The next temple.

Very good, that means Jer. 31 is fulfilled:

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Yet dispies such as Ryrie say the NC is not in effect yet. Who is right, you or Charles Ryrie?

Secondly, since when does it matter if the Jews or anyone else except the terms when God establishes a Covenant?

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Did Noah have to “ok it” first?

 

Well .. one more time. Replacement theology promotes the idea that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews, replacing them with Christians, the latter becoming his Chosen People. Dispensationalism is the opposite: God has not abandoned his promises made to the Jews; they remain his Chosen People, even though they rejected their Messiah.

God instituted the church as a ministry to the Gentiles and to those Jews who would believe. The Christian church is distinct from God's Chosen People, the Jews, as long as they reject him.

It's fairly obvious that the Jews rejected their Messiah: they crucified Him. In so doing, they rejected the Kingdom offer. They didn't "ok it" first. Thereafter, Paul was given the ministry to the Gentiles (and to believing Jews) in the form of the church. The church is made up of baptized believers. It is known as the Body of Christ. It is not the same as the Kingdom offered to the Jews.

Once the authentic, born-again, spiritual Christians are absent from earth, the antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel. The tribulation begins. During the tribulation, 144,000 Jewish converts to Christianity will minister. Many of those alive during the tribulation will be saved -- and subsequently slain. That's okay. They know where they are going. At the end of the tribulation Christ returns. This begins the Battle of Armageddon. At its conclusion, the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth in the Kingdom originally promised to the Jews begins. Christians who have already departed will not live on earth during the 1,000 year reign.

What's so difficult about the dispensational viewpoint? Anyone alive during the church age (the age before the tribulation) can accept Christ as Savior and Lord. The offer is freely given to all. Doesn't Covenant Theology promise the same thing? Covenant theologians believe that judgment day is coming. Dispensationalists have no argument with that. They propose that those who do not accept Christ go alive into the tribulation. They are, however, given another chance thru the witness of the 144,000. Sadly, many reject the opportunity.

Again: What's so difficult about that?

 

Once again, preterist believe God kept His promises made to the Jews.

Once again, where does scripture state the establishment of the Kingdom was conditional on Jewish acceptance? Daniel makes it clear it would be established during the Roman Empire.

Scripture?

"Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsey.

You mean other than scriptural difficulties? Like I asked earlier, show me in scripture where Jesus, John, Paul, Peter or anyone else said the coming Kingdom was ever conditional.

Had the Jews accepted their Messiah and God established the Kingdom, exactly when would Christ have died? Or would it not have been necessary? Was not the Cross the pathway to the Kingdom?

If the Kingdom is still future, when exactly is this scripture fulfilled:

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Who is this other nation and when is the Kingdom given to them? Who is it taken from?

 

Grasshopper wrote

I didn't know that you were a pro. Well, another pro wrote this from "The Believer's Bible Commentary" on Col.1:6:

"The truth of the Gospel had come to the Colossians even as it had in all the then-known world. This must not be taken in the absolute sense."

Adam Clarke writes: "As it is in all the world— So rapid is this traveler in his course, that he
had already gone nearly through the whole of the countries under the Roman dominion; and will travel on till he has proclaimed his message to every people, and kindred, and nation, and tongue."

There isn't a biblical historian in the world, other than you of course, that believes that Paul's travels led him to the Western Hemisphere.

But if you are right then I guess that we will have to change Columbus Day to Paul Day.

And on Col. 1:23 he writes: "To every creature which is under heaven— A Hebraism for the whole
human race, and particularly referring to the two grand divisions of mankind, the Jews and Gentiles; to both of these the Gospel had been
preached, and to each, salvation by Christ had been equally offered."

It does not literally mean to every creature in the world. And even if it did, it would not have included the new tribes and tongues of the last century, like the newly converted Mouk tribe in New Guinea.

You also failed to address that fact the Rev. 5:10 has the saints going back to the earth to reign as kings and priests. When did that happen pray tell?

 

You are starting to catch on, Paul wasn't speaking of the entire globe just as Revelation wasn't speaking of the entire globe.

Context Context Context

Matt.24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ) for a testimony unto all the nations ( eáqnov ) ; and then shall the end come.

Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations ( eáqnov) unto obedience of faith:

Romans 10:18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth ( gh=), And their words unto the ends of the world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ).

That’s funny, someone telling me I didn’t address a certain scripture when most of my questions are completely ignored.

 

(Adam Clark)

JackRUS thank you for that definition of world. I will be referring back to it in future posts.

 

To put it in a "nutshell", the "kingdom" was taken from Israel given to the Gentiles for the "Churuch age", this "kingdom" is a "spiritual Kingdom", "WITHIN YOU".

When Jesus returns, the Kingdom will be restored to Israel, but it is a "literal Kingdom", the "Mill Reign".

It goes from Israel to the Gentile,
Mt 20:16 So the last (Gentiles) shall be first,

From the Gentiles back to Israel,
Mt 20:16 and the first (Gentiles) last: (Israel/Mill Reign)

Zec 8:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.

Jesus said if his kingdom was of this world his servants would fight, but it's a "Spiritual Kingdom", however when he return, he does fight, to make this world his kingdom.

Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy "MOUNTAIN"(=Kingdom) for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Re 20:4 and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 

Amen, Brother Me4Him.
It all seems so simple when you explain it.
(If anybody is interested in complex explains,
you know I got it.
One of my Sunday School class complimented me
by saying that you can always depend on Ed
to make it more complicated Well, one
guy said YES and one guy said NO and actually,
in all sincerity, I can see they were both
right in what they were talking about.
So there was no need for
a YES-NO-YES-NO-YES-NO to follow, was there?)

 

Ya know Ed, it really is "simple", it only become "complicated" when ya try to force pieces of the puzzle into places they don't belong.

Off hand, I'd say "preconceived Ideas", "Dogmatic" has prevented more people from understanding the scriptures than the devil himself.

Children are much easier to teach than adults, they aren't dogmatic with preconceived ideas that must be corrected, and that's the only way we can learn the scripture as well, "Humble as a Child".

 

Jesus didn’t say the “spiritual” Kingdom would be taken from you, He said the “Kingdom of God” would be taken from them.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Where does the OT or NT ever say there are two Kingdoms, one spiritual and another physical? This kind of thinking makes the physical superior to the spiritual.

There is only one Kingdom of God:

Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

You make the same mistake the Jews made.

A spiritual Kingdom is literal.

Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

That is a warped interpretation of that verse.

Well, I’m glad to see you recognize the metaphoric usage of “mountains”. I’ll make a note of that for future reference.

 

Could you please in all humbleness tell us all where it states the Kingdom was conditional upon Jewish acceptance?

 

Could you please in all humbleness tell us all where it states the Kingdom was conditional upon Jewish acceptance? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not "eggactly" sure of the answer you're seeking, but I'll take a stab at it.

First, you don't get into either kingdom except under the "condition" of "believing in Jesus".

God's desire was for Israel to be a "light to the world", but they rejected the "light". (Jesus)

Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

This is why Jesus was send only to the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel.

God then used the Gentiles to "provoke" them to jealousy.

Ro 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

You'll have to be more "purrcise" if this doesn't answer your question.

 

The Pharisees, who by the way, knew NOTHING about 2 kingdoms or Ed's 3 kingdoms asked Jesus this question...

Luke 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be OBSERVED;

If Jesus came to die to establish the period of grace we are living in now, and the time of grace we are living in now is the church age, then patently, Jesus came to establish the Church. However, Jesus came to offer the kingdom (Repent, The Kingdom of God is at hand). Thus, in coming to establish the Church, and by offering the kingdom, Jesus was offering to establish the Church as the kingdom.

You cannot have it both ways either Jesus came to establish the Messianic kingdom or he did not.

In John Chapter 6 when Jesus fed the 5000 messianic fever was at its peak vs 14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

What did Jesus do, vs 16 So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, HE WITHDREW again to the mountain by Himself alone.

Israels desire for a king to sit on a physical throne comes from.

1 Sam 8:7 The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not REJECTED YOU , but they have REJECTED ME from being king over them.

Samuel said to Isreal in asking for a king they are rejecting God. They still wanted a king!

I Sam 10:19
you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, ‘ No, but set a king over us!’ Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans.”

So God gives them a 2nd cooling off period and comes back in Ch 12:17,18

Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the LORD, that He may send thunder and rain. Then you will know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the sight of the LORD by asking for yourselves a king

What were they doing in John Chapter 6? They were asking Jesus to BE THERE PHYSICAL KING

 

Correct, Jesus/church was a "mystery" not revealed to Israel in the OT.

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

And, BTW, neither was the rapture revealed to them, the whole church age is left out of the OT, it "Skips" the church age and pickup about the start of the trib. "CLUES" about it are there, but only clues.

MERCY, don't let a "calvinist" read this, the "possibility" that Israel could have accepted Jesus and became the "light of the world" is unacceptable to them.

But you are right, Jesus was only send to Israel, and for that very purpose, it was "offered" to them "FIRST", but they rejected it.

Mt 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan (Gentile) came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mt 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. (Gentiles)

Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The "bread" was offer to Israel, Jesus would have gather them under his wings, but they would not.

The "Messiah" described in the OT is the "Messiah" who comes in the "day of the Lord", Jesus's second coming, he destroys all of Israel's enemies, rebuild the temple, set up his Kingdom,

I think maybe that what they were trying to "force" Jesus into doing, maybe even Judas, thinking Jesus would use his power to resist "death" and over throw Rome.

Their "mind set" was for a literal Kingdom, not a "Spiritual Kingdom".

The "meek/mild" Messiah who came wasn't what they expected.

Mt 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

Many Jewish scholors believe in Two Messiahs, one riding a donkey, one a conquer, but either way, the Messiah they expect is a "MAN", much like "Moses/Elijah", not "God in the flesh".

 

There you go with your "mystery" again, the context in Eph 5:32 refers to Christ's body and the Church.

So Paul quotes from these "CLUES" and makes a completely new doctrine.

exactly they want a literal kingdom and king, to sit on a literal throne, and God said that was sin

Mal Ch 4 Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6“He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse

Matt 17:12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist

That Messiah already came and HE is the Temple.

Amazing that is the exact same "mind set" dispensationalists have.

This of course is an quotation of Isaiah 42:1-3

1“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
2 “He will not cry out or raise His voice,
Nor make His voice heard in the street.
3“A bruised reed He will not break
And a dimly burning wick
He will not extinguish;
He will faithfully bring forth justice.

strange how verse 17 in Matthew 12 says that was already fulfilled

This is because they want freedom from political bondage not from sin. They wanted Jesus to destroy the Romans and He did not.

By the way the topic of the post was the next temple. According to the Jews from "Jews for Judaism website"

This is about their supposed Messiah
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)

At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem. And worse, it was shortly after Jesus died that the Temple was DESTROYED! Just the opposite of this prophecy!

So which is it, unsaved Jews rebuild the temple (John 3:18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ) who are under judgement, and do not follow the conditions in Deut 28-30 in order for them to dwell in the land which is to obey the mosaic covenant or is it their Moshiach?

What happens to Israel in Deut 28-30 if they don't obey the Mosaic Covenant? Does the Mosaic Covenant still stand?

 

You are starting to catch on, Paul wasn't speaking of the entire globe just as Revelation wasn't speaking of the entire globe.

Context Context Context

Matt.24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ) for a testimony unto all the nations ( eáqnov ) ; and then shall the end come.

Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations ( eáqnov) unto obedience of faith:

Romans 10:18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth ( gh=), And their words unto the ends of the world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ).

That’s funny, someone telling me I didn’t address a certain scripture when most of my questions are completely ignored. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Grasshopper it was you that addressed my post on just the two verses, Rev. 5:9-10, that I brought up.

You tried to debunk the idea that the Gospel didn't go out to the whole world with your verses. I addressed those, and I don't care about how others treat your posts.

Then you own up to the fact that the Bible isn't talking about the whole world in your passages just after trying to pass them of as doing just that. And you talk about context!

But the Bible is speaking about the whole world in Rev. 5:9 since it says clearly that every kindred and tongue from the world is now present in heaven. How do you suggest that that could happen without the Gospel going to them as it is today? Rom. 1:16; 10:14-15

And as I said before, Rev. 5:10 proves full preterism to be bunk even more so than verse 9.

Are you starting to catch on yet?

 

I have never pretended to believe the Gospel went throughout the entire globe by AD70. You just assumed I believed that. (preterism 101)

Just because Revelation and other books speak of “world”, “every creature”, “all nations” does not mean entire Globe(context). That was the point I was making and am glad to see others now agree. So when dispies try to use Matt 24:14 as proof that preterism is wrong, you’ll now understand why that is so easily dismissed.

Here we go again.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Context is the 1st century. Just as Paul said the Gospel went to all nations and to every creature Revelation confirms it by stating there are those in heaven who were from those nations.

Because I don’t ignore context as you do.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Did it go to the Greeks in the 1st century?

I’m several steps ahead of you.

 

Suppose I told you that preterist were only "Fifty percent" correct, and most of the church is only "fifty percent" correct also, but if you'll put to two fifties together, you'll be "one hundred percent" correct.



Preterist only sees the events of the first coming, most of the church only sees the events of the second coming.

 

You don’t really know the definition of “preterist” do you?

 

You don’t really know the definition of “preterist” do you? </font>[/QUOTE]I seepose, like everything else, there's 9 million variation of their doctrine.