Removal Theology not Replacement Theology

brakelite said:

Acts 2:5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven....22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words...36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
After Peter delivered his gospel message, showing all that heard him, Jews from many different nations, that the very Jesus they crucified

was risen thus the Messiah,
they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?​

Peter said they must repent and be baptised, and further preached many things which Jesus had taught, the result of which was
the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Added to what??? Israel? No. It was Israel, through their leaders that continued to persecute and denigrate the faith. These were Jews, the apostles were Jews, but they separated themselves from the established religious system, and joined another. This is akin to the last day separation from Babylon.
​

There is in fact no real need to discuss the actual validity or the non-validity of the sacrifices at all. Everyone here thus far presupposes the inevitability of a 1000 year earthly kingdom. Because someone says there is such a thing, everyone believes it. On what grounds? I suggest on the same grounds as a presumed 7 year tribulation. One scripture text badly exegeted.

Click to expand...

I've enjoyed responding to your posts lately, Brakelite, but this one here just seems to be a rehashing of territory already covered. That there is supposedly no need to discuss the sacrifices is an assumption, based upon the view that your interpretation is the correct one and the opposing view not even be considered.

brakelite said:

My point was that we do a lot of theological toing and froing to ascertain whether God approves/disapproves... Planned/or not to renew the sacrificial system, which discussion involves the preparation of a priesthood and our Lord's qualifications thereof... The plight of said animals... The efficacy of the sacrifice and the purpose... While all along such discussion is unnecessary and superfluous in my opinion

Click to expand...

Just call it free thinking, to assess whether one's interpretation still holds water when thought out to its fullest end.

brakelite said:

BTW I'm flattered you are enjoying my other posts

Click to expand...

I've never had a problem with you. You're generally informative, non-combative, and have a warm & mature/gentle spirit about you. What's not to like?

(I mean aside from some of your theology).

Hidden In Him said:

Not a problem by me. I would have it be pleasant conversation with everyone here, but the men have a way of insulting my intelligence sometimes that gets my Irish up. Maybe I should just stick with talking to women.

I think our confusion is that you think I'm suggesting they or God would ever endorse returning to the old covenant, which I am not. I'm simply telling you that the reinstatement of observance of the sacrifices, food laws, festivals, etc would serve as reminders of the higher spiritual truths God was all along trying to communicate through them, and not just the truth of Christ's sacrifice in our place. For instance, eating "unclean foods" represented taking within oneself unclean spirits, such as the Gentiles readily did. This our God does not allow, so the laws about eating anything unclean were given to reflect this.

Click to expand...

I do understand...sort of, what you are saying. I'm just struggling to see if it makes sense to me. Let me try and use an analogy to explain how I see this:
In the lead up to Christmas, kids are always keen for their presents. In their eagerness, they often stare at their presents, wondering what they might be, looking forward to the day they might open them. But for now, the wrapped present is a close as they get, as good as they get to what might be inside. Imagine, after that wonderful day had come and gone, if, instead of looking (and playing) with the toy, they went back to gazing longingly at the disgarded wrapping paper, remembering what had been in it and wishing to hold it again, ignoring the present toy? How strange and self defeating would that be? Would not the toy be shouting, "here I am! Pick me up, look at me!!"

We have Christ now, in a very real sense, and he did not tell us to sacrifice to remember him. But in the Millennium, he will be bodily present, but you still seem to think that it would be good to go back...to staring at the wrapping paper, instead of gazing at him?

This is how I see what you are saying. I understand, verbally, what you are saying, but I cannot connect it to anything I read in scripture that tells us about our relationship with Christ now or in the future! Can you?
It's strange. A lot of things I can go, "I don't really see it enough that I believe it, but you know, it could say that, so maybe...."....but I really am struggling (you may have noticed!!) with this issue. To me, even the notion of using death, and something that was incomplete and lacking in it's very nature, to remember what Christ did, when Christ bought us something so much better to be with us, not just so we could remember, but so we could commune! Pray one on one! What better way of remembering and glorifiying our Lord could there be?

As for welcoming evil spirits within oneself (i.e. jealousy, hatred, prejudice, envy, lust, etc), I certainly still hold this as a possibility during the Millennium, since they will still abide in human flesh, and as I said before that is what opens the door for temptations and jealousies. Only Satan is said to be bound for 1,000 years. Nothing is said about demons being bound with him.

This is just one example of a whole host of truths that are reflected in the Jewish customs. It is not all just about Christ's sacrifice for us.

Yes, LoL. But to state they won't defile it when the whole idea of corpses in Heaven is preposterous to begin with sort of makes the saying... superfluous.

This one is about the Old Covenant, which I agree has been rendered obsolete.

This is an encouragement to the Gentiles that they need not worry about the OT commandments to the Jews that restricted the Gentiles from being granted full access to God. There existed "hostility" between God and the Gentiles, and because of this they were not allowed into the Inner Court of the temple or they would die. Christ's sacrifice did away with this hostility, making Gentiles and Jews one in Christ through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

This one's fulfillment will not come until after the Millennium.

Click to expand...

Yes, they all touch on different aspects, but they all speak to how, in Christ, a new and better way has come. I think I must still stand on Christ and his presence to outweigh any need to go back to sacrifices, even if only for rememberance. I think I claim this because the sacrifices would not just be a token 'bread braking' to remember what Christ had done all those years ago. It would involve death...more...it would involve killing. And while you may think that death will still be a part of the Millennium, I just don't think I can see it. I know God declared it necessary in the OT. And I know animals are not worth the lives of humans. But the bible also tells us that God cares for his animals, his creations. Can it sit well for any of us if the slaughter of animals in his 'perfect kingdom' happens just for rememberance? Especially when his sacrifice was supposed to (and most certainly did!) take care of all that?

Yes. It takes me a while of study before I can fully make sense of another system. Sometimes terms are interpreted entirely differently and it throws you off. But I'm learning that if you are going to be involved in Christian Forums of any kind, you really need to do it. Otherwise you can't converse intelligently with people who have different perspectives.


LoL! No, it's not for the Jews. It is essentially one big training lesson. Throughout history he has defeated Satan and those kingdoms who chose to serve Satan's ends; Egypt and Babylon are good examples. But mankind is very slow to learn. Look where we are going. They are going to challenge Him again, and worse than ever before when the Antichrist finally manifests himself. And the death toll on planet earth when it all goes down will be astronomical. The lesson will be why it is not a good idea to reject the mercy and grace of the True and Living God. Then He will institute a thousand year's peace to show them the wisdom in serving Him and honoring Him as Lord. But in His wisdom, He knows they will still hold some rebellion in their hearts, and forget over that length of time once more the cost of rejecting Him. So He will release Satan one more time to tempt them once more to do what He knows they want to deep in their hearts. The final destruction of Gog and Magog will be the last and final lesson in why it is foolish to rebel against Him, and after this last rebellion no one will ever again be tempted to.

All of human history is being directed towards a single end: The creation of an eternal kingdom that will never fail, never end, and never again be rebelled against.

Click to expand...

But...does scripture actually paint this out? Doesn't it tell us that man has but one chance? Man will always revolt, no matter how many chances given. The 'chance' God has given us is Christ Jesus. We say 'yes' to him when he says "my way", or he says 'yes' to us when we say "my way". The result: different locations. But apart from one reference to 1000 years in Revelation, where is this idea of 'second chance', where people live in harmony with animals and live long lives, but still die? It's not there, not that I can see, and I have looked.
And, yes, I know of Isaiah 65, which people seem to bizarely forget starts with "Behold, I create a New Heavens and a New Earth"!
So, while it doesn't outright state anything about the Millennium, it does about the new heavens and earth, but people still demand the reference to 'death' is not symbolic of longevity...ie: people don't die!! "Well"....I've heard people say, "if the writer was meaning that people won't die, why didn't he just state that?" Good question! When Lazarus died, why didn't Jesus say that, rather than using the analogy of 'falling asleep'? The biblical writers liked to use metaphor and symbolism...they just did! But when they outright state...This is the New Heavens and the New Earth....well....mmmm, I think we need to take that. Personally!

I dunno. Honestly. But...I suppose one thing I do know...I look forward to finding out! And I'm pretty sure that if I'm wrong, I'm not going to even spare a 'dang' thought...I'll be too busy thinking about other things!

Enoch111 said:

Abraham had three wives/concubines: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

1. SARAH---->ISAAC ----> ESAU (13 NATIONS) + JACOB (TWELVE TRIBES)

2. HAGAR---->ISHMAEL ----> TWELVE NATIONS

3. KETURAH--->SIX NATIONS

Only the tribes of Israel will exist in the future on the land of Israel.

Click to expand...

Genesis 17:18 "And Abraham said unto God, "O that Ishmael might live before Thee!"

Ishmael was the son of Hagar, the bond woman, by Abraham, and Abraham loved that boy.

Genesis 17:19 "And God said, "Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."

This is implying that both Christ, and Israel being the "seed". The word "Isaac" in the Hebrew tongue, means "laughter", and it is the mark of the people; the people of laughter.

Genesis 17:20 "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation."

It is from Ishmael the we have the Arab nations of today. Just as we have the twelve sons of Jacob comprising the whole of Israel; we have twelve princes of Ishmael, which are the heads of the nations of the Abrabic people. They know their inheritance, and their parentage, however, the offspring of the ten tribes, "House of Israel", in ignorance denies their lineage to father Abraham. But have allowed the Kenites to convince them that they are Gentile, and they have made that of God be of Satan. What a twist.

Naomi25 said:

We have Christ now, in a very real sense

Click to expand...

"i'm doing God's will!"
i mean, who is this "we" that has Christ? Don't get me wrong ok, you might have Christ, but i suggest that this "we" you have included yourself in may not, and i'm sure you do not want this to come back to haunt you right. My point here is that
"Yea, though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death"
isn't in There, ok
@charity

Naomi25 said:

he did not tell us to sacrifice to remember him.

Click to expand...

Living Sacrifice

Naomi25 said:

But in the Millennium, he will be bodily present

Click to expand...

Body of Christ

Naomi25 said:

What better way of remembering and glorifiying our Lord could there be?

Click to expand...

even greater things shall you do in My Name

Naomi25 said:

I do understand...sort of, what you are saying. I'm just struggling to see if it makes sense to me. Let me try and use an analogy to explain how I see this:
In the lead up to Christmas, kids are always keen for their presents. In their eagerness, they often stare at their presents, wondering what they might be, looking forward to the day they might open them. But for now, the wrapped present is a close as they get, as good as they get to what might be inside. Imagine, after that wonderful day had come and gone, if, instead of looking (and playing) with the toy, they went back to gazing longingly at the disgarded wrapping paper, remembering what had been in it and wishing to hold it again, ignoring the present toy? How strange and self defeating would that be? Would not the toy be shouting, "here I am! Pick me up, look at me!!"

Click to expand...

With me it's sort of like the child getting the present but only appreciating it for a short time before setting it aside.

Naomi25 said:

But the bible also tells us that God cares for his animals, his creations. Can it sit well for any of us if the slaughter of animals in his 'perfect kingdom' happens just for rememberance?

Click to expand...

But it wasn't the true sacrifice back then either, and therefore just as unnecessary. I like animals better than humans actually - my best friends have always been animals. But their having to die in our place, though innocent, is a true reminder of the price Christ paid. A wafer of bread is not.

Naomi25 said:

But...does scripture actually paint this out? Doesn't it tell us that man has but one chance? Man will always revolt, no matter how many chances given. The 'chance' God has given us is Christ Jesus. We say 'yes' to him when he says "my way", or he says 'yes' to us when we say "my way". The result: different locations. But apart from one reference to 1000 years in Revelation, where is this idea of 'second chance',

Click to expand...

The idea of a second chance is foreign to me too. I was referring to a further proof that mankind even under the perfect rulership of Christ will still be willing to rebel one last time. I think our difference in opinions stems from this: You seem to interpret all things through the lens of salvation theology, whereas I interpret them through the lens of eternal kingdom theology. Maybe it's difference between male and female perspectives or something.

Naomi25 said:

And, yes, I know of Isaiah 65, which people seem to bizarely forget starts with "Behold, I create a New Heavens and a New Earth"!
So, while it doesn't outright state anything about the Millennium, it does about the new heavens and earth, but people still demand the reference to 'death' is not symbolic of longevity...ie: people don't die!! "Well"....I've heard people say, "if the writer was meaning that people won't die, why didn't he just state that?"

Click to expand...

I'm confused here. Yes He promises in Isaiah 65:17 that there will be a new heavens and a new earth, and in Revelations this will be the time when there is no more death. But verse 17 in Isaiah is followed by, "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." What was your interpretation here? I couldn't follow your point about death being symbolic, if this verse is what you were referring to.

I still have to look at your piece on the millennium. Thanks again for that. Like I said, it may be a little while, but I will do my best to get to it. Just starting my day by responding to this post.

n2thelight said:

They know their inheritance, and their parentage, however, the offspring of the ten tribes, "House of Israel", in ignorance denies their lineage to father Abraham.

Click to expand...

Your have a misunderstanding about the Ishmaelites. The descendants of Ishmael have become the bitter enemies of Israel. They will be judged as such. And God will re-establish the twelve tribes of Israel as descended from Isaac and Jacob. The Bible is crystal clear about this.

Enoch111 said:

Your have a misunderstanding about the Ishmaelites. The descendants of Ishmael have become the bitter enemies of Israel. They will be judged as such. And God will re-establish the twelve tribes of Israel as descended from Isaac and Jacob. The Bible is crystal clear about this.

Click to expand...

Actually the Bible is perfectly clear about who are the real Israelites of God, since Jesus came.
Ethnicity, what tribe a person may or may not belong to, is just so much useless talk. It is faithful belief in God and the acceptance of Jesus that counts. Ephesians 2:11-18, Galatians 3:26-29, +

That we Christians will be divided into 12 divisions, named after the 12 sons of Jacob, is proved by Isaiah 66:21, Revelation 5:9-10 and seen by John in Revelation 7:1-14, Revelation 14:1-7, where Jesus stands on Mt Zion and selects the 144,000, soon after the Sixth Seal; Day of the Lord's wrath event.
Note in 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 Jesus will be revealed to just His faithful Christian people, soon after His Day of wrath by fire, that will clear the holy Land for their migration to and settling into all that area given to Abraham and his descendants by faith. Romans 4:23-25

Keraz said:

...and seen by John in Revelation 7:1-14, Revelation 14:1-7, where Jesus stands on Mt Zion and selects the 144,000...

Click to expand...

Your idea of Replacement Theology is refuted by Revelation 7.

THE TWELVE TRIBES
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (v 4).

THE CHURCH (JEWS AND GENTILES UNTIL THE RAPTURE)
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (v 9)

Both groups are seen as DISTINCT and SIMULTANEOUS.

bbyrd009 said:

"i'm doing God's will!"
i mean, who is this "we" that has Christ? Don't get me wrong ok, you might have Christ, but i suggest that this "we" you have included yourself in may not, and i'm sure you do not want this to come back to haunt you right. My point here is that
"Yea, though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death"
isn't in There, ok
@charity

Click to expand...

Annnd...once again, I don't understand what you're saying.
You say "who is 'we'?" Well...my reply is that obviously I meant "we" to be those that are In Christ. Christians, those saved by Christ's sacrifice. Redeemed by his blood. Set free by his sacrifice. I could go on, but you get my drift. Not sure how that category of "we" could come back to haunt me, sorry. Or how "yea, though I walk..." being there or not there respectively has a single thing to do with anything.

Living Sacrifice

Click to expand...

Not really the sacrifice my point was about, although this 'sacrifice' does, perhaps, help me make my point. Christ has asked us to remember his work on the cross on our behalf in a different way, rather than reverting back to the OT way, but this time doing it in 'rememberance'. He could have, couldn't he? Just said, "continue the sacrifices in rememberance of me'. But instead he gave us the communion and asked us to honor him in our flesh.

Body of Christ

Click to expand...

We'll see.

Naomi25 said:

Annnd...once again, I don't understand what you're saying.
You say "who is 'we'?" Well...my reply is that obviously I meant "we" to be those that are In Christ. Christians, those saved by Christ's sacrifice. Redeemed by his blood. Set free by his sacrifice. I could go on, but you get my drift. Not sure how that category of "we" could come back to haunt me, sorry. Or how "yea, though I walk..." being there or not there respectively has a single thing to do with anything.


Not really the sacrifice my point was about, although this 'sacrifice' does, perhaps, help me make my point. Christ has asked us to remember his work on the cross on our behalf in a different way, rather than reverting back to the OT way, but this time doing it in 'rememberance'. He could have, couldn't he? Just said, "continue the sacrifices in rememberance of me'. But instead he gave us the communion and asked us to honor him in our flesh.


We'll see.

Click to expand...

TAG

wiped out miss N, manana ok, have a nice evening

Hidden In Him said:

With me it's sort of like the child getting the present but only appreciating it for a short time before setting it aside.

But it wasn't the true sacrifice back then either, and therefore just as unnecessary. I like animals better than humans actually - my best friends have always been animals. But their having to die in our place, though innocent, is a true reminder of the price Christ paid. A wafer of bread is not.

The idea of a second chance is foreign to me too. I was referring to a further proof that mankind even under the perfect rulership of Christ will still be willing to rebel one last time. I think our difference in opinions stems from this: You seem to interpret all things through the lens of salvation theology, whereas I interpret them through the lens of eternal kingdom theology. Maybe it's difference between male and female perspectives or something.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure what else I can say on the animal sacrifice issue. I really don't think it's scriptual, and I really don't think it will be Christ honoring. But I've made my case, and I suppose that's all I can do!

I'm confused here. Yes He promises in Isaiah 65:17 that there will be a new heavens and a new earth, and in Revelations this will be the time when there is no more death. But verse 17 in Isaiah is followed by, "But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." What was your interpretation here? I couldn't follow your point about death being symbolic, if this verse is what you were referring to.

I still have to look at your piece on the millennium. Thanks again for that. Like I said, it may be a little while, but I will do my best to get to it. Just starting my day by responding to this post.

Click to expand...

Ok...Isaiah 65:20...it might be best here to quote someone who has done some work here. Kim Riddlebarger puts it all in a very helpful way, I think:

"First, as Motyer points out, in terms of its literay structureIsaiah 65:1-66:24 is a chiasm. This simply means that the logic of the passage flows from the opening verse (Isaiah 65:1–A1) and the final verses (66:18-21-A2)–both of which deal with those who have not heard nor sought the Lord–toward the middle of the chiasm, i.e. A1 (65:1), B1 (vv. 2-7), C1 (vv. 8-10), D1 (vv.11-12) E (vv. 13-25), D2 (66:1-4), C2 (66:5-14), B2 (66:15-17), A2 (18-21). In this case, Isaiah 65:13-25-E is the middle of the chiasm, and is therefore the central theme of the entire prophecy and speaks of the joy of the Lord’s servants in the new creation. This means that the central truth (or high point) of this entire prophecy is found in the middle of the chiasm, not the end (vv. 66:22-24), which speaks of Jerusalem as the center of the world. (See J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [IVP], 522-523).

The point is this. The key part of the whole passage is the section in question (vv. 17-25) which deals with the new creation with its Zion. Steps A1-D1 and A2-D2 must be fulfilled before the hoped-for reality (E) comes to pass. Given the structure of the prophecy as a whole, the climax of the passage is the eternal state (the new heavens and earth), not a half-way redeemed earth in which people experience life-extension, only to die later on.

Second, verses 17-20 of Isaiah 65 are composed of two poems. One is a poem of the new creation (vv. 17-18b), the other is a poem of the city and its people (vv. 18c-20). As Motyer points out, "throughout this passage Isaiah uses aspects of present life to create impressions of the life that is yet to come. It will be a life totally provided for (13), totally happy (19cd), totally secure (22-23) and totally at peace (24-25). Things we have no real capacity to understand can be expressed only through things we know and experience. So it is that in the present order of things death cuts off life before it has begun or before it has fully matured. But it will not be so then" (Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 530). In other words, metaphors are used of things neither we nor Isaiah can fully understand. The poetic structure surely points in this direction.

Third, as Meredith Kline points out, the language here reflects covenantal blessings now magnified in light of new heavens and earth. These blessings take us well beyond the natural order, but can only be understood in light of the natural order (Kline, Kingdom Prologue,152-153).

Fourth, is Isaiah telling us that as a result of the spread of the gospel ("moral renovation" in Jefferson’s terms), people will live longer, only to die? Where does the gospel promise long life? It promises eternal life! In fact, isn’t the whole point of prophecy clearly stated in verse 17. "I will create new heavens and a new earth?" This is a time subsequent to Revelation 20:1-10, which describes the binding of Satan and the reign of the saints in heaven after suffering upon the earth, only to end in a great apostasy before the final judgment. Both pre and post millennarians must assign this prophecy to the same period of time as Revelation 20. But given the chiastic structure and use of metaphor, isn’t it far better to see Isaiah 65:17-25 as describing the same time frame as Revelation 21, which is clearly describing the eternal state? I certainly think so."

Enoch111 said:

Your idea of Replacement Theology is refuted by Revelation 7.

THE TWELVE TRIBES
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (v 4).

THE CHURCH (JEWS AND GENTILES UNTIL THE RAPTURE)
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (v 9)

Both groups are seen as DISTINCT and SIMULTANEOUS.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is only ONE people of God. John 17:20-23
Isaiah 66:21 and Revelation 5:9-10 are proof that the Lord will assign His faithful Christian people from every race, nation and language, to a tribe suited to each families characteristics.
Jesus IS Israel and we Christians are His children.

The Throne isn't set in heaven, as heaven is a Spiritual place, and can be anywhere or everywhere. God allows people on earth to see it at appropriate times. Ezekiel 1:1, Acts 7:56 All of Revelation 7 is describing earthly scenes.

Keraz said:

The Throne isn't set in heaven, as heaven is a Spiritual place, and can be anywhere or everywhere.

Click to expand...

How do Christians arrive at conclusions which contradict Scripture? God's throne is indeed in Heaven (the third heaven, which cannot possible be "anywhere and everywhere"). So believe the Bible.

REVELATION 4
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne [1] was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. [2] [NOTE CAREFULLY]
3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, [3] in sight like unto an emerald.
4 And round about the throne [4] were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
5 And out of the throne [5] proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, [6] which are the seven Spirits of God.
6 And before the throne [7] there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, [8] and round about the throne, [9] were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.
7 And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they weref ull of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, [10] who liveth for ever and ever,
10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, [11] and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, [12] saying,
11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

So here in ELEVEN VERSES we have TWELVE REFERENCES TO THE THRONE OF GOD.

In view of this, the least you can do Keras, is apologize to all Christians for your erroneous and misleading statements, including "heaven can be anywhere and everywhere"!

Enoch111 said:

In view of this, the least you can do Keras, is apologize to all Christians for your erroneous and misleading statements, including "heaven can be anywhere and everywhere"!

Click to expand...

I make no apology for showing the truth of scripture.
Yes; John saw the Throne in heaven, but Ezekiel and Stephen saw the Throne while they were standing on earth.
By 'set', I mean fixed - placed immovably.

It is your belief in teachings that are not scriptural, that makes you think as you do. You make the assumption in Rev 7, that the 144,00 are on earth, then suddenly the scene changes and the great multitude are in heaven. The Bible does NOT say they are in heaven, in fact it is quite illogical to say they are.
Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:7 both confirm that God's holy people are in the holy Land before Jesus Returns.

Keraz said:

The Bible does NOT say they are in heaven, in fact it is quite illogical to say they are.

Click to expand...

Once again you are contradicting Scripture while failing to apologize for misleading statements. How do we know that the 144,000 were shown to be in Heaven? Here it is:

REVELATION 14
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, (WHICH IS IN HEAVEN) and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. ["REDEEMED FROM THE EARTH" = TAKEN TO HEAVEN]
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. [BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD = IN HEAVEN

Enoch111 said:

Once again you are contradicting Scripture while failing to apologize for misleading statements. How do we know that the 144,000 were shown to be in Heaven? Here it is:

REVELATION 14
1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, (WHICH IS IN HEAVEN) and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. ["REDEEMED FROM THE EARTH" = TAKEN TO HEAVEN]
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. [BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD = IN HEAVEN

Click to expand...

It is entirely your assumption that any of this is in heaven.
You just add that to the scriptures, to your discredit.

I proved you wrong with Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:7, where the one holy people of God are seen in the holy Land when the Anti-Christ takes over the world for the last 42 months of this age.
This truth is also confirmed by many prophesies of how the Lord will gather His sheep and bless them in His Land. Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, Romans 9:24-26

We Christians NEVER go to heaven. Eventually God and therefore heaven will come to us. Revelation 21:1-7

Naomi25 said:

Fourth, is Isaiah telling us that as a result of the spread of the gospel ("moral renovation" in Jefferson’s terms), people will live longer, only to die? Where does the gospel promise long life?

Click to expand...

Hey sister. Sorry about the delay. I'm behind right now.

I read through your post, but honestly, I found only the above to be a plausible argument (the others didn't instill much confidence in me quite frankly, and I do honestly consider things). But in answer to the above, it isn't about the gospel. Again, with Millenialist arguments there seems to be a continual reversion back to the salvation message as if it is the only thing God ever communicates, and that's just not the case. The passage speaks about our health while still in the flesh during the millennium, a time when there will be no hatreds, strifes, anxieties or stresses like in our present age. These things are commanded against, and cut our lives short (possibly because of their negative effects on the human body), whereas obedience to God leads to long life, as scripture points out numerous times:

Psalm 91:16 - [speaking of the one who walks close to God]. "With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation.”

Deuteronomy 5:33 - [of commandments made to the Jews] "You shall walk in all the way that the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall possess."

Ephesians 6:1-4 - [of commandments made to Christians] "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord."

Proverbs 3:16 - [Speaking of wisdom] "Long life is in her right hand; in her left hand are riches and honor."

Thus, whereas many live well into their eighties now, the prophecy is saying that during the millennium, because they will walk more perfectly in the ways of the Lord, they will live well into their hundreds. This is about what we would expect if people were taking excellent care of themselves and living stress free and godly lives.

Naomi25 said:

Christ has asked us to remember his work on the cross on our behalf

Click to expand...

um, wow? i gotta wonder how this believer might ever pick up a cross and outdo Jesus, wadr

Naomi25 said:

He could have, couldn't he? Just said, "continue the sacrifices in rememberance of me'. But instead he gave us the communion and asked us to honor him in our flesh.

Click to expand...

um, guess i gotta reload and find out how i got in this convo lol, what usually happens is i'm doing a drive-by and get the context wrong or whatever. My guess here based upon the two different accounts that use the phrase "we ate at your table" has given me a diff pov @ ritual communion Naomi, and part A there kind of reveals...how disconnected we are now from life as it was then, so much so that i can't even honestly reply bc it would be a complete guess, but i'm pretty sure continuing the sacrifices in remembrance of Him was not on the table. You might note the complete lack of "and when it was time for the daily sacrifice" et al in the NT?

Israel was a hollowed-out shell at that point anyway, doubt anyone could afford to kill a goat