Premillennialism contradicts scripture (1 Corinthians 15:50-54) by having mortal flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I agree. It's important to note that the criteria for eternal life, as discussed in Matthew 25, differ from the criteria for participating in the rapture. The requirement for the rapture is simply that a person belongs to Christ. In contrast, the criteria for being considered a "sheep" involve how individuals treat Christ's disciples and apostles. Integrating this understanding into our eschatological framework poses a challenge, but we cannot overlook the facts of the matter.

The criteria is not different. You are just not understanding that those who belong to Christ are those whose works reflect their faith in Christ.

And, once again, you are trying to say "the least of these" His brethren refer to His disciples and apostles in general. No, He was only referring to the least of them who follow Him.

Jesus doesn't give a reason for the delay, but if we understand the purpose of the Millennial Period, we can deduce the reason.

The purpose of "the Millennial Period" is to preach the gospel to the world in order to give them the hope of eternal life that the vast majority of the world did not have in Old Testament times to the point where Paul said the Gentiles of those times had "no hope" and were "without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:11-12).

The sheep and goat judgment was preceded by a war between Israel and the rest of the nations.

You believe that the sheep and goat judgment already occurred?

I suspect that when the war is over, loyalties will be in doubt among the survivors. Therefore, the survivors will be evaluated according to a strict criterion, and those who gave comfort and aid to Jesus' followers will live, and the rest will be destroyed.

Now you're saying "will be", so you see it as happening in the future? You are hard to follow. I may have mentioned that before.

You implied that I denied that, and if that is what you think I said, then I miscommunicated.

It happens.

The point is, the kingdom of God DID come with observation. Nicodemus saw the miracles, and he recognized the kingdom of God. Thomas put his hands into the wounds of Jesus. The pilgrims saw and heard the apostles speak in tongues and perform miracles. The apostles witnessed the Gentiles speaking in tongues. The Galatians saw miraculous signs. Paul performed the signs of an apostle. In all these various ways, the kingdom of God came with observation.

You do not understand what Jesus meant by that. It did NOT come with observation in the sense of how an earthly kingdom is established. Instead, came by way of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the hearts of believers which is not something we can observe. But, the actions of people who have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit can be seen, but that's not what Jesus was talking about.

If Jesus was ruling the Earth from heaven, we would witness it.

Like the Pharisees, you think the Messiah should be a dictator who controls everything that goes on throughout the earth. He does not rule that way. God has never ruled that way. He intervenes in the world, as necessary, and nothing happens without His permission, but He doesn't control everything that happens.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The criteria is not different. You are just not understanding that those who belong to Christ are those whose works reflect their faith in Christ.

I'm not speculating here. Jesus clearly states that the criteria for eternal life during the sheep and goat judgment are how a person treated Jesus and His followers. Ask anyone today, and they will say that the criteria for eternal life are belief in the Gospel and trusting Jesus Christ. These are two sets of criteria.

And, once again, you are trying to say "the least of these" His brethren refer to His disciples and apostles in general. No, He was only referring to the least of them who follow Him.

I don't see the distinction you are making.

The purpose of "the Millennial Period" is to preach the gospel to the world in order to give them the hope of eternal life that the vast majority of the world did not have in Old Testament times to the point where Paul said the Gentiles of those times had "no hope" and were "without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:11-12).

Could you tell me how you arrived at your conclusion? I don't see anything in the Bible that defines the Millennial Period that way.

You believe that the sheep and goat judgment already occurred?

No. I was speaking in the past tense as if the events had already taken place. I thought you would follow me.

Now you're saying "will be", so you see it as happening in the future? You are hard to follow. I may have mentioned that before.

You do not understand what Jesus meant by that. It did NOT come with observation in the sense of how an earthly kingdom is established.

Is that what Jesus meant? I don't think so. Remember, he says that the Kingdom was not coming by observation so that someone might say, "Here it is, or There it is." He says that the Kingdom of God is within you. Why did he say that?

Consider the context and the events that led up to his statement. What just happened right before this?

Luke 17:20-22 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; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”​

Jesus had just healed ten lepers. The kingdom of God was already approaching with signs to be observed, and yet the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom of God would come. He tells them, "The kingdom of God is in your midst." In other words, it's already here. It isn't a matter of Jesus displaying signs for them to observe. Rather, it's a matter of their willingness to see the signs for what they represent.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not speculating here. Jesus clearly states that the criteria for eternal life during the sheep and goat judgment are how a person treated Jesus and His followers. Ask anyone today, and they will say that the criteria for eternal life are belief in the Gospel and trusting Jesus Christ. These are two sets of criteria.

Our works reflect whether or not we believe in the gospel and trust Jesus Christ. Have you never read this...

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus's sheep are those who believe in the gospel and trust in Him and they show it by their fruits/actions. People are known by their fruits because our actions reflect what we believe. Notice verse 19 above. That describes the goats who do not bring forth the good fruit/works that God has prepared for those who are saved (Eph 2:8-10), showing that they do not belong to Christ and they are then cast into the fire, which is the "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41).

I don't see the distinction you are making

Of course you don't. You think all His followers are "the least of these" who have no shelter, clothing, food or drink or are sick or in prison?

Could you tell me how you arrived at your conclusion? I don't see anything in the Bible that defines the Millennial Period that way.

Haha. Have you never read any of my arguments in favor of Amillennialism? Do you really not know why I interpret Revelation 20 the way I do? You haven't seen any of the many times I've pointed out that Jesus started reigning after His resurrection?

By the way, there is nothing in the Bible which explicitly defines the Millennial Period the way you understand it, either.

No. I was speaking in the past tense as if the events had already taken place. I thought you would follow me.

You are truly a funny one. As I may have said before, you are hard to follow sometimes.

Is that what Jesus meant?

Obviously, I believe so or I wouldn't have said it.

I don't think so.

What a shocker.

Remember, he says that the Kingdom was not coming by observation so that someone might say, "Here it is, or There it is." He says that the Kingdom of God is within you. Why did he say that?

Because it's spiritual in nature, as I said. How is the kingdom of God within someone? By way of the Holy Spirit who we cannot see.

Consider the context and the events that led up to his statement. What just happened right before this?

Luke 17:20-22 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; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”​

Jesus had just healed ten lepers. The kingdom of God was already approaching with signs to be observed, and yet the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom of God would come. He tells them, "The kingdom of God is in your midst." In other words, it's already here. It isn't a matter of Jesus displaying signs for them to observe. Rather, it's a matter of their willingness to see the signs for what they represent.

No idea what you're saying. Agree to disagree.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Our works reflect whether or not we believe in the gospel and trust Jesus Christ. Have you never read this.

I agree. However, in the case of the sheep and goats judgment, those who belong to Christ are the second party in a three-party evaluation: Jesus, his brothers, and the sheep or goats. In other words, the sheep and goats are not brothers. The question is whether they are brothers. The question is how they treated the brothers.

Of course you don't. You think all His followers are "the least of these" who have no shelter, clothing, food or drink or are sick or in prison?

And? What about it?

Haha. Have you never read any of my arguments in favor of Amillennialism? Do you really not know why I interpret Revelation 20 the way I do?

Are you asking two questions or one? It sounds as if your understanding of Revelation 20 comes from Amillennialism rather than your investigative study. I suspected you weren't thinking for yourself, so I asked the question. You have no reason to believe the way you do. I was curious because I was hoping you had a rational basis for your beliefs. The Amillennial position, on the face of it, is arbitrary and contrived, seeming devised to "solve" a hermeneutical problem that no longer exists.

By the way, there is nothing in the Bible which explicitly defines the Millennial Period the way you understand it, either.

On the contrary, John says there will be a thousand years when Jesus will rule on earth and his followers will rule with him. The idea is clearly revealed in many other places in the Bible.

You are truly a funny one. As I may have said before, you are hard to follow sometimes.

You should attempt to provisionally suspend your own beliefs before attempting to understand another's beliefs.

Because it's spiritual in nature, as I said. How is the kingdom of God within someone? By way of the Holy Spirit who we cannot see.

Jesus wasn't talking about inwardness in that context. Remember the context? He just healed 10 lepers. The Kingdom of God was ALREADY evident.

 

[WPM]

in the case of the sheep and goats judgment, those who belong to Christ are the second party in a three-party evaluation: Jesus, his brothers, and the sheep or goats. In other words, the sheep and goats are not brothers. The question is whether they are brothers. The question is how they treated the brothers.

No. That is your invented theology. That is not what the Bible teaches. There are two peoples on this earth - saved and lost. The brethren are the elect. The redeemed (the brethren) care for each other, the religious unregenerate does not. That is what this narrative is teaching.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree. However, in the case of the sheep and goats judgment, those who belong to Christ are the second party in a three-party evaluation: Jesus, his brothers, and the sheep or goats. In other words, the sheep and goats are not brothers. The question is whether they are brothers. The question is how they treated the brothers.

I have no idea of what you're saying here.

And? What about it?

How do you conclude that all of Christ's followers are "the least of these" His brethren? The least of these are those who are homeless and need food and drink and are in the hospital or in prison. That does not describe all of His followers.

Are you asking two questions or one? It sounds as if your understanding of Revelation 20 comes from Amillennialism rather than your investigative study.

LOL. Why should I bother continuing to talk to you if you don't remember anything I tell you about what I believe?

I suspected you weren't thinking for yourself, so I asked the question. You have no reason to believe the way you do.

I see that you have decided to talk nothing but nonsense.

I was curious because I was hoping you had a rational basis for your beliefs.

I have shared my rational basis for my beliefs MANY times with you. Do you forget everything you read?

The Amillennial position, on the face of it, is arbitrary and contrived, seeming devised to "solve" a hermeneutical problem that no longer exists.

LOL. Such a meaningless comment. You have proven that you are completely incapable of refuting Amillennialism. Your arguments are a complete joke most of the time.

On the contrary, John says there will be a thousand years when Jesus will rule on earth and his followers will rule with him. The idea is clearly revealed in many other places in the Bible.

No, it is not.

You should attempt to provisionally suspend your own beliefs before attempting to understand another's beliefs.

LOL. I understand your beliefs and I understand that they are false.

Jesus wasn't talking about inwardness in that context. Remember the context? He just healed 10 lepers. The Kingdom of God was ALREADY evident.

Yeah, you know nothing about spiritual things, so I know there's no way I can get you to understand the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God by way of the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts.

 

[Marilyn C]

Paul made it very clear that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.

But, Premillennialism contradicts this by having "the righteous" with mortal flesh and blood bodies that are represented by "the sheep" inheriting the kingdom of God when Jesus returns.

Hi SI,

Let`s look at bit closer.

We know that when the Lord has put down all rule, authority and power with death as the last then He delivers the kingdom up to the Father. Then, we see that the great Kingdom of God is over all. (1 Cor. 15: 28)

Now, when Jesus was manifest on earth He was confirming the promises to the fathers. (Rom. 15: 8) And one of those was God`s ruler through Israel over the nations. (Dan. 7: 27)

And this rule of the God of heaven was told to the prophet Daniel as ``the God of heaven will set up a kingdom...` (Dan. 2: 44) Jesus shortened that phrase to the kingdom of heaven, being God`s rule (God of heaven) through Israel over the nations. And that rule is still in time, the millennium and thus `flesh and blood` are still there.

So, two different phrases for two different times.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hi SI,

Let`s look at bit closer.

We know that when the Lord has put down all rule, authority and power with death as the last then He delivers the kingdom up to the Father. Then, we see that the great Kingdom of God is over all. (1 Cor. 15: 28)

Now, when Jesus was manifest on earth He was confirming the promises to the fathers. (Rom. 15: 8) And one of those was God`s ruler through Israel over the nations. (Dan. 7: 27)

And this rule of the God of heaven was told to the prophet Daniel as ``the God of heaven will set up a kingdom...` (Dan. 2: 44) Jesus shortened that phrase to the kingdom of heaven, being God`s rule (God of heaven) through Israel over the nations. And that rule is still in time, the millennium and thus `flesh and blood` are still there.

So, two different phrases for two different times.

Nope. There is only one kingdom of God and Paul references it in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. That is the kingdom that all who belong to God will inherit when Jesus returns at the last trumpet. There is no other kingdom of God. Dispensationalism has to invent multiple kingdoms of God, multiple resurrections, multiple last days, multiple last trumpets, and so on in order to stay afloat. I can't take it seriously at all.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I have no idea of what you're saying here.

It is very simple. Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. The sheep are given eternal life because they treated Jesus' brothers well. They are not disciples/apostles themselves; otherwise, they would be brothers instead of sheep.

How do you conclude that all of Christ's followers are "the least of these" His brethren?

Jesus refers to them as "brothers" earlier in Matthew 12, Luke 8, Mark 3.

The least of these are those who are homeless and need food and drink and are in the hospital or in prison. That does not describe all of His followers.

Maybe, maybe not.

LOL. Why should I bother continuing to talk to you if you don't remember anything I tell you about what I believe?

You really are touchy. Just answer the question.

I see that you have decided to talk nothing but nonsense.

Is that what you see?

I have shared my rational basis for my beliefs MANY times with you.

You have not. You have stated your belief, but you have not explained how you arrived at your belief. You complain when people such as I state something contrary to the Amillennial position, implying that you believe everything the Amillennial position states. Also, you previously said someone else convinced you that the Amillennial position is true.

I know why I believe what I believe, and I assumed you knew what you believed. But I guess I am wrong. You don't seem to have rational conclusions but merely religious ones. Otherwise, you would be able to provide reasons -- calmly and without insults and impatience.

No, it is not.

Yes, it is.

LOL. I understand your beliefs and I understand that they are false.

You often mistake "disagreement" with "falsification." The two are very different. If we disagree, we both hold different opinions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one side is right while the other is wrong. We might both be wrong.

Falsification, on the other hand, is the act of proving that something is false. I have proven your views to be false because I have shown evidence that contradicts your interpretation. Typically, you say one of two things in response: "I don't understand what you said," or "That is ridiculous," or "That is nonsense. Now, hypothetically, my statement might be ridiculous or nonsensical. I'll grant that if you provide an objective, rational argument in opposition.

When you dismiss my statements as "ridiculous" without providing an objective argument, there are several reasons. Only you can say which of these applies to you. You are emotional, reacting to me out of frustration, pride, or embarrassment. You lack evidence; you sense that I am wrong but you haven't gathered any factual support to disprove my statement. You are under social influence, labeling my ideas as "ridiculous" because they conflict with what you and your friends believe. Or you are simply lazy, avoiding the burden of argument.

Yeah, you know nothing about spiritual things, so I know there's no way I can get you to understand the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God by way of the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts.

You are the one who doesn't understand spiritual matters. Here's another example of your confusion, which stems from your cognitive biases. You believe that, according to Amillennialism, the kingdom God will establish on Earth is a "spiritual" kingdom. Since I affirm the Biblical view that the kingdom will be a physical kingdom on Earth, you claim that I lack an understanding of spiritual matters. In short, because I disagree with your perspective, you suggest that I don't have the ability to comprehend it.

Your argument reflects a tendency to use oneself as the standard for evaluating others. Those who agree with you are right, and those who disagree with you are wrong.

How's that working for you?

 

[WPM]

It is very simple. Jesus separates the sheep from the goats. The sheep are given eternal life because they treated Jesus' brothers well. They are not disciples/apostles themselves; otherwise, they would be brothers instead of sheep.

Jesus refers to them as "brothers" earlier in Matthew 12, Luke 8, Mark 3.

Maybe, maybe not.

You really are touchy. Just answer the question.

Is that what you see?

You have not. You have stated your belief, but you have not explained how you arrived at your belief. You complain when people such as I state something contrary to the Amillennial position, implying that you believe everything the Amillennial position states. Also, you previously said someone else convinced you that the Amillennial position is true.

I know why I believe what I believe, and I assumed you knew what you believed. But I guess I am wrong. You don't seem to have rational conclusions but merely religious ones. Otherwise, you would be able to provide reasons -- calmly and without insults and impatience.


Yes, it is.

You often mistake "disagreement" with "falsification." The two are very different. If we disagree, we both hold different opinions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one side is right while the other is wrong. We might both be wrong.

Falsification, on the other hand, is the act of proving that something is false. I have proven your views to be false because I have shown evidence that contradicts your interpretation. Typically, you say one of two things in response: "I don't understand what you said," or "That is ridiculous," or "That is nonsense. Now, hypothetically, my statement might be ridiculous or nonsensical. I'll grant that if you provide an objective, rational argument in opposition.

When you dismiss my statements as "ridiculous" without providing an objective argument, there are several reasons. Only you can say which of these applies to you. You are emotional, reacting to me out of frustration, pride, or embarrassment. You lack evidence; you sense that I am wrong but you haven't gathered any factual support to disprove my statement. You are under social influence, labeling my ideas as "ridiculous" because they conflict with what you and your friends believe. Or you are simply lazy, avoiding the burden of argument.



You are the one who doesn't understand spiritual matters. Here's another example of your confusion, which stems from your cognitive biases. You believe that, according to Amillennialism, the kingdom God will establish on Earth is a "spiritual" kingdom. Since I affirm the Biblical view that the kingdom will be a physical kingdom on Earth, you claim that I lack an understanding of spiritual matters. In short, because I disagree with your perspective, you suggest that I don't have the ability to comprehend it.

Your argument reflects a tendency to use oneself as the standard for evaluating others. Those who agree with you are right, and those who disagree with you are wrong.

How's that working for you?

No. That is your invented theology. That is not what the Bible teaches. There are two peoples on this earth - saved and lost. The brethren are the elect. The redeemed (the brethren) care for each other, the religious unregenerate does not. That is what this narrative is teaching.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. That is your invented theology. That is not what the Bible teaches. There are two peoples on this earth - saved and lost. The brethren are the elect. The redeemed (the brethren) care for each other, the religious unregenerate does not. That is what this narrative is teaching.

Could you defend your objection?

 

[WPM]

Could you defend your objection?

I did. Read the text!

 

[Marilyn C]

Nope. There is only one kingdom of God and Paul references it in 1 Corinthians 15:50-54. That is the kingdom that all who belong to God will inherit when Jesus returns at the last trumpet. There is no other kingdom of God. Dispensationalism has to invent multiple kingdoms of God, multiple resurrections, multiple last days, multiple last trumpets, and so on in order to stay afloat. I can't take it seriously at all.

Yes, there is only one kingdom, however, there are multiple rulerships under the Lord.

`For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.` (Col. 1: 16)

Thrones, plural.

As I said the kingdom rule of God will be over all when Jesus puts down all rule, authority and power and delivers up the kingdom rule to God. (1 Cor. 15: 28)

The kingdom rule of the God of heaven will be through Israel over the nations in the millennium. (Dan. 7: 27) God`s word calls it - the God of heaven will set up a kingdom (rule). Jesus shortened that to `Kingdom (rule) of the (God of) heaven.` (Dan. 2: 44)

It is not the final Kingdom rule of God in eternity but His rule in the millennium.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, there is only one kingdom, however, there are multiple rulerships under the Lord.

`For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.` (Col. 1: 16)

Thrones, plural.

As I said the kingdom rule of God will be over all when Jesus puts down all rule, authority and power and delivers up the kingdom rule to God. (1 Cor. 15: 28)

The kingdom rule of the God of heaven will be through Israel over the nations in the millennium. (Dan. 7: 27) God`s word calls it - the God of heaven will set up a kingdom (rule). Jesus shortened that to `Kingdom (rule) of the (God of) heaven.` (Dan. 2: 44)

It is not the final Kingdom rule of God in eternity but His rule in the millennium.

Daniel 7
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

There is no mention of Israel in Daniel 7:27. The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Church.

Matthew 21:43
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.

1 Peter 2
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The saints are clearly identified in the verses below -- they are those in Christ Jesus, His Church.

1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Philippians 4:21
Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Daniel 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

God set up His Kingdom in the absence of any earthly millennium, in the days of the Roman kings, 2,000 years ago.

 

[Marilyn C]

Daniel 7
27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

There is no mention of Israel in Daniel 7:27. The kingdom was taken from Israel and given to the Church.

Matthew 21:43
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.

1 Peter 2
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

The saints are clearly identified in the verses below -- they are those in Christ Jesus, His Church.

1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Philippians 4:21
Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.

Colossians 1:2
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Daniel 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

God set up His Kingdom in the absence of any earthly millennium, in the days of the Roman kings, 2,000 years ago.

Hi covenanee,

So where is the Body of Christ mentioned in the Old Testament?

And why does Jesus by His Holy Spirit say through the Apostle Paul that the revelation of the Body of Christ was not revealed before but to him? (Eph. 3: 1 - 7)

Jesus when manifest as a man on earth told the rulers of Israel that the rulership had been taken from them (specifically) and given to another rule in Israel. That is when Jesus reveals Himself to Israel at the end of the trib, and Israel then rules over the nations as promised.

(Zech. 12: 10. 14: 16)

 

[covenantee]

Hi covenanee,

So where is the Body of Christ mentioned in the Old Testament?

And why does Jesus by His Holy Spirit say through the Apostle Paul that the revelation of the Body of Christ was not revealed before but to him? (Eph. 3: 1 - 7)

Jesus when manifest as a man on earth told the rulers of Israel that the rulership had been taken from them (specifically) and given to another rule in Israel. That is when Jesus reveals Himself to Israel at the end of the trib, and Israel then rules over the nations as promised.

(Zech. 12: 10. 14: 16)

Hi Marilyn,

Do you agree with Paul's definition of "saints"?

Here's what was revealed to him:
Ephesians 3
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

The Kingdom was not given to another rule in Israel. Otherwise Matthew 21:43 would in essence mean:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from Israel and given to Israel.

Rather, it was given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

There is only one Nation that fulfills that description.

It is the Holy Nation of the Church. 1 Peter 2:9

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Marilyn,

Do you agree with Paul's definition of "saints"?

Here's what was revealed to him:
Ephesians 3
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

The Kingdom was not given to another rule in Israel. Otherwise Matthew 21:43 would in essence mean:
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from Israel and given to Israel.

Rather, it was given to a Nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

There is only one Nation that fulfills that description.

It is the Holy Nation of the Church. 1 Peter 2:9

Hi covenantee,

Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who defines `saints.` Matt. 27: 52 speaks of the OT saints coming out of their graves after Jesus` resurrection Then in 1 Cor. 1: 2 we read of those at Corinth called to be saints. The same Greek word `hagios` is used, meaning `sacred.`

Now you may not have realized but it seems that by rejecting Israel you have made God out to be `silly.` You see God is omniscient (all knowing) and having made Israel and working with them for centuries it seems you think that a few Pharisees can nullify God`s work. God has not cast-off Israel but will again take them up and connect with them. That nation will be the rulers over the nations in the millennium.

Hope you can think through that.

 

[covenantee]

Hi covenantee,

Actually, it is the Holy Spirit who defines `saints.` Matt. 27: 52 speaks of the OT saints coming out of their graves after Jesus` resurrection Then in 1 Cor. 1: 2 we read of those at Corinth called to be saints. The same Greek word `hagios` is used, meaning `sacred.`

Now you may not have realized but it seems that by rejecting Israel you have made God out to be `silly.` You see God is omniscient (all knowing) and having made Israel and working with them for centuries it seems you think that a few Pharisees can nullify God`s work. God has not cast-off Israel but will again take them up and connect with them. That nation will be the rulers over the nations in the millennium.

Hope you can think through that.

Hi Marilyn,

Paul's descriptions of the saints are in complete inspired harmony with all other Scriptural descriptions of the saints.

God's free gift of salvation in Christ is extended to the entire world, Israel included.

Sadly, multitudes will reject it, and be lost. There is no hope for anyone, Israel or otherwise, outside of Christ.

But as many as receive it will be saved, and empowered to become the sons and daughters of God. John 1:12

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hi covenanee,

So where is the Body of Christ mentioned in the Old Testament?

Did you not read his post? It's not explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, but the New Testament shows us how it was mentioned implicitly in the Old Testament. It was purposely not mentioned explicitly in the OT because what the OT was saying was meant to be hidden until it was revealed in the NT. So, read his post again with this in mind...slowly and carefully.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No. That is your invented theology. That is not what the Bible teaches. There are two peoples on this earth - saved and lost. The brethren are the elect. The redeemed (the brethren) care for each other, the religious unregenerate does not. That is what this narrative is teaching.

Your argument assumes an "either/or" proposition, which is not borne out by the text.