Understanding the 1000yr Reign?

[Brother Bob]

If the kingdom is already here, why did Paul encourage the believers to strive to enter into the kingdom (Act 14:22-24)?

Talking about the Flesh. We must bear the cross to wear the crown.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Why is the church still here then?

What ever happened to Daniel's 70th week?

Where's the man of lawlessness?

Why aren't the Jews regathered?

and so on.

Why did these thing not happen in their life time as they supposed? Could it be the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

BBob,

 

[skypair]

You make it up as you go.

That's unkind to say the least, Bob. What I am telling you is what most every Baptist outside the walls of your "compound" believes. Christ/Messiah came to His people but they rejected Him --- "voted" pretty much as one to crucify Him instead.

BTW; His Kingdom is here now. It is within us.

Yes, I agree -- in the Person of the Holy SPIRIT if one will accept Christ. This was true even during Christ's life for those who would ask for the Spirit according to J Vernon McGee though few (probably the ones resurrected from their graves in Mt 27), did so.

You don't have to instruct me on that point either.

Can you give scripture where His throne is actually on this earth???

Well, Luke 1:32-33. But that still won't be enough evidence for you, will it? Who is the "house of Jacob?" It is the physical descendants of the 12 brothers and tribes of JACOB'S seed. Isa 16:5 -- He will reign in the "tabernacle of David" -- David's earthly house. Where was the "throne of David" in Jer 36:30?

I mean God rules from Heaven now,...

What does He rule? Do you believe He will never rule the earth?

The sharp two edged sword, I take it to be the word of God. Do you take it to actually mean a sword of some kind?????

Rev 19:15.

You realize, I'm sure, that this is a very tedious discussion when you won't respond to the points I make. Can you please speak to the topics:

1) When God did fulfill the covenants I mentioned.

2) When was Rev 19:14?

3) Where do you get that the MK precedes the rapture?

4) Do you even acknowledge that the wild branches may be cut out and the natural grafted back in?

skypair

 

[skypair]

If the kingdom is already here, why did Paul encourage the believers to strive to enter into the kingdom (Act 14:22-24)?

Thank you, TC, for helping with this burden. It is good to be on the same side together with you. :wavey:

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Why did these thing not happen in their life time as they supposed? Could it be the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

BBob,

Were they supposed to happen in their lifetime?

When was Revelation written?

 

[TCGreek]

Thank you, TC, for helping with this burden. It is good to be on the same side together with you. :wavey:

skypair

Skypair, I think this is an important question.

For those who think the church is the kingdom or something like that, they must answer the question.

 

[TCGreek]

Talking about the Flesh. We must bear the cross to wear the crown.

BBob,

Bbob, did you read Acts 14:22-24?

How did you get flesh from that?

 

[skypair]

Why did these thing not happen in their life time as they supposed? Could it be the destruction of the temple in 70AD?

Are you asking us or telling us?? Could it be you don't know?

No. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is Mt 22:7. Do you see there that afterward more GUESTS were bidden (tribulation) and the king cast out the one who wore no wedding garment (Satan/AC)? Then the bride (church) was introduced to the GUESTS/Israel in the MK. Sorry -- no, you wouldn't see that either, would you?

How about this ---- God destroyed His own temple because Jesus was preached and believed by "all Israel" there and so they didn't need the temple anymore.

Oi Vey!

skypair

 

[TCGreek]

Are you asking us or telling us?? Could it be you don't know?

No. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD is Mt 22:7. Do you see there that afterward more GUESTS were bidden (tribulation) and the king cast out the one who wore no wedding garment (Satan/AC)? Then the bride (church) was introduced to the GUESTS/Israel in the MK. Sorry -- no, you wouldn't see that either, would you?

How about this ---- God destroyed His own temple because Jesus was preached and believed by "all Israel" there and so they didn't need the temple anymore.

Oi Vey!

skypair

I like your answer better. :thumbs:

 

[Brother Bob]

Bbob, did you read Acts 14:22-24?

How did you get flesh from that?

Now the Kingdom is within us and does not include the flesh. In "end times", death will be destroyed and it will be both soul and body who will be in the Kingdom of God. If you want to wear the crown, then you must bear the cross. There will be great tribulations before the "rapture" of which the saved will bear, but those days were shortened for the elects sake. The tribulations and the wrath of God are two different things, after the tribulations the church will be raptured and the world will be before the GWT and be judged and cast into the LoF.

The fourth beast is the Roman Empire, of which I still believe has power on this earth today, which I believe will grow and the head of Rome will have more power than anyone on earth, but will be destroyed in the end.

You say, we must answer your questions, when you never answer mine.

1. Did Jesus come to Israel to present the "new" covenant.
2. Did the elect receive Jesus and came under the new covenant
3. Were there a remnant of Israel that are under the new covenant.
4. Though Israel be as the sand of the sea, will only a remnant be saved?
5. Were the Gentiles grafted into the original Olive tree with the Original branches?
6. Were the Original branches Israel?
7. If not, why did God give the promise to another people when He said it would be to Israel.
8. Can you give scripture, where God changed His promise to Israel and give the new covenant to the Gentiles?

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Were they supposed to happen in their lifetime?

When was Revelation written?

Revelation spoke of the past, present and future.

TC:
Skypair, I think this is an important question.

The Flesh has not entered the Kingdom of God as of yet, has to wait for the resurrection.

For those who think the church is the kingdom or something like that, they must answer the question.

The church is in a warfare, and must fight the battle as long as they live for the Lord. It is not a bed of roses here on earth, but if we endure unto the end, henceforth there is a crown laid up for us. Then it will be both soul and body, a complete man. Not like the souls who lived and reigned a thousand years without their bodies. You all change the scripture to mean what you want, you take some of Rev. some of Ezk, some of Daniel and some of Amos and come up with an "end times". Well the Dispensationalist have been predicting an "end time" for years, and we are still here. Even from the days of Daniel, until present time. Almost ever time period, believed it would happen in their life time, and died with the world still standing.

Thank you, TC, for helping with this burden. It is good to be on the same side together with you. :wavey:

skypair

You do need all the help you can get Sky; I know where you can get a lot of help, go to the synagogues and ask them for help. They are still looking for the Messiah also.

I think it is shameful to say that Christ did not bring the "new" covenant to Israel, when scripture says, He came to His own. (which was Israel). You forget "as many as did receive Him".

Everything you speak of is an earthly and fleshly worship, which is how they worshipped God in the OT, (Book of Daniel). When Jesus came and died, He changed all that and put it in the heart, that where God seeks such to worship Him in Spirit and in truth. No more earthly temples, sacrifices, it is now by the Spirit.

Again, when you say that Jesus did not bring the "new" covenant to His own, you deny scripture. "as many as received Him, gave He them power to become the sons of God", that was the remnant of Israel, the "elect". The part that the Gentiles were grafted in too.
What you say, the Gentiles had nothing to be grafted in too.

Also, what you say, Israel did not have on the wedding garment and were cast into outer darkness also.

1John 1:
18: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1John 4:
3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Do you deny the scripture of 1John 4:3?

You believe God forknew all things. You believe the elect were predestinated. Tell me why did the Book of Jer. not tell us that Israel would reject the covenant that God was going to make with them?


BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

Now the Kingdom is within us and does not include the flesh. In "end times", death will be destroyed and it will be both soul and body who will be in the Kingdom of God. If you want to wear the crown, then you must bear the cross. There will be great tribulations before the "rapture" of which the saved will bear, but those days were shortened for the elects sake. The tribulations and the wrath of God are two different things, after the tribulations the church will be raptured and the world will be before the GWT and be judged and cast into the LoF.

Bbob, you must make a leap of logic to come awway with that soul and body notion in respect to the kingdom of God.

Btw, if the kingdom is within us, like you say, Why were not apostles of Jesus, following the resurrection of Christ asking, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

What was Jesus answer?

""It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority" (v.7).

Neither Jesus nor his disciples thought the kingdom was present. Am I missing something here?

The fourth beast is the Roman Empire, of which I still believe has power on this earth today, which I believe will grow and the head of Rome will have more power than anyone on earth, but will be destroyed in the end.

Ok

You say, we must answer your questions, when you never answer mine.

1. Did Jesus come to Israel to present the "new" covenant.
2. Did the elect receive Jesus and came under the new covenant
3. Were there a remnant of Israel that are under the new covenant.
4. Though Israel be as the sand of the sea, will only a remnant be saved?
5. Were the Gentiles grafted into the original Olive tree with the Original branches?
6. Were the Original branches Israel?
7. If not, why did God give the promise to another people when He said it would be to Israel.
8. Can you give scripture, where God changed His promise to Israel and give the new covenant to the Gentiles?

BBob,

Bbob, you will find that skypair and I may not answer the same on these questions.

1. Israel rejection of her Messiah was part of God's plan.

2. Within the church age, a remnant from among Israel will be saved, but this in no way annuls God's future plan for Israel.

3. Israelites who are saved in the church age are a remnant, and so too will be those saved during the tribulation period, beginning with the 144,000.

4. Well, Paul himself says that not all Israel is spiritual Israel (Rom 2:28, 29; 9:6).

5. The original branches are Israel, but God didn't give the promises promised to Israel to the Gentiles.

God's promises to Israel were unilateral not bilateral. Israel did nothing to receive them, and Israel can do nothing to lose them.

6. Gentiles were promised to be blessed from the new covenant (Ps 18:49).

Here is something else to consider: Paul says:

"Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!" (Rom 11:11, 12)

God still has a future for Israel beyond this church age.

 

[Brother Bob]

Bbob, you must make a leap of logic to come awway with that soul and body notion in respect to the kingdom of God.

Btw, if the kingdom is within us, like you say, Why were not apostles of Jesus, following the resurrection of Christ asking, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6)

What was Jesus answer?

""It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority" (v.7).

Neither Jesus nor his disciples thought the kingdom was present. Am I missing something here?

It is not a leap at all for me. Satan still buffets us in the flesh and as Paul, we desire to be with Christ, which is far better. I did not make up the part that the Kingdom is within us, Jesus said so. He did not say the outward man was in the Kingdom yet. What He did say to them it is not for us to know the day or the hour that He will come again, to fulfill His promise to deliver our body also.


Ok



Bbob, you will find that skypair and I may not answer the same on these questions.

1. Israel rejection of her Messiah was part of God's plan.

TC; I am at a loss here, no where can I find that Jesus would first give this "new" covenant to the Gentiles.

2. Within the church age, a remnant from among Israel will be saved, but this in no way annuls God's future plan for Israel.

But I find that only a remnant of Israel will be saved.

3. Israelites who are saved in the church age are a remnant, and so too will be those saved during the tribulation period, beginning with the 144,000.

That remnant also includes the Gentile nation, who believes. The Gentiles were grafted into something and I find that to be the Original branches of the Olive tree, which is the remnant of Israel.

4. Well, Paul himself says that not all Israel is spiritual Israel (Rom 2:28, 29; 9:6).

5. The original branches are Israel, but God didn't give the promises promised to Israel to the Gentiles.

God's promises to Israel were unilateral not bilateral. Israel did nothing to receive them, and Israel can do nothing to lose them.

No, but all Israel is not Israel, though the seed be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant shall be saved. That is scripture.

6. Gentiles were promised to be blessed from the new covenant (Ps 18:49).

Yes, but David and Israel were saved first, (the remnant) then the Gentiles were grafted into Israel and become as one. They never replaced Israel, but became a part of them.



Here is something else to consider: Paul says:

"Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!" (Rom 11:11, 12)

God still has a future for Israel beyond this church age.

Rom 11:14If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them.
Here is Paul speaking of the same group that you speak of, saying that he might provoke to emulation (them whch are) my flesh, and might save some of them, during the church age.


Thes were not Gentiles, but were Israel;

Jhn 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Don't you believe if they could receive Him in the "end times" that Jesus would of told them. Jesus said to them "Israelites", except you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins and where I am ye cannot come.
TC: Jesus tod the Israelites that, not the Gentiles.

If they died in their sins "Israelites" and could not be saved, then how could they be saved in the "end times"????? I mean, this is just as much "scripture" as anything you have quoted, is it not????

Again consider the scripture:

1John 4:
3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Do you deny the scripture of 1John 4:3?

You are teaching that all Israel will be saved.
They are teaching you will not.

The Christian Churches, with few exceptions, have rejected Israel's laws and adopted pagan customs instead. Rather than follow Yahweh's Sabbath and holy days (Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Penetecost, Trumpets, Yom Kippur, and Tabernacles) they have substituted pagan holidays like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, Lent, etc., and changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. A sign of the true people of Yahweh - of Messianic/Christian Israel (the 144,000) - is that she will be obeying all the commandments (Torah) and not just those that suit her. This includes many other things too such as Yahweh's laws of sexual purity, marriage and dietary laws.

BTW; I believe the saints that arose after Christ arose and went into that Holy City, were the 144,000.



BBob,

 

[skypair]

Bob,

You have a problem. You are "breathing out" but not "breathing in." That is, you willingly offer questions but won't answer any. Four things I asked you in my earlier post. You have yet to address one.

1) When God did fulfill the covenants I mentioned, particularly the one with Abraham?

2) When did Rev 19:14 occur?

3) Where do you get that the MK precedes the rapture?

4) Do you even acknowledge that the wild branches may be cut out and the natural grafted back in?

And when you breathe out, it is always the same misunderstood citations. Instance: "He came unto His own..." Yeah, but you never admit the rest of the same verse "... and His own received Him not!" BTW, NONE of us is saying Jesus didn't bring and offer the "new covenant" to His own people. You are purposely ignoring our protestations at this false accusation long enough!

Now I've known people to be "brainwashed" or "programmed" not to see or question things but they are usually from a) prison camps or b) cults. Surely that is not your case, is it?

When you say that we "cafeteria shop" through scriptures for dispensationalist prophecy (Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation), do you realize that only parts of those books ARE prophetic?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Bob,

OK, here's what I "get" is your eschatology: the temple and city that then existed were destroyed in 70 AD marking the end of the OT, Jewish tribulation.

Ostensibly, then, Christ came as the armies of Rome and though Christianity was outlawed for another 230 years, yet the Romans "ushered in" Christ's kingdom.

This reign of Christ -- in which He has NO earthly power -- is followed by a Christian tribulation so that the church can "earn" its crown.

Next is the rapture.

Next the great tribulation (???) and GWT. Huh? Does the GT = the GWT? Is there any time element in there? like 3 1/2 years? Who lives in the GT? If the church is gone, what is the religion of the "remnant" that remains?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Bob,

TC; I am at a loss here, no where can I find that Jesus would first give this "new" covenant to the Gentiles.

red herring, Bob. "First" has nothing to do with it.

But I find that only a remnant of Israel will be saved.

So you disbelieve Rom 11:26 when Paul said "ALL Israel will be saved." Or perhaps you just misunderstand that a living, believing remnant of Israel will be saved along with the resurrected OT and trib saints which constitute the rest of Israel --- this "all Israel" will RECEIVE Christ as Savior and be saved at that time.

That remnant also includes the Gentile nation, who believes.

Where do you get that the Gentiles as ever spoken of as a "remnant?" The "remnant" is always ethnic, religious, and national Israel, Bob. Go back and highlight every instance of "remnant" with definition.

God's promises to Israel were unilateral not bilateral. Israel did nothing to receive them, and Israel can do nothing to lose them.

Oh? Then I wonder what Deut 28-29 is all about. Are you saying that the Mosaic covenant is unilateral (I think the word you are looking for is "unconditional covenant")? And even admitting that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, when did Abraham or his seed ever possess the land forever (Gen 17:8).

No, but all Israel is not Israel, though the seed be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant shall be saved. That is scripture.

I don't think that is all in one place. I think you are jumbling together what you think you know. Do you have a citation for that?

Yes, but David and Israel were saved first, (the remnant) then the Gentiles were grafted into Israel and become as one. They never replaced Israel, but became a part of them.

That's just "replacement theology" (the "one fold" theory) turned on its head. That's why you are still a "legalist" to a great extent then, too, isn't it. By supplanting Israel, you cut "the apple of God's eye" -- ethnic, national, and religious Israel (the fig tree and the olive tree) -- out of any future. You're basically doing what the Muslims are trying to do, aren't you, Bob. Claiming ancestry and inheritance from Abraham and all the promises of the children of Israel to yourself. Nice job, Bob. Doing Satan's work for him.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

red herring, Bob. "First" has nothing to do with it.

So you disbelieve Rom 11:26 when Paul said "ALL Israel will be saved." Or perhaps you just misunderstand that a living, believing remnant of Israel will be saved along with the resurrected OT and trib saints which constitute the rest of Israel --- this "all Israel" will RECEIVE Christ as Savior and be saved at that time.

Where do you get that the Gentiles as ever spoken of as a "remnant?" The "remnant" is always ethnic, religious, and national Israel, Bob. Go back and highlight every instance of "remnant" with definition.

Oh? Then I wonder what Deut 28-29 is all about. Are you saying that the Mosaic covenant is unilateral (I think the word you are looking for is "unconditional covenant")? And even admitting that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, when did Abraham or his seed ever possess the land forever (Gen 17:8).

I don't think that is all in one place. I think you are jumbling together what you think you know. Do you have a citation for that?

That's just "replacement theology" (the "one fold" theory) turned on its head. That's why you are still a "legalist" to a great extent then, too, isn't it. By supplanting Israel, you cut "the apple of God's eye" -- ethnic, national, and religious Israel (the fig tree and the olive tree) -- out of any future. You're basically doing what the Muslims are trying to do, aren't you, Bob. Claiming ancestry and inheritance from Abraham and all the promises of the children of Israel to yourself. Nice job, Bob. Doing Satan's work for him.

skypair

You seem to be filled with "vitriol". You don't discuss scripture, you chop it all up to your own warped theology. Too bad. People like you is why the ministers of God have to work so hard.
I have know several like you and some who do not even belong to church. Are you a follower of Armstrong???

1) When God did fulfill the covenants I mentioned, particularly the one with Abraham?

The one with Abraham is as long as there is Abraham's seed. Also, He was before Jacob.

The one with Israel, is when Jesus came to die on the cross. He came to His own and as many as received Him, He gave them power to become the sons of God.


2) When did Rev 19:14 occur?

Still going on today, the sword is the "word of God" which cuts to and fro. He rules with a rod of iron, you either believe or you don't.

3) Where do you get that the MK precedes the rapture?

Jesus's eschatology leaves not room for it to be in the "end times". It is a quick work He will do.

You need to include Jesus in your Bible discussion, it really is the foundation of it all.

4) Do you even acknowledge that the wild branches may be cut out and the natural grafted back in?

It says they could be cut off and if you believe in a "fall" then I guess they could. Scripture also says he that tastes of the good fruits of the Lord and if he were to fall to renew him again to repentance is impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBob
TC; I am at a loss here, no where can I find that Jesus would first give this "new" covenant to the Gentiles.

red herring, Bob. "First" has nothing to do with it.

Show where He made the covenant to the Gentiles or just keep quiet, it looks better on you.

Quote:
But I find that only a remnant of Israel will be saved.
So you disbelieve Rom 11:26 when Paul said "ALL Israel will be saved." Or perhaps you just misunderstand that a living, believing remnant of Israel will be saved along with the resurrected OT and trib saints which constitute the rest of Israel --- this "all Israel" will RECEIVE Christ as Savior and be saved at that time.

I believe scripture, not you for sure.

Rom 9:27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Quote:
That remnant also includes the Gentile nation, who believes.
Where do you get that the Gentiles as ever spoken of as a "remnant?" The "remnant" is always ethnic, religious, and national Israel, Bob. Go back and highlight every instance of "remnant" with definition.

Again, I believe scripture and not you.

Rom 11:5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Quote:
God's promises to Israel were unilateral not bilateral. Israel did nothing to receive them, and Israel can do nothing to lose them.
Oh? Then I wonder what Deut 28-29 is all about. Are you saying that the Mosaic covenant is unilateral (I think the word you are looking for is "unconditional covenant")? And even admitting that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, when did Abraham or his seed ever possess the land forever (Gen 17:8).

Take this up with TC;, it is his quote, not mine.

Quote:
No, but all Israel is not Israel, though the seed be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant shall be saved. That is scripture.
I don't think that is all in one place. I think you are jumbling together what you think you know. Do you have a citation for that?

Rom 9:27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Quote:
Yes, but David and Israel were saved first, (the remnant) then the Gentiles were grafted into Israel and become as one. They never replaced Israel, but became a part of them.
That's just "replacement theology" (the "one fold" theory) turned on its head. That's why you are still a "legalist" to a great extent then, too, isn't it. By supplanting Israel, you cut "the apple of God's eye" -- ethnic, national, and religious Israel (the fig tree and the olive tree) -- out of any future. You're basically doing what the Muslims are trying to do, aren't you, Bob. Claiming ancestry and inheritance from Abraham and all the promises of the children of Israel to yourself. Nice job, Bob. Doing Satan's work for him.

skypair

If Israel is the Original branches that the wild branches were grafted in to, that is not replacement, but inclusion.


Now, maybe you can rest, I have answered all your questions with scripture. Call your Jewish friends and find out what to say next.



BBob,

 

[skypair]

BBob,

The one with Abraham is as long as there is Abraham's seed.

Yet they (neither the church nor Israel) don't possess all the land God showed Abraham nor have they ever, right?

The one with Israel, is when Jesus came to die on the cross. He came to His own and as many as received Him, He gave them power to become the sons of God.

OK, I know of a Mosaic Covenant, a Deuteronomic Covenant, a Davidic Covenant and a New Covenant with Israel. So there's 2 more promises to be fulfilled/kept. My point being that all God's promises to a distinct nation, race, and religion have not been fulfilled, have they? If so, when?

Still going on today, the sword is the "word of God" which cuts to and fro. He rules with a rod of iron, you either believe or you don't.

So we are succeeding in taking over planet earth by force now for and with Christ?

Jesus's eschatology leaves not room for it to be in the "end times". It is a quick work He will do.

It seems that, according to your interpretation of Rev 19:14, that "work" is taking 2000 years so far. :laugh:

It says they could be cut off and if you believe in a "fall" then I guess they could.

"If I believe in a fall" -- and you do, right? Cause the first branches were cut out in "unbelief," right? But "unbelief" in what? In the new covenant, Bob! So is God going to change covenants again causing some to be "cut off?" SURE!! The tree is going back to the natural tree with natural branches! It's called the 70th week of Daniel's 1) people and 2) their holy city, Dan 9:24, and it is followed by the MK of MESSIAH with Israel under the new covenant which they then will accept. We church know it as the tribulation followed by the MK of Christ.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I believe scripture, not you for sure.

Rom 9:27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Thank you for showing me that. But Isaiah was clearly talking about the just prior to the return of Christ, right? OK, how is it that His return wasn't as Zech 14 describes it?

If Israel is the Original branches that the wild branches were grafted in to, that is not replacement, but inclusion.

Ah, yes. That is the term I was looking for. So the Gentiles are included" in Israel's promises. Still, when do we receive the land promised to Abraham, etc.?

Now, maybe you can rest, I have answered all your questions with scripture. Call your Jewish friends and find out what to say next.

Jewish friends? You're one of them, aren't you? Self-described as being so Mr Israel. :laugh:

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

Then it will be both soul and body, a complete man. Not like the souls who lived and reigned a thousand years without their bodies. You all change the scripture to mean what you want, you take some of Rev.

Scripture does not say what you are implying, here, in Rev. 20:4. Ergo, the charge of "change the scripture to mean what you want" is not warranted, and this is "theology", at best. The verse says "...and they lived and reigned...", with they referring back referring back to "those" and "who", throughout the verse.

You do need all the help you can get Sky; I know where you can get a lot of help, go to the synagogues and ask them for help. They are still looking for the Messiah also.

Sounds to me like someone's salvation is being at least doubted, here. Anyone who is "still looking for the Messiah" is not saved, by definition, as I understand Scripture.

Ed