Who Are The Children Of God?
- Thread starter Phoneman777
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Who says there's only ever been one AOD?
What about the one mid trib in revelations? Sure didn't happen and 70 AD
You need to sort out the gospels and epistles before trying to interpret Revelation.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Dave, this is a more credible version of historicism than what I get from the SDAs. But foregoing Revelations for now (since I'm guessing you spiritualize most of it), what do you do with Daniel 7:27, "And the kingdom and the power and the greatness of the kings that are under the whole heaven were given to the saints of the Most High; and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all powers shall serve and obey him."
Do you spiritualize this or do you believe it was somehow fulfilled in the literal sense?
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
All the new testament are letters written to someone. The gospels center on the life of Christ and his saving message. The epistles deal with after his death when the apostles carried out the mission Christ gave them.
As far as prophecy goes, there's no reason to pretend they're somehow different. OT and NT both deal with the future. Some OT prophecies been fulfilled and some has not. NT prophecy builds on OT prophecy.
It is a mistake to separate them instead of reading them together.
Now, back to my question. What about the mid trib abomination?
There was none in 70 AD. The anti Christ wasn't there in 70 AD.
They destroyed the temple in 70AD. They will not mid trib.
Believing Jews were not taken to a place of safety in 70AD where they were protected for 3 1/2 years. Those in Israel will be at mid trib.
You have not thought this through. Our own line of
I believe this speaks of the eternal kingdom under Jesus that emerges in the restoration of Israel (the resurrection of believers) on the last day. And finds fulfillment in the New Heavens and earth. All dominions = gentiles and Jews alike found to be in Christ. But I'm sure there is more to be learned.
You are reading Dispensational ideas into scripture and making it far more complex than necessary. We must redefine OT terms using the NT. And redefine OT themes and institutions using the NT. If you do this, the OT becomes symbolism for NT spiritual realities.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Then do you believe there will be a future abomination of desolation as well, or is that now completely fulfilled?
Already happened in the great Jewish Tribulation of AD 70. Christian tribulation will remain until the end of the world but we shouldn't confuse it with the past Jewish tribulation.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The bible does not say there will be new heavens:
A New Heaven and a New Earth
21 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”a]">[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
I believe things will be restored to the condition of genesis 1:1.
Remember, the darkness of the second heaven was to cover the sinful condition on the earth after the war in heaven.
Nor does the restoration of Israel mean the resurrection of believers. Israel was restored in 1948. So do not spiritualize what is said.
Dominion's means governments in countries. In history there are more saints and just in Israel and the Church. The division of jew and gentile began with Abraham.
In eternity there's only one kingdom.
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom so I think it will be vastly different. As far as Israel and 1948, that isn't anything but another nation in a land grab. Not prophecy being fulfilled. God removed the unbelievers from Israel when they rejected Jesus but will graft those who accept Christ back into Israel aka Christendom.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Oki doki. So where do you place verses 29-30 from Matthew 24 in time: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory"?
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Well I believe literalism. You do not.
The whole bible stands on what it literally says.
pretty much defines non-osas. the precious blood of Jesus is not enough, we must do more.
Rev 19:20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
Good luck getting a straight answer on that one. He still won't tell me who he believes the restrainer is, just that it is not the holy spirit.
Of course that is because his priorities to deny the rapture.
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Well, I did notice he wanted to put off on discussing Revelations, which means his interpretations are likely more involved there, and less straight forward. That's the problem I have with non-futurist positions. I was looking up the SDA interpretation of the abomination of desolation, and it's a highly involved explanation for something that shouldn't be so complicated:
The Abomination of Desolation | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts
Not making fun of different views by any means. Just saying that historicist positions make perfect sense of a few things but then get extremely convoluted on others.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
101G
Well-Known Member
Addressing the OP only, and not having read all the post. the answer is clear.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
and one other question,
if they are the same, and yet as you say, "have different identity's", question, "who conceived the child in Mary?. let's see,
Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
now if there is a "conceiver" is not the "conceiver" the Father of the Child? yes or No.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
and one other question,
if they are the same, and yet as you say, "have different identity's", question, "who conceived the child in Mary?. let's see,
Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matt 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
now if there is a "conceiver" is not the "conceiver" the Father of the Child? yes or No.
Similar threads
