Biblical proof that we the New Testament Church are true Israel today

[Muna]

In his thinking, anyone who disagrees with him, and who rejects the Full Preterist lie, is damned to a lost eternity.

He is committing the very thing he is accusing others of. That is projection. That is hypocrisy.

Oh, okay, I don't know what he teaches on that, I had asked a couple of times about other things but I still wasnt sure after he explained.

 

[ScottA]

You said, "Careful. These of are the days of which Jesus warned" when WPM shot back concerning what he he felt was your own heresy of denying the future physical second coming, when Jesus pointed out

Mark 3;28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Mark 3:30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Edit: typo

Close enough.
And you asked "Your not saying that you are the Holy Spirit are you?"
And I answered you indicating that No, I am not the Holy Spirit--because "that is not how it works." But the scriptures do say how it does work. I explained in a new thread: WARNING...

 

[Muna]

Close enough.
And you asked "Your not saying that you are the Holy Spirit are you?"
And I answered you indicating that No, I am not the Holy Spirit--because "that is not how it works." But the scriptures do say how it does work. I explained in a new thread: WARNING...

I had posted the link there already a few posts back

 

[rwb]

Thanks, I bookmarked it, I'll have a look at it

It is good that you seek to understand the TRUE doctrine called Amillennialism. Because many in these forums without having investigated Amill themselves, simply parrot what they have been taught. I can think of nothing better than studying what WPM has argued for and against most vehemently, not only for Amill, but also passionately against Premillennialism in this forum. I consider him to be a faithful Christian who is very passionate about bringing the truth in spite of great persecution from many in these forums.

As WPM has said many of those who are Amill today have come out of the doctrine of Premill. One of the most glaring contradictions in Premillennialism is believing there will be another one thousand years of time when Christ comes again. They cannot explain, most won't even bother to try, how there can be another one thousand years of time after the last/seventh trumpet sounds and time shall be no longer.
Blessings to you as you study, may you be guided by His Spirit! rwb

 

[Muna]

It is good that you seek to understand the TRUE doctrine called Amillennialism. Because many in these forums without having investigated Amill themselves, simply parrot what they have been taught. I can think of nothing better than studying what WPM has argued for and against most vehemently, not only for Amill, but also passionately against Premillennialism in this forum. I consider him to be a faithful Christian who is very passionate about bringing the truth in spite of great persecution from many in these forums.

As WPM has said many of those who are Amill today have come out of the doctrine of Premill. One of the most glaring contradictions in Premillennialism is believing there will be another one thousand years of time when Christ comes again. They cannot explain, most won't even bother to try, how there can be another one thousand years of time after the last/seventh trumpet sounds and time shall be no longer.
Blessings to you as you study, may you be guided by His Spirit! rwb

I sure havent gotten there yet, but I guess I will eventually, I suppose you have to test things as best you can and agree where you agree and part ways where you may not. I understand that some do spiritualize numbers and times, but then cease to do that other places, so its made me curious as to why they might spiritualize one time (but not the other). Gotta sift through the mix as honestly as you can.

Thanks for your encouragement rwb, God's richest blessing in Christ.

 

[WPM]

I sure havent gotten there yet, but I guess I will eventually, I suppose you have to test things as best you can and agree where you agree and part ways where you may not. I understand that some do spiritualize numbers and times, but then cease to do that other places, so its made me curious as to why they might spiritualize one time (but not the other). Gotta sift through the mix as honestly as you can.

Thanks for your encouragement rwb, God's richest blessing in Christ.

I have arrived at the place theologically: when He comes that is it! Everything seems to be tied up when He returns. You could teach a child that. The other stuff is so complicated and contradictory.

 

[Scott Downey]

I caved in out of curiosity and asked Ai which religion is the one that teaches that Ishmael is the muslims, and it replies

Islam teaches that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Muslim nation. Muslims believe that Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham and Hagar, is a prophet and the forefather of the Ishmaelites, who are considered the ancestors of the Arab people and the lineage through which the Prophet Muhammad is descended. This connection is central to Islamic tradition, which holds that Ishmael settled in Mecca, where he and his father Abraham are believed to have built the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam. While Judaism and Christianity also recognize Ishmael as Abraham's son, they do not trace their religious lineage to him, instead viewing Isaac as the chosen heir.

Then I asked out of curiosity who Paul the apostle taught the children of the bondwoman was

Paul the apostle uses the story of Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac, as an allegory in his letter to the Galatians to illustrate the contrast between the covenants of law and grace. Paul states that Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the covenant from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, and that this Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children. This symbolic identification is not a literal claim about the descendants of Ishmael being the same as the people of Jerusalem, but rather a theological interpretation where Hagar and Ishmael symbolize the Old Covenant, characterized by slavery to the law. Paul emphasizes that the Jerusalem above is free and is the mother of all believers, contrasting it with the present Jerusalem that is in bondage. Therefore, Paul's point is not that Muslims are literally the descendants of Ishmael or that Ishmael represents modern Muslims, but that the allegory uses Ishmael and Hagar to symbolize the spiritual condition of those who rely on the law rather than faith in Christ. The focus is on the spiritual state of being under the law versus being children of promise through faith.

AI is perfectly fine to use as a tool to help understand and bring scriptures to mind. It often forms a better cohesive way of looking at scripture than many people do as is shown on many forums whose opinions are as fractured as broken glass.

 

[Scott Downey]

I sure havent gotten there yet, but I guess I will eventually, I suppose you have to test things as best you can and agree where you agree and part ways where you may not. I understand that some do spiritualize numbers and times, but then cease to do that other places, so its made me curious as to why they might spiritualize one time (but not the other). Gotta sift through the mix as honestly as you can.

Thanks for your encouragement rwb, God's richest blessing in Christ.

I was once a premil, but the 1000 year reign never made much sense to me. It just does not fit with what Jesus and the apostles taught. The more I learned, the more it did not work. And you have to look at the history of premil, it is a fairly modern invention that came from Darby and Scofield, taught a radically different understanding of the coming of Christ, radically different than more than 1500 years of church history. The whole left behind books and movies is just pure sensationalist Christian fiction about the end times, I finally just rejected all of it about 20 years ago.

 

[Scott Downey]

I caved in out of curiosity and asked Ai which religion is the one that teaches that Ishmael is the muslims, and it replies

Islam teaches that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Muslim nation. Muslims believe that Ishmael, the firstborn son of Abraham and Hagar, is a prophet and the forefather of the Ishmaelites, who are considered the ancestors of the Arab people and the lineage through which the Prophet Muhammad is descended. This connection is central to Islamic tradition, which holds that Ishmael settled in Mecca, where he and his father Abraham are believed to have built the Kaaba, the holiest site in Islam. While Judaism and Christianity also recognize Ishmael as Abraham's son, they do not trace their religious lineage to him, instead viewing Isaac as the chosen heir.

Then I asked out of curiosity who Paul the apostle taught the children of the bondwoman was

Paul the apostle uses the story of Abraham's sons, Ishmael and Isaac, as an allegory in his letter to the Galatians to illustrate the contrast between the covenants of law and grace. Paul states that Hagar, the bondwoman, represents the covenant from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, and that this Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children. This symbolic identification is not a literal claim about the descendants of Ishmael being the same as the people of Jerusalem, but rather a theological interpretation where Hagar and Ishmael symbolize the Old Covenant, characterized by slavery to the law. Paul emphasizes that the Jerusalem above is free and is the mother of all believers, contrasting it with the present Jerusalem that is in bondage. Therefore, Paul's point is not that Muslims are literally the descendants of Ishmael or that Ishmael represents modern Muslims, but that the allegory uses Ishmael and Hagar to symbolize the spiritual condition of those who rely on the law rather than faith in Christ. The focus is on the spiritual state of being under the law versus being children of promise through faith.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [a]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

I like how Paul describes this, calling them symbolic covenants. Because these covenants have not really been made by God and defined, but are understood in the message conveyed by Paul about the calling of God towards some people and not other people. The calling of God to be saved is by election according to promise, that God's people are as Isaac was, children of promise, that promise came from God as it was naturally impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have a son, both old enough to be as good as dead. But God made His promise, that Sarah would have a son and she did, and it was of God, supernatural, and not according to the flesh. And God promised Abraham this too,

Genesis 15:4-6​

​

New King James Version​

​

​

4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are many symbolic messages coming from the Father in apocalyptic writings in scripture, which some interpret too literally!
They get hung up on the book of Revelation, Zechariah a lot, while ignoring Christ's teachings and the apostles' doctrines about the same things, then they prefer to read them literally and believe that, even when contrary to the same words from Christ and the apostles, which don't say any such things.

 

[Muna]

I was once a premil, but the 1000 year reign never made much sense to me. It just does not fit with what Jesus and the apostles taught. The more I learned, the more it did not work. And you have to look at the history of premil, it is a fairly modern invention that came from Darby and Scofield, taught a radically different understanding of the coming of Christ, radically different than more than 1500 years of church history. The whole left behind books and movies is just pure sensationalist Christian fiction about the end times, I finally just rejected all of it about 20 years ago.

I havent even gotten there yet (that ought to be fun) just kidding, I gotta do better in preparing my questions between the two opinions.

 

[Scott Downey]

I havent even gotten there yet (that ought to be fun) just kidding, I gotta do better in preparing my questions between the two opinions.

If you like, read this as I asked ChatGPT about the second coming and 1000 year reign and it agree it does not fit the scriptures as to what Christ and the apostles taught. The 1000 year reign is ongoing, real today in heaven, not something in the future.

ChatGPT - Judgment Day and Christ's Return

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

 

[Muna]

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [a]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—

I like how Paul describes this, calling them symbolic covenants. Because these covenants have not really been made by God and defined, but are understood in the message conveyed by Paul about the calling of God towards some people and not other people. The calling of God to be saved is by election according to promise, that God's people are as Isaac was, children of promise, that promise came from God as it was naturally impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have a son, both old enough to be as good as dead. But God made His promise, that Sarah would have a son and she did, and it was of God, supernatural, and not according to the flesh. And God promised Abraham this too,

Genesis 15:4-6​

​

New King James Version​

​

​

4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are many symbolic messages coming from the Father in apocalyptic writings in scripture, which some interpret too literally!
They get hung up on the book of Revelation, Zechariah a lot, while ignoring Christ's teachings and the apostles' doctrines about the same things, then they prefer to read them literally and believe that, even when contrary to the same words from Christ and the apostles, which don't say any such things.

I had posted the post you quoted in another thread, where supposedly Ishmael is the muslims in the picture, while Isaac is the unbelieving Jews being persecuted by the Muslims, whereas Paul the apostle speaks of Isaac as the one born after the Spirit who was persecuted by the allegorical son of the bondwoman (Hagar, who represents Jerusalem) who both killed the Lord and the prophets and who persecuted them (the children of the promise) etc. But the way these others lay it out is according to Muslim teaching, and not Paul the apostles teaching, and neither in the allegory (as they might show it) consist of either being born after the Spirit, because both are unbelieving parties unlike how Paul sets it forth.

So I am scratching my head as to where they get this teaching, and instead of going through a bunch of doctrines (that are not Christ's) I do a search for the root of the teaching between the two sons and who's doctrine teaches that Ishmael (being the son of the bondwoman) is the Muslims doctrine. And Isaac (the son of the freewoman) is the unbelieving Jews (who reject Jesus Christ). I don't see how Paul taught this. Paul said, WE as Isaac was are children of the promise (the Spirit) and so that teaching wipes the believers in Jesus Christ. Wouldnt that be receiving another doctrine (taught by Muhammad) that makes those scriptures between the two sons between Muslims and unbeleiving Jews versus unbeliving Jews (the bondwoman, which corresponds with Jeruslem) and children of the promise (of the free woman) born of God through the seed of Abraham (singular) which is Christ (thus we are the children of Abraham, who is a father of many nations).

I am speaking off the cuff here so my wording might not be perfect here but maybe you can catch what it is I am wresting with when it comes to receiving that as true doctrine in the place of Paul's in those things.

 

[Muna]

If you like, read this as I asked ChatGPT about the second coming and 1000 year reign and it agree it does not fit the scriptures as to what Christ and the apostles taught. The 1000 year reign is ongoing, real today in heaven, not something in the future.

ChatGPT - Judgment Day and Christ's Return

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

Maybe I will take a peek, I am certainly not ready for that discussion yet.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I sure havent gotten there yet, but I guess I will eventually, I suppose you have to test things as best you can and agree where you agree and part ways where you may not. I understand that some do spiritualize numbers and times, but then cease to do that other places, so its made me curious as to why they might spiritualize one time (but not the other). Gotta sift through the mix as honestly as you can.

Thanks for your encouragement rwb, God's richest blessing in Christ.

Amills often are accused by Premills of over-spiritualizing scripture, but the fact of the matter is that Amill is based on clear, straightforward scriptures that we use to help understand more difficult scriptures. You can read my first 2 posts in the following thread to get an idea of what I mean by that.

Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I was once a premil, but the 1000 year reign never made much sense to me. It just does not fit with what Jesus and the apostles taught. The more I learned, the more it did not work. And you have to look at the history of premil, it is a fairly modern invention that came from Darby and Scofield, taught a radically different understanding of the coming of Christ, radically different than more than 1500 years of church history. The whole left behind books and movies is just pure sensationalist Christian fiction about the end times, I finally just rejected all of it about 20 years ago.

This is very similar to what happened with me except it looks like you were pre-trib and I was post-trib Premil. I was a Premil pretty much entirely based on my assumption that Revelation 19-20 was chronological. I couldn't make any sense of Revelation 20, but I figured it must be true and just accepted it while being confused about it. But, once I actually started studying the topic around 20 years ago after visiting a forum where Amil vs Premil was being debated, I discovered that scripture simply does not teach Premil. I had already believed that Jesus would destroy all unbelievers when He returned before that, but I just didn't put two and two together that with that being the case, there would be no mortals who could populate the earth for a thousand years after His return.

 

[Muna]

Amills often are accused by Premills of over-spiritualizing scripture, but the fact of the matter is that Amill is based on clear, straightforward scriptures that we use to help understand more difficult scriptures. You can read my first 2 posts in the following thread to get an idea of what I mean by that.

Unlike Amillennialism, Premillennialism is based on assumptions and speculation rather than on any clear, straightforward scriptures

Hey Spiritual Israelite (this is Verily, in case you don't know) I dont think I have spoken with you since I signed up again under this user name (because I couldnt get my other back). Just so you are aware its me. I think you were one of the first ones I felt alright to approach on some of these things because you were one of the most approachable Amills just as there are some Primills that can be equally so, so thanks for that.

From what I have read, some spiritualize the 42 months and not the 1000 years and the other spiritualizes the 1000 and not sure if they do the 42 months also. Gotta admit, I am got between the two, so maybe that will be helpful. I think though, that not all (in either camp) seem to agree within them (as far as I can tell).

I will take a look, thanks for the thread reccomendation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hey Spiritual Israelite (this is Verily, in case you don't know) I dont think I have spoken with you since I signed up again under this user name (because I couldnt get my other back).

No, I didn't realize it was you. Now that you mention it, I can easily see that.

I think you were one of the first ones I felt alright to approach on some of these things because you were one of the most approachable Amills just as there are some Primills that can be equally so, so thanks for that.

From what I have read, some spiritualize the 42 months and not the 1000 years and the other spiritualizes the 1000 and not sure if they do the 42 months also.

Well, I guess I'm more consistent than them because I believe both time periods are symbolic. I don't think it's consistent or makes any sense to see one as literal and one as symbolic. I believe all of the time periods in the book are symbolic. I think it makes more sense to be consistent about it.

Gotta admit, I am got between the two, so maybe that will be helpful. I think though, that not all (in either camp) seem to agree within them (as far as I can tell).

I will take a look, thanks for the thread reccomendation.

Sounds good.

 

[Muna]

Well, I guess I'm more consistent than them because I believe both time periods are symbolic. I don't think it's consistent or makes any sense to see one as literal and one as symbolic. I believe all of the time periods in the book are symbolic. I think it makes more sense to be consistent about it.

I did not know this, good to know, because when I do read the places where the thousand years are mentioned it could be determined a bit more obvious that it could be understood spiritually (a little more easily, should I say than the 42 months). Like if you would examine one versus the other and someone would ask straight off which one might be a little easier to discern as spiritual, given the places between them to compare I would say the same.

One other question on the thousand years, how do Amills perceive the mark of the beast in relation to the same?

Edit: versus, not verses

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did not know this, good to know, because when I do read the places where the thousand years are mentioned it could be determined a bit more obvious that it could be understood spiritually (a little more easily, should I say than the 42 months). Like if you would examine one versus the other and someone would ask straight off which one might be a little easier to discern as spiritual, given the places between them to compare I would say the same.

Sorry, but I can't understand what you're trying to say here. Doesn't it make more sense that the time periods would either all be literal or all symbolic? I think so.

One other question on the thousand years, how do Amills perceive the mark of the beast in relation to the same?

Edit: versus, not verses

Like Premills, Amills don't agree on everything. That is the case here as well. What someone thinks about the mark of the beast is not necessarily dictated by whether someone is Amill or Premill. I don't know about other Amills, but my understanding of the mark of the beast is that it is not a physical mark and not just something related to the future, but is the spiritual opposite of "the seal of God" that is also referenced in Revelation and the seal of God is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30). So, I guess I would equate the mark of the beast with the spirit of antichrist. According to John, all who deny Christ are antichrists and have the spirit of antichrist and I would say they all have the mark of the beast.

 

[Muna]

Sorry, but I can't understand what you're trying to say here. Doesn't it make more sense that the time periods would either all be literal or all symbolic? I think so.

Sorry about that, what I meant is that it is good to know where you stand on that (understanding both as "speaking spiritually" equally). Because I found when comparing between those times that the 1000 years seem a bit more obvious that that could be the case (moreso than the other). And so it may be easier to understand where you might be coming from all things being equal (in that way).

Like Premills, Amills don't agree on everything. That is the case here as well. What someone thinks about the mark of the beast is not necessarily dictated by whether someone is Amill or Premill. I don't know about other Amills, but my understanding of the mark of the beast is that it is not a physical mark and not just something related to the future, but is the spiritual opposite of "the seal of God" that is also referenced in Revelation and the seal of God is the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 4:30). So, I guess I would equate the mark of the beast with the spirit of antichrist. According to John, all who deny Christ are antichrists and have the spirit of antichrist and I would say they all have the mark of the beast.

There are some Premills who believe the same as some Amills on that as well (that it is not a physical mark). I would also agree (obviously so) that the mark of the beast (whatever "that might be" as far as buying and selling might apply to it) is not the seal of the Holy Spirit . That much is clear. What I might question, is if the natural man (who rejects, Christ, not having the Spirit of God in him) and who would then be considered antichrist (as I am understanding it) how buying and selling is something afforded to them (and specifically not afforded to those of the Holy Spirit). I mean I have heard the obvious as far as spiritually buying and selling, when others have quoted, "buy the truth and sell it not" (and have heard that used before) but its not as though that latter option is not afforded to them (in the context of spiritual buying and selling).

I guess my questions come of a mixture of opinions between both camps, and a combination between the literal and the spiritual between them both and how the recconcile these things in a way that make sense. Because its not as though I cannot grasp spiritual truths on the one hand, but on the otherhand there is also that which can overspiritualize, as we have seen that also, and that is where I try to be a little more cautious, waiting for something to make much greater sense than what I have currently heard.

I am still waiting on these things, obviously, not clear on them yet, still get pauses when approaching the subject when I do.

Anyway, its good to know where you are coming from on the thing, and remind me if I forget where you might stand on the thing because its hard enough for me to collect my own thoughts on these things.