow to this topic, anyway. The next topic I would like to see comments on is “the times of the Gentiles.” I had looked at it as their dominance until Israel’s repentance. But I wonder if Wolfgang would see it as the Roman legions as they marched on Jerusalem. I would like to know some thoughts, on this topic, based on scripture.

    A few other thoughts relating to items discussed in this thread:
    I don’t always see “spiritual” as contrasted to “of this earth” – maybe sometimes, but not in every context.
    In some contexts it is contrasted to “carnal.” Was Y’shua not raised a spiritual body – a type of our resurrection? Yet he was touchable (physical) and did eat (a very physical act). And remember in Galatians, “You who are spiritual restore such a person,” when talking to non-carnal people (disciples) still in this fleshly body.

    Also, just as with the use of “spiritual,” I think we may see “nearness/ at hand/ quickly” language apply to different things and also used with different meanings in different contexts. The same thing with the LORD “coming.” Sometimes it may be coming in judgment on nations, including Judaea in Roman times, and sometimes to the return of Y’shua after the “…until…,” of Acts 3.

    Now still, with all that said, and with the need to differentiate if nearness type language is used in different ways and applied to different things, it seems the NT writings, for the most part, at least, point to a major “THE coming of YHWH through his Messiah (agent) Jesus (Yeshua, of course).”

  147. on 21 Dec 2012 at 9:34 pmTerry Robinson

    Revelation 5:10 sounds physical, “…reign with Him upon the land/earth (Grk=”ges”). But isn’t that also a spiritual time when we reign with the Christ?

  148. on 21 Dec 2012 at 9:41 pmTerry Robinson

    Look at this: A LAND with FRUIT of THE VINE and the fittings for passover, such as BREAD and LAMB (all products of this earth as well) and Y’shua will partake of these in the KINGDOM. I am only capitalizing for emphasis of main points. I really think he would have not let his disciples have any doubt what he was saying. And he said as plain as it could be said that he would be having this Passover meal with them when he came in his Kingdom. I think they would have taken him most literally just as he expected them to – and that this understanding, of Y’shua’s terminology was correct. After all, he used a language and vocabulary that they all had in common.

  149. on 21 Dec 2012 at 11:06 pmJas

    Terry
    Hosea would be a good start with understanding who were gentiles that were going to be called his people again in Romans. These exiles of the northern kingdom(Israel) went into punishment in 722BC this punishment was set in Ezekiel 4;1-6 as 390 years and 7 times that from being warned over and over set in Lev 26;14-46 . Now at anytime they could have repented and be brought back from exile but refused it when Jeremiah was sent to them to ask them if they would repent so they were scattered amongst the gentiles where they would loose the identity .In 586BC the southern kingdom (judah) went into exile and when offered to be brought back from exile only a remnant repented and the rest were scattered . Both of these exiles were preached by Hosea and this is where they became known as gentiles(not my people) . Jeremiah states that some time in the future God would offer them a renewed covenant which was offered and ratified by the sacrifice of Jesus. In this renewed covenant the law for righteousness which was the temple,priesthood and sacrificial system would be replaced by a better sacrifice, a better order for priesthood and better high priest( mediator ). now dont get me wrong by thinking I might be suggesting this renewed covenant was limited to just natural Israel because not even the original was.

  150. on 22 Dec 2012 at 12:14 amtimothy

    Terry Robinson,

    (Pardon me Pastor moderator for making another post so soon and for accidentally posting on the “practice” formatting comments thread. But it is not written in stone.)

    You have written:
    “And he said as plain as it could be said that he would be having this Passover meal with them when he came in his Kingdom. I think they would have taken him most literally just as he expected them to…..”

    No! Absolutely not.

    Jesus Christ was the Passover lamb of GOD, he is our Passover.

    Hebrews 9: (kjv)
    11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    28 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 sin unto salvation.

    Hebrews 10:
    10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

    12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

    Maybe this all sounds too tricky. Jesus did have the so called “last supper” with his disciples(all 12).

    Timothy

  151. on 22 Dec 2012 at 12:28 amTerry Robinson

    Timothy:
    Am I posting too much? Perhaps I need to look at the rules somewhere. Anyway, I was familiar with this Hebrews passage, though I hadn’t thought of it when I posted. Y’shua says clearly that he would take of the foods, and mentions them individually (for emphasis, it seemed to me, though maybe I am wrong). I guess I had thought he would do this, in his kingdom, as an actual reminder of this tradition which pointed toward and taught of him – actually a teaching about himself. But now I am reconsidering. Thanks, Timothy. Point me where I can know the rules of posting, because I don’t want to offend by overdoing it on this thread.

  152. on 22 Dec 2012 at 12:44 amJas

    Timothy
    The sacrifice will be offered in the millennium,right now there is no temple standing so to open the covenant to all mankind Jesus gave us the means to use his sacrifice in the place of the temple sacrifice till the temple is rebuilt.Hebrews is dealing with the sacrifice that brought Grace to all mankind,the one God instucted all from Adam to offer for the sin of Adam. Paul sacrificed animals when he finish his nazarite vow

    Zech. 14 tells us we will celebrate the feasts days along with the sacrifices, these will both be reinstituted in the millennium (Ez.44:1-46- 46:24)

    Zech 14:16-18 “And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.”

    v.21 “Yes, every pot in Jerusalem and Judah shall be holiness to the LORD of hosts. Everyone who sacrifices shall come and take them and cook in them. In that day there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.”

    Isaiah also says, Isaiah 56:7 “Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.”

    Isa 66:23 “And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD. Isa. 66:23 teaches that we will keep the Sabbath, it also teaches we will keep the New Moon festival! This is on earth in the Millennium period- not in heaven.”

  153. on 22 Dec 2012 at 1:56 amTerry Robinson

    Now that I’ve read the “Communication Policy” on the tab at top, it helps.
    Timothy, Why is one of your posts, from hours ago, not on this page, but under the tab “Formatting Comments?”

  154. on 22 Dec 2012 at 2:01 amWolfgang

    Terry,
    you asked above:

    Wolfgang, How do you answer that the transfiguration is a manifestation, or a coming, in that generation (following at least one of Jesus’s generational statements, at least in sequence), without being the final coming that you discuss? Would you use Matthew 24:34, for example, which says “all these things?” …

    I answer with that the transfiguration was NOT a manifestation or a coming in the first place … according to Jesus, it was “a vision”:

    Mt 17:9 (KJV)
    9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

    Jesus called what happened on the mountain “a vision” … it was something which they “saw in a vision (revelation)”, it was not something they saw with their physical eyeballs, because both Moses and Elijah were yet dead and awaiting the resurrection from the dead and thus were not actually physically present on the mountain!
    Also note the following about this vision:

    Lk 9:30-31 (KJV)
    30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
    31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

    Moses and Elijah “appeared” (namely, as part of the vision) , they did not “arrive” there as coming from some other place.
    It also says they appeared “in glory” … which some folks interpret as if this was a vision about the far future “glorious kingdom age”. Such seems to me a false assumption, because the very next words tell us that the conversation was about Jesus’ “decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem”, and it was not a conversation of glorious future age times. The whole vision as such was “glorious”, starting out already with Jesus appearing to them in bright shining clothing, etc … something similar seems to have been the case with Moses and Elijah, they obviously were not dressed in some normal shepherd’s or prophet’s clothing.

  155. on 22 Dec 2012 at 4:22 amWolfgang

    Terry,
    you mentioned above

    The next topic I would like to see comments on is “the times of the Gentiles.” I had looked at it as their dominance until Israel’s repentance. But I wonder if Wolfgang would see it as the Roman legions as they marched on Jerusalem. I would like to know some thoughts, on this topic, based on scripture.

    I am not sure about this particular matter … have some ideas but nothing with which I would be satisfied as yet …

  156. on 22 Dec 2012 at 4:29 amWolfgang

    Jas
    you comment above

    Isa 66:23 “And it shall come to pass that from one New Moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD. Isa. 66:23 teaches that we will keep the Sabbath, it also teaches we will keep the New Moon festival! This is on earth in the Millennium period- not in heaven.”

    what you propose sounds to me like things are going backwards to OT type of worship and observances … thereby contradicting the overall scope of Scripture. Or are you saying perhaps that the newcovenant truths are not in effect under after your supposed Millennium period?

  157. on 22 Dec 2012 at 4:31 amWolfgang

    oops …. somehow hit the wrong button before correcting my “draft copy” … the above should read

    what you propose sounds to me as if things are going backwards from NT to OT type of worship and observances … thereby contradicting the overall scope of Scripture. Or are you saying perhaps that the new covenant truths are not in effect until after your supposed Millennium period?

  158. on 22 Dec 2012 at 12:02 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    The renewed covenant was ratified by the blood of the Lamb and within it was necessary changes to the law for righteousness which was given as a prescription because of transgressions of the Commandments of God. The changes were to how to perform the prescription without a functioning Temple,priesthood and sacrifical system which was obsolete if the covenant was to be offered to the scattered of Israel and those non Israelites who might want to take hold of it which having people come to a central location was not a possibility at that time. so yes God suspended the commandment for all of covenant to come every year to the temple by allowing the sacrifice of Jesus to replace all the sacrifices that required the temple and the high priest which also was permanently replaced by Jesus.So now to take hold of this renewed covenant requires confessing Jesus as our sacrifice offered and our Anointed High Priest.
    But those who only seek Grace it came from the perfection of Jesus who took away the condemnation that came from Adam’s sin by allowing us to be judged by our own sin, not Adam’s

  159. on 22 Dec 2012 at 6:55 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    so then, is there a return to OT type temple service with sacrifices and feasts, etc. even after Jesus has already accomplished that to which the OT sacrifices and feasts pointed? How can there even be a return to a system of worship involving a temple of stone when with Christ’s accomplished work the spiritual temple is reality?

  160. on 22 Dec 2012 at 11:29 pmTerry Robinson

    Doesn’t 2 Peter 1:16-19 link the event of the transfiguration to the coming of Messiah – at least the demonstration of the power involved in the coming? Though Moses and Elijah may have been part of a vision, Y’shua was actually transfigured, wasn’t he?
    What about what the heavenly messengers said to the shephards at the birth of Y’shua? “Peace on EARTH. Good will toward mankind.” It doesn’t look to me that the peace has occurred, yet, on this earth. There is still that Romans 8 passage and the redemption of “all creation.”

  161. on 22 Dec 2012 at 11:37 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    The feast were set up as worship of God and the sacrifice was given because of the transgressions of the commandments of God.No feast pointed to Jesus but the sin sacrifice did because from Adam till Jesus God commanded it as a covering for Adams sin.Jesus’ perfection was so spotless it atoned for Adams sin as the Lamb and by his sacrifice redeemed all mankind from the condemnation of ALL mankind even Israel .Now we are only judged by are own sins at the Great White judgement of ALL mankind which before we were already judged and condemned by Adams sin. Now there was given within the law for righteousness a prescription for our own transgressions against the commandments of God that required a fixed place and a high priest for national and person sin which limited the ability of the covenant to be offered worldwide and open to all ,this prescription was more assessable by allowing those who took hold of the covenant to use Jesus as the sacrifice required for transgressing the words of the covenant and use Jesus as our high priest while there is no temple and priesthood. I have no idea why the sacrifices will continue during the millennium but know they will because God declared it to the prophets.

  162. on 23 Dec 2012 at 4:48 amWolfgang

    Jas

    your above comment #161 sounds confusing … perhaps I am the only one who can#t seem to quite follow your train of thought

  163. on 23 Dec 2012 at 5:15 amWolfgang

    Terry

    Doesn’t 2 Peter 1:16-19 link the event of the transfiguration to the coming of Messiah – at least the demonstration of the power involved in the coming? Though Moses and Elijah may have been part of a vision, Y’shua was actually transfigured, wasn’t he?

    2 Pe 1 mentions that they made known in their preaching the power and soon coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they had been assured and were not following “fables” since they had seen the vision on the mount and heard the voice from heaven and thus had been eyewitnesses (seen the vision themselves, rather than receiving it by “hear say / fable talk”.
    Jesus referred to what happened on the mount as a “vision” … I therefore do not think that Jesus already on the mountain was actually changed into having his glorious resurrection body and then was changed back to being in the same mortal body as before … do you? He was “transfigured before them” … in other words, in what they “saw”. In part of the vision, they did see his “majesty” which he would receive after his decease which he would accomplish at Jerusalem …

    What about what the heavenly messengers said to the shephards at the birth of Y’shua? “Peace on EARTH. Good will toward mankind.” It doesn’t look to me that the peace has occurred, yet, on this earth.

    Were the angels speaking about a worldwide political peace on earth? I don’t think so. They were praising God and spoke of God’s intention in sending His Messiah … and God most certainly in Jesus Christ brought “peace” and showed His “good will” to mankind (people living on earth).
    Jesus himself mentioned that he was giving “my peace” to his disciples … so then, was what the angels said at the time of Jesus’ birth accomplished with Jesus’ life and ministry? I would say so …. and the angels words have nothing to do with a “worldwide political peace”

    There is still that Romans 8 passage and the redemption of “all creation.”

    I refer to what I already mentioned about that passage in Rom 8

  164. on 23 Dec 2012 at 5:43 amWolfgang

    hi

    what do you make of these words Jesus spoke:

    Lk 21:20-22 (NASB)
    20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
    21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and athose who are in the country must not enter the city;
    22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

    When did the disciples see Jerusalem surrounded by armies?
    When was Jerusalem destroyed and left desolate?
    When did those believers who were in Judea and in Jerusalem flee to the mountains to escape with their lives the vengeance (judgment) poured out?
    When were those days of vengeance?
    Were indeed ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN (in the Scriptures) FULFILLED at that time?

    It should be clear as day that Jesus was referring prophetically to what happened 40 years later … when the Jews had filled up their cup and the wrath and vengeance of God came upon the apostate nation of the Jews and even the temple was left to them desolate. Jesus — as that prophet like unto Moses — declared here that “all things which are written” (obviously, a clear reference to what we would call the OT Scriptures) would be fulfilled by that time in those days.

    IF not all things were fulfilled then (as some of you here claim, by making reference to large numbers of OT scriptures and saying that these have not been fulfilled but refer to and will be fulfilled in a yet future time), then we are faced with a real dilemma:
    (a) Jesus was in error and his prophecy was incorrect
    (b) Jesus was a false prophet, purposely misleading his disciples
    (c) these NT scriptures do not correctly tell what Jesus said and thus are unreliable …
    (d) etc etc …

    Or could the answer be this:
    Those who proclaim a yet future fulfillment of any thing written in the OT Scriptures are mistaken and – for whatever reason – teach falsely?

  165. on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:20 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    The subject of that passage in Luke is Gods vengeance so why dont you go read ALL THAT IS WRITTEN ABOUT IT to understand what happened in 722bc,586bc and 70ad

  166. on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:59 pmJas

    i Leviticus

    26:14 “‘If, however, 22 you do not obey me and keep 23 all these commandments – 26:15 if you reject my statutes and abhor my regulations so that you do not keep 24 all my commandments and you break my covenant – 26:16 I for my part 25 will do this to you: I will inflict horror on you, consumption and fever, which diminish eyesight and drain away the vitality of life. 26 You will sow your seed in vain because 27 your enemies will eat it. 28 26:17 I will set my face against you. You will be struck down before your enemies, those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when there is no one pursuing you.

    26:18 “‘If, in spite of all these things, 29 you do not obey me, I will discipline you seven times more on account of your sins. 30 26:19 I will break your strong pride and make your sky like iron and your land like bronze. 26:20 Your strength will be used up in vain, your land will not give its yield, and the trees of the land 31 will not produce their fruit.

    26:21 “‘If you walk in hostility against me 32 and are not willing to obey me, I will increase your affliction 33 seven times according to your sins. 26:22 I will send the wild animals 34 against you and they will bereave you of your children, 35 annihilate your cattle, and diminish your population 36 so that your roads will become deserted.

    26:23 “‘If in spite of these things 37 you do not allow yourselves to be disciplined and you walk in hostility against me, 38 26:24 I myself will also walk in hostility against you and strike you 39 seven times on account of your sins. 26:25 I will bring on you an avenging sword, a covenant vengeance. 40 Although 41 you will gather together into your cities, I will send pestilence among you and you will be given into enemy hands. 42 26:26 When I break off your supply of bread, 43 ten women will bake your bread in one oven; they will ration your bread by weight, 44 and you will eat and not be satisfied.

    26:27 “‘If in spite of this 45 you do not obey me but walk in hostility against me, 46 26:28 I will walk in hostile rage against you 47 and I myself will also discipline you seven times on account of your sins. 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 48 26:30 I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars, 49 and I will stack your dead bodies on top of the lifeless bodies of your idols. 50 I will abhor you. 51 26:31 I will lay your cities waste 52 and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will refuse to smell your soothing aromas. 26:32 I myself will make the land desolate and your enemies who live in it will be appalled. 26:33 I will scatter you among the nations and unsheathe the sword 53 after you, so your land will become desolate and your cities will become a waste.

    26:34 “‘Then the land will make up for 54 its Sabbaths all the days it lies desolate while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land will rest and make up its Sabbaths. 26:35 All the days of the desolation it will have the rest it did not have 55 on your Sabbaths when you lived on it.

    26:36 “‘As for 56 the ones who remain among you, I will bring despair into their hearts in the lands of their enemies. The sound of a blowing leaf will pursue them, and they will flee as one who flees the sword and fall down even though there is no pursuer. 26:37 They will stumble over each other as those who flee before a sword, though 57 there is no pursuer, and there will be no one to take a stand 58 for you before your enemies. 26:38 You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will consume you.

  167. on 23 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    The subject of that passage in Luke is Gods vengeance so why dont you go read ALL THAT IS WRITTEN ABOUT IT to understand what happened in 722bc,586bc and 70ad

    well … while Jesus indeed is talking about God’s vengeance, he is specifically talking about some “DAYS of vengeance” which were rather imminent … and not about some days of vengeance which happened centuries earlier … yes?

  168. on 23 Dec 2012 at 2:46 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    In Leviticus the days of vengeance were all far into the future and fits perfectly with the day of vengeance that happened in 722bc,586bc and 70ad.
    For someone who screams context,context,context you overlook it when you need it.

  169. on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:14 pmJas

    Lk 21:20-22 (NASB)
    20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.
    21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and athose who are in the country must not enter the city;
    22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.

    Wolfgang
    Let me help you see the context of verse 22 by providing it for you in the verse
    22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written ABOUT IT will be fulfilled.

  170. on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:36 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    I used to do what you try to do there … and that for quite some time. But then, I realized that it’s only an attempt to keep up a futurist theology which doesn’t fit (not only with these words of Jesus, but also not with the overall scope and the rest of Scripture …
    Why do you want to add to the Lord’s words words he did not say, thereby changing what he did say?
    See, there is a difference between (a) recognizing a figure of speech when someone has used one in their words and (b) just adding or changing an author’s words according to one’s own liking. The former adheres to rules of language and grammar, the latter cares nothing about rules of language etc but only cares about twisting things in order to bring them into agreement with one’s own beliefs …

  171. on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:41 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    In Leviticus the days of vengeance were all far into the future and fits perfectly with the day of vengeance that happened in 722bc,586bc and 70ad.

    and what exactly is your point with this information in regards to what I had written earlier? does it change something? or what?

    For someone who screams context,context,context you overlook it when you need it.

    hmn ??? I was the one pointing out the context when you “ran off” to some entirely different context (I suppose you think it may have been context because the word vengeance was used there as well?) ….

  172. on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:43 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    was anything in these verses fulfilled in 70ad.
    Well it is a crying shame you abandoned seeking the true context by claiming everything that doesnt support your belief as figurative

    26:27 “‘If in spite of this 45 you do not obey me but walk in hostility against me, 46 26:28 I will walk in hostile rage against you 47 and I myself will also discipline you seven times on account of your sins. 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 48 26:30 I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars, 49 and I will stack your dead bodies on top of the lifeless bodies of your idols. 50 I will abhor you. 51 26:31 I will lay your cities waste 52 and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will refuse to smell your soothing aromas. 26:32 I myself will make the land desolate and your enemies who live in it will be appalled. 26:33 I will scatter you among the nations and unsheathe the sword 53 after you, so your land will become desolate and your cities will become a waste.

  173. on 24 Dec 2012 at 4:32 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    was anything in these verses fulfilled in 70ad.

    there has been prophecy even by Mose (cp. passages in Deu) where God already let Israel know what the consequence for unbelief and rebellion eventually would be …. some OT prophecies of calamity and veneance were already fulfilled even during the OT age (cp. carrying away into captivity).
    The final judgment and day of vengeance at the end of that age was what happened after the Jews filled up their cup of wrath by rejecting the Messiah and persecuting his followers … the judgment prophesied by Jesus in Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21 came upon them in the events of the destruction of temple and city in 70 AD. This also fulfilled what had been prophesied already by Daniel almost 5 centuries before …

  174. on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:04 amJas

    Wolfgang
    What happened in 70ad to Judea was exactly what happened in 722bc to Israel and 586bc to Judah . The reason the sign of Jonah was given was to show the remnant of Judah there was 2 paths they could take as a people.
    1. Repent as a people and the real kingdom of Israel would be restored with a true king and their brothers would be gathered from among the gentiles where they were scattered and would again be called HIS people.
    2.Rebel as a people and they would recieve the promised vengeance with their cities and sanctuaries laid waste then be carried away or scattered into the Gentiles.
    There are many many reasons to reject your belief which during this discussion you have strengthened for me but there is one that really causes me to reject which is the fact the last act before judgement is all the Nations will be deceived by satan sometime after the Kingdom of Israel is completely restored with those of the first resurrection to come against the resurrected Saints and the holy city in which God will provide the means for complete VICTORY and after that those who are dead but were redeemed by the lamb which is every man and woman who ever lived and died will be gathered by Jesus himself and those living from the first resurrection will be caught up into heaven will the earh goes through a full regeneration by fire.Those not found worthy will be tossed back to earth . After the regeneration all people will be return to the earth along with the new city and God will make his permanent home amongst his people

  175. on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:42 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    There are many many reasons to reject your belief which during this discussion you have strengthened for me but there is one that really causes me to reject which is the fact the last act before judgement is all the Nations will be deceived by satan sometime after the Kingdom of Israel is completely restored with those of the first resurrection to come against the resurrected Saints and the holy city in which God will provide the means for complete VICTORY and after that those who are dead but were redeemed by the lamb which is every man and woman who ever lived and died will be gathered by Jesus himself and those living from the first resurrection will be caught up into heaven will the earh goes through a full regeneration by fire.Those not found worthy will be tossed back to earth . After the regeneration all people will be return to the earth along with the new city and God will make his permanent home amongst his people

    seems like you have the future all figured out … and that despite the fact that none of us knows the future. Do you realize that the above is only assumption and guesswork?

    You know, IF I were still a futurist, I would keep silent and not say nor teach anything about future events, but admit that I have no clue about the future and thus any detailed expositions of supposedly still future events would only be guesswork and assumptions.

    Wishing all happy holidays!

  176. on 24 Dec 2012 at 12:07 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    If God did not want us to know what the future holds He would not have given us prophesies. So what you are saying is you wouldnt even read the bible outloud.
    It not Gods fault people twist a clear fact like

    20:7 Now 15 when the thousand years are finished, Satan will be released from his prison 20:8 and will go out to deceive 16 the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, 17 to bring them together for the battle. They are as numerous as the grains of sand in the sea. 18 20:9 They 19 went up 20 on the broad plain of the earth 21 and encircled 22 the camp 23 of the saints and the beloved city, but 24 fire came down from heaven and devoured them completely. 25 20:10 And the devil who deceived 26 them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, 27 where the beast and the false prophet are 28 too, and they will be tormented there day and night forever and ever.

    and
    Ezekiel
    39:1 “As for you, son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say: ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: Look, I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal! 39:2 I will turn you around and drag you along; 1 I will lead you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel. 39:3 I will knock your bow out of your left hand and make your arrows fall from your right hand. 39:4 You will fall dead on the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the people who are with you. I give you as food to every kind of bird and every wild beast. 39:5 You will fall dead in the open field; for I have spoken, declares the sovereign Lord. 39:6 I will send fire on Magog and those who live securely in the coastlands; then they will know that I am the Lord.

    TO THEIR OWN DECEPTION

  177. on 24 Dec 2012 at 12:18 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    If God did not want us to know what the future holds He would not have given us prophesies. So what you are saying is you wouldnt even read the bible outloud.

    I would not claim to know details about prophecies which I (not anyone else) could know and thus tell people a “private interpretation” as if it were fact thereby misleading people into all kinds of false hopes.

  178. on 24 Dec 2012 at 12:30 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Like the false hope that we go straight to heaven at death which is your own private interpretation yet is not found anywhere in the bible,matter of fact it actually contradicts clear prophesies that God gave

  179. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    Like the false hope that we go straight to heaven at death which is your own private interpretation yet is not found anywhere in the bible,matter of fact it actually contradicts clear prophesies that God gave

    to what hope are you referring ? the one promoted by many church denominations today which teach that the dead go straight to heaven with the resurrection of the dead still being a future event? I certainly do not promote such a false hope!
    (But sometimes people accuse me of that … because they haven’t listened or read carefully what I have said or written about the matter

  180. on 24 Dec 2012 at 7:45 pmJas

    Wolfang
    No but atleast they have a portion close to the truth. I believe I fully understand your belief on that subject thats why
    i reject it totally. But thankfully my beliefs allows those deceived to still receive Grace.

  181. on 25 Dec 2012 at 3:35 amWolfgang

    Jas,

    No but atleast they have a portion close to the truth. </blockquote<
    which portion would that be ?

    I believe I fully understand your belief on that subject thats why
    i reject it totally.

    could it be that you use the word “believe” in the sense of “assume” ?
    from what you write here, it appears more that you do not even partly understand my belief and you are among those who confuse it with the belief found in many denominations of “the dead go immediately after death to heaven and they do so without the resurrection from the dead having taken place”.

  182. on 25 Dec 2012 at 3:36 amWolfgang

    Jas

    No but atleast they have a portion close to the truth.</blockquote<
    which portion would that be ?

    I believe I fully understand your belief on that subject thats why
    i reject it totally.

    could it be that you use the word “believe” in the sense of “assume” ?

    from what you write here, it appears more that you do not even partly understand my belief and you are among those who confuse it with the belief found in many denominations of “the dead go immediately after death to heaven and they do so without the resurrection from the dead having taken place”.

  183. on 25 Dec 2012 at 3:40 amWolfgang

    it seems that formatting posts is a problem here … trying one more time to get it right … perhaps a moderator can clean up the “blockquote” markers and delete the double posts
    ____________________________________

    Jas

    No but at least they have a portion close to the truth.

    which portion would that be ?

    I believe I fully understand your belief on that subject thats why i reject it totally.

    could it be that you use the word “believe” in the sense of “assume” ?

    from what you write here, it appears more that you do not even partly understand my belief and you are among those who confuse it with the belief found in many denominations of “the dead go immediately after death to heaven and they do so without the resurrection from the dead having taken place”.

  184. on 25 Dec 2012 at 12:24 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    No I am not confusing your assumption with that of orthodox. Yes I also assume I understand your assumption on the subject and assume at least orthodoxy is closer to biblical about the resurrection than your assumption

  185. on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:29 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    Frolich Weinnacten

    I admire this, your quote:

    “could it be that you use the word “believe” in the sense of “assume” ?”

    This leads to the word:

    presumptuous=Going beyond what is right or proper because of an excess of self-confidence or arrogance

    A hunting dog goes into the “red zone” and that is the word as used in:

    2 Peter 1: (NASB)
    20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own [interpretation]epilusis,

    epilusis=a release, an interpretation

    (Auslegung=explanation or falsche Auslegung=misinterpretation)

    This misinterpretation of the scripture has led to there being some 30,001 different denominations/fractures in our Body of Christ.

    With a certainty, I too assume what I believe is the truth.

    What Jesus proclaimed, in his gospel, is like a simple nursery rhyme that children can understand. He even has given us a tutor, our Paraclete, to help decipher his *parable*.

    Parable= parable is a succinct story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more *instructive principles*, or lessons, or (sometimes) a normative principle. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as characters, while parables generally feature human characters. It is a type of *analogy*.

    Have a great day.

    Timothy 🙂

  186. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:09 pmJas

    Timothy
    I agree that at best all beliefs are assumptions based on private interpretations even the personal belief that one is lead by spirit into their private interpretation .I think,assume ,belief that satan can provide certain truths while knowing he can deceive with other false truths.I am certain that I am deceived in some way and have not yet met anyone who isn’t .I am not even sure if it is still possible given the mess that christianity has made out of the word of God.
    Thank God For Grace

  187. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:06 amTerry Robinson

    The above site is interesting, I think, in that it also discusses the sign of Jonah, as did Jas, and demonstrates the conditional fulfillment of prophecy based on responses of people – whether they repent or not. It gives a list of what the author sees as problems with full preterism. Too, I believe it is an honest handling and acceptance of the nearness language. But I want to emphasize that neither Wolfgang, myself, or probably anyone in this discussion would agree with all of the author’s conclusions – including some of his broad spectrum statements about “what full preterists believe.” I think the author has problems with the nature of hell, for one, and readers might find other problems. I have reread Hosea and Daniel and Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21, in the past two weeks and am now on chapter 14 in Revelation. I may finish the book of Revelation tomorrow. I am becoming more convinced, once again, that it helps us to keep reading texts that we discuss. I must catch up, again, on my reading the posts here, and finish Revelation before I enter this discussion more deeply again. I am throughly enjoying a restudy on this issue of kingdom theology.

  188. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:07 amTerry Robinson

    Here it is, again, since I didn’t see it in my post above: http://www.newwine.org/Articles/Preterism.htm

  189. on 01 Jan 2013 at 1:47 amtimothy

    Terry Robinson,

    GOD bless you and happy New Year 2013.

    I am sure that there are too many things to distract one from concentrating on the plane old meat and potatoes as taught by my church.

    It gets back to the parable of the sower and producing fruit of the spirit and repenting from worldly un-GODly ways of behavior.

    There are just too many labels being pasted on Christians today. Please be assured that the wild reckless views you might read here are not what our classes and Sunday teachings are about.

    I have given you a couple of links and here is the main homepage link:

    http://lhim.org/

    Timothy

  190. on 02 Jan 2013 at 12:26 amTerry Robinson

    Timothy:
    Thanks. I plan to save that link. I went there and checked it out. Has 52 “kingdom articles” I think I saw.
    Another note: I finished the reading of Revelation, today, as planned.
    Revelation 21:22 seems to indicate that a physical temple would be non–existant after the descent of the New Jerusalem after the 1000 years.
    Still need to catch up on all posts, before commenting further. Hope to do that soon. I developed some thoughts during my recent readings. I strongly encourage a fresh reread of eschatology texts.

  191. on 02 Jan 2013 at 1:21 pmJas

    Terry
    I think there is no temple because God himself will dwell amongst mankind so will not need a place with a mediator anymore.

  192. on 03 Jan 2013 at 2:47 pmTerry Robinson

    Luke 21:24 – What happens after the “until?” The word is there for a reason. Could it not be the re-establishment of the state of Israel?
    I know. I know… the “this generation” note in verse 32 and the surrounding context. But could, as some authors think, this not refer to the generation after the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled – the generation that sees the signs following that fulfillment?
    This would allow for a more literal understanding of Acts 1:11 and other verses. I know that Jesus is talking to the disciples then present. But could they not see it as prophetic language which would not necessarily happen during their lifetimes? This all, of course, if “this generation” applies to the generation which sees the signs following the “times of the Gentiles.”
    I noticed a similar thought occurred to me while rereading Revelation. That is that John was intending to tell the seven Asia Minor churches things which must shortly take place. This he did – removing the candlesticks of unrepentant churches is one thing which shortly happened. But correct me if I am wrong. He never said “Everything in this book/prophecy” will shortly happen. Did he?
    So the details of Y’shua’s return, the 1000 year reign, and then the descent of the Almighty and the New Jerusalem are such detailed accounts that they might be literal. Yes?
    I have caught up on reading all of the posts as readers might have guessed.

  193. on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:37 pmJas

    Terry
    All very good points.
    Acts 1:11 is very important to understanding the teachings of the apostles by Jesus and how they understood. Were they expecting the sign of Jonah to mean 40 days by asking that question that very day but Jesus then told them the timeframe and result was only known by God.

  194. on 03 Jan 2013 at 5:41 pmJas

    Sorry wrong verses
    Acts 1:6-7

  195. on 03 Jan 2013 at 6:04 pmTerry Robinson

    Yes. I like your point here. He wasn’t restoring the kingdom immediately but was to ascend into Heaven. He made it very clear that they were not given the information about when the kingdom would be restored. There are a few other things here: 1) Did the disciples really misunderstand the nature of the kingdom, as some assert, after Y’shua had been teaching them about it for 40 days? 2) If they understood his teachings correctly, it looks as if they were still expecting an earthly kingdom. 3) After 40 days of teaching, did they really misunderstand and use the wrong words when they said “restore the kingdom to Israel?” Doesn’t make sense to me, though I am certain that I could be wrong. But I sincerely think, from these texts and the depth of teachings that they had received from the Master, that they did understand and that they did use the correct terminology.

  196. on 03 Jan 2013 at 8:18 pmtimothy

    Jas and Terry,

    I believe Jesus Christ is still to come back and the first resurrection to take place then when the Seventh trumpet sounds/blows.

    There is indication that the return/trumpet will be 3 1/2 years after a certain event. There is a lot of accounting information found in OT.

    Personally, my endeavor (at 71 on 1-18), is focused on “that he is coming back” and being “changed to change”(cds, text book and syllabus for $’s in book store).

    Focus on where one is, according to parable of the sower and how to bring forth fruit. I am not kidding.

    However, here is the sound of a super Shofar blowing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGOgAiwemo

  197. on 03 Jan 2013 at 9:45 pmJas

    Timothy
    I see no reason to believe that Jesus will return till after the 1000 years.I see him reigning from the throne of God while God rest a second Sabbath then returning the throne back. I do see the true kingdom of Israel being established very soon

  198. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:48 amTerry Robinson

    just beautiful, timothy. there’s a neighbor, whom i spent a few minutes with this evening. his name is Lloyd Henson. his wife is Barbara. He came and performed with the shofar at one of Anthony Buzzard’s appearances here in Arkansas. Beautiful stuff, though his is an ibek’s horn I believe. anyway, some african antelope type animal. Not a ram’s horn, though same look and effect. He sings quite well too. Was member of a motorcycle group called “End Time Warriors” though I am not sure he is still active with it. He has had some health problems.

  199. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:01 amTerry Robinson

    Jas:
    so you see those of the first resurrection reigning with Christ from Heaven for the 1000 years? And then satan loosed, the New Jerusalem descending, and the Almighty coming to make his dwelling on the new earth? Re: Revelation chapters 20 and 21

  200. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:17 amJas

    Terry
    No I see those of the first resurrection reigning as kings and priest to the nations of the earth under the reign of Jesus in heaven during Gods rest and yes to all the rest

  201. on 04 Jan 2013 at 2:49 amtimothy

    Terry and Jas,

    There two types available, Ram and Yemenite Ibeks, for purchase. I can not find when the larger horn became to be used. Here to purchase:

    http://www.theshofarman.com/index.htm

    I would invest in a giant flat screen monitor instead.

    I will repeat myself, this KR site is Hosted and paid for by my church. You have seen that one may attend on line Sunday Fellowship 10:30 am. Also you may read our statement of beliefs to see the theme taught in all the “free on line classes and teachings”. I have been a follower of our Pastor since 1980, when I became a follower of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savoir.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kydULKxuF0o

    Every tuesday evening 7:00-9:00 PM EST there is a new class being recorded…you may watch live on “web cast”.(you may also download mp3 teachings and classes and it is worth buying a separate “best buy” type plug in hard drive to store all upon)

    I am under the humble opinion that some of the subjects can not be honestly communicated here post to post. I learn a lot about what different people believe, however to really learn and understand takes the attention of a class taken over time.

    You guys may not believe the teachings, in our new 24 hour, “The Final Words Class”, but to be honest, for your selves, hearing the whole class will give you a clear view of how it fits with complete ting the coming Kingdom of God doctrine found in the whole Bible, OT & Nt.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb9By-lODgk

    and

    Romans 13: (kjv)
    11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

    Timothy

  202. on 04 Jan 2013 at 10:46 amJas

    Timothy
    I am sure you heart is in the right place but I am not in need of being taught by others because I take self responsibility very seriously .I am also not interested in being part of a social utopia which causes people to fear losing it if they think on their own.

  203. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:24 pmTerry Robinson

    Thanks, Timothy. I agree that posting may not be the best way to learn. But it sure stimulates the thinking and provokes me to study and consider things, that the scriptures might mean, that I may not have previously considered. I agree with Jas too, in that I, as you may have seen, like to go back and reread passages under consideration, and get my own feel of the meanings there. However, that said, I am considering lengthier online classes from both your view and opposing views. I, of course, like I trust you guys do, want to understand the kingdom matters correctly. I trust the same with Wolfgang. I am still not quite satisfied that I’ve studied this enough. I have some uncertainty about my leanings in these matters. That is why I need to continue studying on them. I may not post here again, at least for quite a while, but may come back, during my studies, to see if anything more of value has been posted. Thanks again.

  204. on 04 Jan 2013 at 12:48 pmJas

    Terry
    May God bless you in your search for the Whole truth but never loose sight of the fact that Grace is still offered if we fall short which is the greater of the resurrections. I myself still hope to be a part of the first resurrection of covenant Israel so I will press on with my search for that truth.

  205. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:42 pmWolfgang

    @Timothy,
    you mention above the following verse

    Romans 13: (kjv)
    11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

    what “time” did they know?
    what “salvation” was nearer than when they first believed?
    what do you think the expression “it is high time” means? is the period of “high time” a long period of time or a more short period of time?
    does it indicate that something is near or that something is in a far distant future?
    to what does “now” in that verse refer? when was or is this “now” … is it “now” when the epistle was written? or is it “now” when we, living 2milleniums later, are reading the epistle?

    I do think that this statement also indicates that already then it was “high time” in that the time of their salvation was indeed near. I would say that Paul could not have written what he wrote therre if that time had been thousands of years in a distant future …

  206. on 04 Jan 2013 at 1:53 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    First, will you tell me what “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” means in reference to time approaching a goal, as a figure meaning distance ?

    Timothy

  207. on 04 Jan 2013 at 2:01 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    To the Ost Frieslander….what relation does hev keen tide have with the tide going out 9 meters every six hours or why should he be concerned?

    Timothy

  208. on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:09 pmWolfgang

    Timothy,

    First, will you tell me what “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” means in reference to time approaching a goal, as a figure meaning distance ?

    Paul is stating that when he wrote and the recipients of his epistle heard it read salvation was nearer than when he and they had first believed. Salvation at that time was a yet future reality …
    Also, at that time the time for salvation to become a reality was close … as he stated by the expression that it was now “high time” …

    So othen, what are your answers to my questions?

  209. on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:16 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    Paul was forced to preach its nearness because of the possiibility that it might come if those of Judea would have repented BUT THEY DID NOT

  210. on 04 Jan 2013 at 4:38 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    What part of Acts1:6-7 do you not understand?
    Is it that the sign of Jonah was thought by them to means 40 days and they felt Judea had repented and the kingdom of Israel would be restored that very day.Why would they think that?Had all that was prophesied happened?

  211. on 04 Jan 2013 at 5:01 pmWolfgang

    Jas

    What part of Acts1:6-7 do you not understand?

    no part … i do not quite understand why others do not understand Jesus’ reply to his apostles as a kind correction showing that their ideas of an earthly kingdom with Jesus as a political ruler was incorrect … in other words, they still had apparently not understood as of yet that Jesus’ “kingdom is not of this world”.

    Is it that the sign of Jonah was thought by them to means 40 days and they felt Judea had repented and the kingdom of Israel would be restored that very day.Why would they think that?Had all that was prophesied happened?

    None of the above …

    I find it somewhat astonishing that so many folks today follow in the footsteps of the lack of understanding which the apostles displayed then.

  212. on 04 Jan 2013 at 5:27 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    They only were corrected about the timeframe by him telling them that onlyGod knew what the time or period was not the kingdom

  213. on 04 Jan 2013 at 5:36 pmJas

    He did not say you ignorant fools I spent 40 days teaching you about the nature of the kingdom for you ask such a stupid question.Then say only God knows the nature of it. They asked about timing not the nature of it with good reason to ask that very day.

  214. on 04 Jan 2013 at 7:44 pmtimothy

    Wolfgang,

    Well, I have lost my place.

    hev keen tide=habe kein zeit=I have no time

    tide was used as a way of telling time.

    if the tide was running out, the seaman could miss the tide to take him out(this was before motors) and there would be shallow water where his craft would run aground. So impatience causes him to say “hev keen tide” or I have no time or cast off, I’m outta here.

    High tide=hoch wasser

    but does mean high time but, “hoch zeit” which means wedding

    Wolfgang, all of this water business has nothing to do with Jonah and the whale.

    Now we both speak, think and maybe even rekon in English/German.

    “High Time” means exactly what you are saying, and can be used in many different ways, depending on where you were brought up.

    It is high time you get the lead out of your butt and finish mowing the lawn.

    It is high time the train comes, it is already three minutes late.

    We scored some Hawaiin wicki wacki Mauwi wowei and had a good old “High Time”.

    I just read in High Times that Jim Morison got busted on Miami Beach.

    Wolfgang, I am sure Romans 13:11 means, at that time, the time for salvation to become a reality was close … as he stated by the expression that it was now “high time” …”

    I have been waiting 30 years, how many have you been waiting.

    Some thirty years ago I became a Christian and always would concider “well when is he coming back, why has not he come back yet, o yes “patience is a virtue” and one of the fruit of the spirit I am to produce according to the parable of the sower, and an attribute of the love of GOD as longsuffering, and I am supposed to have this patience thing while hoping for the return of Jesus Christ.

    Maybe you are in too much of a hurry.

    He(Jesus)said:

    Matthew 24: (all kjv)
    13 But he that shall *endure* unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    Mark 4:
    17 And have no root in themselves, and so *endure* but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended(greek “skandalon”).

    John 6:27
    27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which *endureth* unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

    Luke 8:
    15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with *patience*.

    Luke 21:
    19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

    Paul wrote, by revelation from Jesus Christ:

    Romans 5:
    3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh *patience*;

    4 And *patience*, experience; and experience, hope:

    Romans 8:
    25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with *patience* wait for it.

    Romans 15: (NASB)
    4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through *perseverance* and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

    Colossians 1:
    11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all *patience and longsuffering* with joyfulness;

    1 Thessalonians 1:
    3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and *patience of hope* in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

    1 Timothy 6:
    11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, *patience*, meekness.

    Wolfgang, are you still wondering why I posted Romans 13:11? Well in a few days I will be 71 years old. Thirty year ago i figured it would be soon that Jesus would have come back and he still has not come back.

    I continue to learn more and practice 2 Timothy 2:15 as commanded.

    Titus 2:2
    That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

    I can plainly see that what Jesus predicted for Jerusalem actually happened in 70 AD. I have even watched many utube video about the rack and ruin of King Davids city and the second temple. I do not believe that it is a myth.

    However I am more than certain that Jesus has not returned, the first Resurrection has not occurred and the next fruits are still asleep or with us alive today.

    Time is still slipping into the future:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb9By-lODgk

    Timothy

  215. on 04 Jan 2013 at 9:05 pmRay

    When men seek their own glory rather than the kingdom of heaven
    they don’t get along very well. Every tree is known by it’s fruit, Jesus said. The flesh is dead because of sin but the Spirit of God is life.

    Let’s all endeavor to seek the glory of God.

    Prov 9:1-6.

  216. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:30 pmWolfgang

    Jas,

    you wrote above

    They only were corrected about the timeframe by him telling them that only God knew what the time or period was not the kingdom

    on what scripture do you base this claim?
    According to Jesus’ statements on different occasions regarding the time of his coming, he knew very well about the timeframe and “time or period” of his coming … namely, and stated publicly that it would be during the time frame of “this (his) generation”, “while some standing here would still be alive (not see death”, “at the end of the age (the age in which he was living)”, “soon”, etc.

    He also compared the matter to the situation of a pregnant woman anticipating the birth of her child … now, are you telling us that the woman does not know the timeframe when she will give birth (approx 9 months from the time of conception) ? What is it, that neither the woman herself nor others know about the time of the birth? It is – to be understood literally — “the day nor the hour” !

    Yes, Jesus knew the timeframe / the general time or period and that it was to be rather soon and within a certain short amount of time ! What he did not know was “day or hour” (just as is the case with a pregnant woman anticipating the beginning of labor and the birth of her child), and thus he warned his disciples to watch out for certain things which would be indicators (signs) of the rapid approaching time of his coming (which – by the way – would be a coming in judgment (!), and not to establish “happy paradise on earth”) so they could escape with their life from the doomed area and city of Jerusalem.

  217. on 06 Jan 2013 at 4:58 pmJas

    Wolfgang
    They understood the sign of Jonah to have 2 possible outcomes and when none of the signs were apparent at the end of the 40 days they had no other choice to believe the warnings went the same way as the ones Jonah gave which were near,imminent ,at hand,soon and etc.
    Hindsight is the reason we know 40 days meant 40 years cause not even Jesus knew the timeframe or age this would come.
    Oh to answer your question to what verses I base my claim on I need no other than the one I was using.
    It is Perfectly Clear that Jesus only corrected the timeframe .Your belief makes the apostles look like dumb and dumber

  218. on 07 Jan 2013 at 3:08 amWolfgang

    Jas

    They understood the sign of Jonah to have 2 possible outcomes and when none of the signs were apparent at the end of the 40 days they had no other choice to believe the warnings went the same way as the ones Jonah gave which were near,imminent ,at hand,soon and etc.

    the sign of Jonah was this:
    The people of Niniveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and were spared …

    Israel had one greater than Jonah (the Messiah himself) preaching to them … they also had the opportunity to repent. Since they did not repent, calamity came upon them.

    The matter of 40 days, 40 years, etc. seems only secondary … and that Israel had a 40 years period may be connected somehow to the first 40 year period prior to entering the physical land after they came out of Egypt.

  219. on 07 Jan 2013 at 9:26 amJas

    Wolfgang
    Your right days or years is unimportant but the 2 paths are.In Acts 1 after being taught for 40 days ABOUT the kingdom the apostles certainly understood the nature of the kingdom which was understood by them as the restoration of Israel which Jesus at that time doesnt correct them but does correct them on timeframe.Why dont you understand that the remnant of Judah didnt repent and was exiled again along with the former exiles that never returned

  

Leave a Reply