Another Premillennial absurdity

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're asking me for biblical support for biblical texts? I suppose that makes sense to some degree.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. It makes sense to a large degree. Do you not understand that what was written in the Old Testament was purposely made obscure? The New Testament shines light on the Old Testament. This should be common knowledge. So, you should be able to support your doctrine with New Testament scripture that corroborates your understanding of OT scripture

But I hardly need to justify that what is said in Gen 12 and 17 is there! At face value, it says what it says, that Abraham is promised a nation from his loins, and many nations of his faith. This is readily apparent!

To you it is, but that doesn't line up with what is taught in the New Testament. Why do you not care about that? Why would you be okay with interpreting OT scripture in such a way that contradicts NT scripture? That makes no sense. Why not allow the NT to tell you what the OT means instead of just trying to figure it out yourself? You're making a great resource that God provided for us go to waste by doing that.

Gal 3.16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is pretty long, so I'll try to abbreviate. In my view, this is completely consistent with my beliefs, regarding Israel and Christian nations. Of course, if you're going to deny there is such a thing as "Christian nations," simply because not all in the nation will be "chosen," then why even discuss it? We can't begin without my being able to give you my presupposition that there is, in fact, a thing called "Christian nations!"

But if you accept that this is my basis for interpreting the fulfillment of God's promises as a final era in which Israel will be brought back to God as a nation, and Christian nations will be completely free to be Christian, then you may understand how I view these things?

The "seed" God promised things to Paul understood to be Abraham's descendants, but he was defining these descendants as a singular, collective group *in Christ.*

He very clearly indicated in Galatians 3:16 that the singular seed was Jesus himself. If you deny that then it just shows you are willing to twist any scripture to say whatever you want. Period. But, then in verse 29 he indicates that those who belong to Christ are counted for the seed as well.

There is no question the "seed" of Abraham included Israel, since this "seed" was promised occupancy in the land of Canaan. That was not Christ.

What?!!! Where did Paul indicate this? See, this is a major problem. You have decided to not accept what Paul taught about this. That is unacceptable. The only seed of Abraham that Paul said God's promises apply to are Jesus Himself and those who belong to Jesus. That's it! For you to include anyone else is just a case of you not accepting what Paul clearly taught.

And Paul said nothing about the seed being nations in Galatians 3, either. He was referring to Jesus Himself and all individuals who belong to Jesus. That's it.

But Israel was determined to be defined by Christ because this "seed" was to be of the faith of Abraham, and not just of the flesh. Otherwise, how could other nations be included in Abraham's inheritance who are not of the flesh, unless they are related by faith?

What in the world are you talking about here? Where did Paul say anything about the seed being nations in Galatians 3:16-29? He didn't. Please stop twisting scripture and just accept what it teaches instead.

Israel is a prototypical nation, giving an example to all Christian nations since they fell. It was a blueprint as to how to live in the theocracy of God, and a warning about the inevitable fall of our nations. As such, Christian nations have been falling just as Israel fell.

This is ludicrous. Israel was never a Christian nation. And there are no other Christian nations. What percentage of a nation need to be Christians in order for a nation to be a Christian nation, Randy? Wouldn't it need to be at least half? But, remember that few are chosen? What nation has ever consisted of more than half Christians? None! This Christians nations theory you have is the most ridiculous belief I've ever come across. You need to give that up and start over.

Nevertheless, God called these nations by promise to Abraham to set up a situation where many could be "chosen." Inheriting eternal life is the ultimate goal, and Christian societies merely created a better climate for this to develop.

Wait a minute here. You're talking about nations being chosen. When Jesus said many are called, but few are chosen are you thinking He was talking about nations? If not, then what are you talking about here? Where is this concept of chosen nations taught in scripture?

When all nations have had their exposure to the Gospel, and Christian nations have fallen away, as Israel did, then Christ will come back to judge the earth and to bring things back to his ultimate purpose to have a godly Israel and Christian nations. And this will be secured by binding Satan, and by Christ's rule over the earth in some sense at that time.

Finally, the last part about there being no "Jew or Gentile" is speaking in respect to God's impartiality towards men in the opportunity to become members of Christ. There is no litmus test for applying for eternal life, in regard to race or nationality. We have to repent of our own ways, and accept Christ's way. It is not a national way, but the way of one Man, Christ.

Ugh. I disagree, but I don't have anything more to say than what I've already said in this post.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What version of the bible is this quote from?



Here is the AMP Version

The Son of Man Presented​

13
“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, on the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14
“And to Him (the Messiah) was given dominion (supreme authority),
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and speakers of every language
Should serve and worship Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Whatever version it is from it is to be thrown into the fire.
The portion I highlighted above changes everything.

There is only one time ever when the Son of man was presented before the Father.



Rev 5
6 And there between the throne (with the four living creatures) and among the elders I saw a Lamb (Christ) standing, [bearing scars and wounds] as though it had been slain, with seven horns (complete power) and with seven eyes (complete knowledge), which are the seven Spirits of God who have been sent [on duty] into all the earth. 7 And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. 8 And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb (Christ), each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of fragrant incense, which are the prayers of the saints (God’s people). 9 And they sang a new song [of glorious redemption], saying,

“Worthy and deserving are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slain (sacrificed), and with Your blood You purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10
“You have made them to be a kingdom [of royal subjects] and priests to our God; and they will reign on the earth.”



Ascension

He wasn't quoting from a bad translation. He just left some of it out. He did not quote the entire passage. He left out the part about the Son of Man (Jesus) being led into the presence of the Ancient of Days (God the Father). You have to wonder why he did that. The passage is clearly about the ascension of Christ rather than His second coming.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What version of the bible is this quote from?

I reduced the NIV quote to segments to illustrate the points I'm making. The Son of Man is coming to earth. He is going to establish a Kingdom. He is establishing his authority over the world, and people will worship him.

Here is the AMP Version

The Son of Man Presented​

13
“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, on the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14
“And to Him (the Messiah) was given dominion (supreme authority),
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and speakers of every language
Should serve and worship Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Whatever version it is from it is to be thrown into the fire.
The portion I highlighted above changes everything.

I wouldn't throw the NIV into the fire. It's a product of many respected scholars. Most all of the versions of this passage agree with one another.

The portion you highlighted is accurate in both versions.

Dan 7.13 He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Since you and I are not scholars in the biblical languages, we're not particularly qualified to say one version needs to be burned and one doesn't. I can, however, ask my brother, who has done a lot of studies in the biblical languages and has done some personal translation work? I'm not going to do that if you've made up your mind?

There is only one time ever when the Son of man was presented before the Father.

Actually, this may be yet another time? Yes, Jesus ascended to heaven. But the context of Dan 7 is the destruction of Antichrist and the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. Jesus approached the Father and delivers the kingdoms of the world to Him.

1 Cor 15.24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Rev 11.15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”

 

[jeffweeder]

He wasn't quoting from a bad translation. He just left some of it out. He did not quote the entire passage.

Well, I thought I'd ask the question.

He did post 2 verses 13 and 14, but somehow half of v13 went missing.

You cannee ( cannot) do that.

Editing Gods word could have terrible consequences.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I reduced the NIV quote to segments to illustrate the points I'm making. The Son of Man is coming to earth. He is going to establish a Kingdom. He is establishing his authority over the world, and people will worship him.

And you conveniently left out the part that does not support the points you're making. Why did you resort to such a dishonest tactic, Randy? That does not reflect well on your character at all.

I wouldn't throw the NIV into the fire. It's a product of many respected scholars. Most all of the versions of this passage agree with one another.

He's not doing that. He only said what he did because he didn't realize you didn't quote the whole passage.

The portion you highlighted is accurate in both versions.

Dan 7.13 He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Since you and I are not scholars in the biblical languages, we're not particularly qualified to say one version needs to be burned and one doesn't. I can, however, ask my brother, who has done a lot of studies in the biblical languages and has done some personal translation work? I'm not going to do that if you've made up your mind?

Actually, this may be yet another time? Yes, Jesus ascended to heaven. But the context of Dan 7 is the destruction of Antichrist and the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. Jesus approached the Father and delivers the kingdoms of the world to Him.

Where is the Father? On earth? No. In heaven. So, that is where Jesus was led into His presence. I don't think you're being honest with the text here, Randy.

1 Cor 15.24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Rev 11.15 The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:
“The kingdom of the world has become
the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah,
and he will reign for ever and ever.”

These passages are not directly related to Daniel 7:13-14. But, Ephesians 1:19-23 is, and I showed that in another post which I hope you will address.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I thought I'd ask the question.

He did post 2 verses 13 and 14, but somehow half of v13 went missing.

You cannee ( cannot) do that.

Editing Gods word could have terrible consequences.

It was a very questionable thing to do, to say the least. Did he not include that part because he knows that part doesn't support his doctrine? I think so.

 

[jeffweeder]

I reduced the NIV quote to segments to illustrate the points I'm making.

By doing that Randy you made the exact opposite point to what you edited out.
Jesus was going in the opposite direction.

 

[Randy Kluth]

You're just not being clear. Imagine that. I'm sure you're always clear in your own mind.

No, I've told you I'm *not* clear on this. This is speculative. I take certain things as doctrinal and some things as speculative. When I'm speculative, I'm *not* clear!

Anyway, so, you're saying that you believe glorified Christians will be on the earth for a short time as well then? If not, then why would Jesus even come to the earth at all if He's just going to leave right away afterwards? This just makes no sense. Your view is based entirely on speculation and not on scripture at all. That is a major problem that you seem to not care about.

I base my beliefs on the Bible, and then try to make sense of them. What isn't clear I speculate about. I believe Jesus calls his Church up to heaven because they are to put on heavenly--not earthly, clothing. That may not make sense, but that's what the Word says.

And we are told Jesus is coming back with his glorified army to establish rule on earth. I take that by faith, and it does make sense to me. What may not make as much sense is in how I'm speculating about how this is actually accomplished.

They didn't see Him in all His glory for a thousand years. Good grief, you are definitely missing the point. But, how can I get you to see the point when you make no effort to see it?

Don't confuse "seeing what you say" with "agreeing with what you say." Just because I may disagree with you doesn't mean I don't *see* what you're saying!

Are you *seeing* my point about the saints ruling on earth here over a mortal population? Satan rules over this world right now from heaven. Is that irrational? And the Church will be like angels. Why can't we rule from heaven over the earth. We come to establish our rule on earth, and then rule from heaven. That's how I see it tentatively, until I have more information. We come back from heaven when Jerusalem descends from heaven at the end of the Millennium.

What does it mean for Him to "rule" with an iron scepter, though? Have you given a second of thought to that? In terms of Revelation 19:15, what type of scenario is that describing? A scenario where Jesus is destroying people, not ruling over them in the sense that you're thinking of. Why do you not take that into consideration?

This is where your position seems irrational somewhat to me. You think "ruling over" the world is "destroying it?" I think ruling implies there is someone to rule over. The Church doesn't rule over itself--it rules over a mortal humanity that has yet to prove itself, one that still is somewhat encumbered by a Sin Nature.

Our rule, in part, consists of ruling over angels, specifically Satan and angels. When we come back with Christ, Christ has given us authority to dispel satanic forces from the earth. That's yet another reason why we come back, to dispose of demons.

1 Cor 6.3 Do you not know that we will judge angels?
Rom 16.20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.

Those are referring to this prophecy:

Psalm 2:7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. 8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. 9 You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”'

When you read this you should be able to see that Him ruling with an iron scepter (rod of iron) has nothing to do with what you think it does, but rather has to do with Him breaking/destroying people which is compared to Him dashing them to pieces like pottery. You are completely missing the context here.

The rule that is coming for the Church includes *both* the destruction of Antichrist and Satan's rule, as well as a rule over the earth, to bring peace and prosperity to Christians, and to maintain a check over those who are not Christians.

Please do not just reference chapters. Which verses in Daniel 7 are you using to back up what you're saying here?

Please see above. The rest of your questions were answered above.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It was a very questionable thing to do, to say the least. Did he not include that part because he knows that part doesn't support his doctrine? I think so.

I sometimes edit out parts that I *know* will go down a rabbit hole and miss the point I'm making. The idea is not to edit out the meaning of a passage, but to avoid things that will conflate the main point with other legitimate points. I'm well aware of portions of passages that are controversial.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

By doing that Randy you made the exact opposite point to what you edited out.
Jesus was going in the opposite direction.

Yep. Where else would Jesus be led into God the Father's presence than in heaven? That Daniel 7:13-14 passage lines up perfectly with other scripture that refers to His ascension like Ephesians 1:19-23 and the passage you referenced in Revelation 5.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing. It makes sense to a large degree. Do you not understand that what was written in the Old Testament was purposely made obscure? The New Testament shines light on the Old Testament. This should be common knowledge. So, you should be able to support your doctrine with New Testament scripture that corroborates your understanding of OT scripture

I agree that the NT and OT agree. I can indeed support anything in the OT with NT references. Since we already believe that it's not necessary to prove that unless we're speaking to Jews.

He very clearly indicated in Galatians 3:16 that the singular seed was Jesus himself. If you deny that then it just shows you are willing to twist any scripture to say whatever you want. Period. But, then in verse 29 he indicates that those who belong to Christ are counted for the seed as well.

You are inept if you don't understand that "seed" applied not just to Jesus, but also to Abraham's physical descendants. It's common sense. If you want to disagree, fine.

This is ludicrous. Israel was never a Christian nation. And there are no other Christian nations. What percentage of a nation need to be Christians in order for a nation to be a Christian nation, Randy?

A high percentage of a nation must be genuinely convinced that Christianity is right for the State to be truly Christian. It does not require 100% membership in the Church, nor does it require anything more than a political consensus to make the State Christian. A State where only the minority is Christian is bound to be tossed out as "cruel tyrants!"

Go ahead and believe there's no such things as "Christian nations." The encyclopedias use the term, and so do I.

Of course Israel has not yet been a Christian nation. The Prophets indicate that they will enter into their Messianic Theocracy when Messiah actually comes!

 

[jeffweeder]

Yep. Where else would Jesus be led into God the Father's presence than in heaven? That Daniel 7:13-14 passage lines up perfectly with other scripture that refers to His ascension like Ephesians 1:19-23 and the passage you referenced in Revelation 5.

Yes it does. Truth will always be corroborated by a handful of other enlightened scriptures/letters

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I've told you I'm *not* clear on this. This is speculative. I take certain things as doctrinal and some things as speculative. When I'm speculative, I'm *not* clear!

Why did you act like you were being clear then? You came across like I should have known what you were talking about.

I base my beliefs on the Bible, and then try to make sense of them. What isn't clear I speculate about. I believe Jesus calls his Church up to heaven because they are to put on heavenly--not earthly, clothing. That may not make sense, but that's what the Word says.

Where are you seeing that He calls His church up to heaven to put on heavenly clothing?

And we are told Jesus is coming back with his glorified army to establish rule on earth.

Where are we told that?

I take that by faith, and it does make sense to me. What may not make as much sense is in how I'm speculating about how this is actually accomplished.

Don't confuse "seeing what you say" with "agreeing with what you say." Just because I may disagree with you doesn't mean I don't *see* what you're saying!

Of course, Randy. You don't need to explain that to me.

Are you *seeing* my point about the saints ruling on earth here over a mortal population?

No. And I understand that you're not asking if I agree with that point. You already know that I don't. But, I'm not seeing it, either. Makes no sense at all.

Satan rules over this world right now from heaven. Is that irrational?

Well, yes, because that isn't true. He is not in heaven. He was kicked out long ago.

And the Church will be like angels. Why can't we rule from heaven over the earth. We come to establish our rule on earth, and then rule from heaven.

How would that work exactly?

That's how I see it tentatively, until I have more information. We come back from heaven when Jerusalem descends from heaven at the end of the Millennium.

We're not going to heaven with our immortal bodies. Where are you getting that from? I thought you were post-trib?

This is where your position seems irrational somewhat to me. You think "ruling over" the world is "destroying it?" I think ruling implies there is someone to rule over.

Does your thinking include considering the context of the verses that talk about Him ruling with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15-18 it talks about Him ruling with a rod of iron in the context of Him destroying His enemies. Do you take that into account? In Psalm 2:7-9 it talks about Him breaking the heathen with His rod of iron and compares that to Him breaking pottery into pieces. What does that tell you about what His rule with a rod of iron entails? It tells me that it has to do with Him destroying His enemies, not ruling over them the way an earthly ruler rules over people.

 

[jeffweeder]

You are inept if you don't understand that "seed" applied not just to Jesus, but also to Abraham's physical descendants. It's common sense. If you want to disagree, fine.

Common sense insists that only those of Abrahams descendants that are in Christ Jesus are his seed.


22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your countrymen; you shall listen to Him and obey everything He tells you. 23 And it will be that every person that does not listen to and heed that Prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.

24 Indeed, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also announced these days. 25 You are the sons (descendants) of the prophets and [heirs] of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed (descendant) all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ 26 It was for you first of all that God raised up His Servant and Son [Jesus], and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”


Galatians 3:16
Now the promises [in the covenants] were decreed to Abraham and to his seed. God does not say, “And to seeds (descendants, heirs),” as if [referring] to many [persons], but as to one, “And to your Seed,” who is [none other than] Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree that the NT and OT agree. I can indeed support anything in the OT with NT references.

I don't believe you can support your beliefs with NT references. It figures that you would try to say that you don't need to do that. I believe that you do if you want to be taken seriously.

You are inept if you don't understand that "seed" applied not just to Jesus, but also to Abraham's physical descendants. It's common sense. If you want to disagree, fine.

Buddy, you talk about others being rude and acting like "a gang of thugs" and then you say something like this to me. Stop being a hypocrite! Don't tell me I'm "inept" just because I disagree with your nonsense. Paul made it VERY clear that Abraham's seed is Christ and those who belong to Christ and it has nothing to do with who someone descends from physically. You are not accepting what Paul taught. If anyone is inept here, it is definitely you.

You have no place to say things like this about others when you are being deceptive in your posts by doing things like leaving out the parts of verses that don't support your doctrine like you did when you quoted Daniel 7:13-14. Now, that was inept, Randy. Look in the mirror if you want to learn what being inept is all about.

A high percentage of a nation must be genuinely convinced that Christianity is right for the State to be truly Christian. It does not require 100% membership in the Church, nor does it require anything more than a political consensus to make the State Christian. A State where only the minority is Christian is bound to be tossed out as "cruel tyrants!"

There has never been such a nation. You base your doctrine on things that you make up from your imagination. That kind of doctrine is on shaky ground, at best.

Go ahead and believe there's no such things as "Christian nations." The encyclopedias use the term, and so do I.

LOL. Go ahead and base your doctrine on secular encyclopedias then, if you think that's a good idea. I definitely do not.

Of course Israel has not yet been a Christian nation. The Prophets indicate that they will enter into their Messianic Theocracy when Messiah actually comes!

It never will be a Christian nation. That is a pipe dream. Like Paul, I hope that some of them will be saved (Romans 11:14), but thinking that they all will is not a reasonable expectation at all.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Why did you act like you were being clear then? You came across like I should have known what you were talking about.

As I said, some things are a matter of doctrine, and others are a matter of speculation. When I share my opinions, of course I'm going to debate its merits! But it isn't a matter for falling out over!

Where are you seeing that He calls His church up to heaven to put on heavenly clothing?

You don't believe that? What do you think "heavenly" clothing is?

Where are we told that?

Rev 19

Well, yes, because that isn't true. He is not in heaven. He was kicked out long ago.

I don't agree. He's still called "the ruler of the Kingdom of the air"--Eph 2.

How would that work exactly?

You tell me! As I said, sometimes we enter into the area of "speculation."

We're not going to heaven with our immortal bodies. Where are you getting that from? I thought you were post-trib?

I think we ascend to heaven to get our immortal bodies *in heaven.* Then we return to earth with Christ to establish his spiritual theocracy here on earth. Then we return to heaven, leaving our spiritual reign here, just like God's Presence was in the Tabernacle. Some of this is, as I said, speculative. But it is informed by Scriptures--not proven.

Does your thinking include considering the context of the verses that talk about Him ruling with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15-18 it talks about Him ruling with a rod of iron in the context of Him destroying His enemies. Do you take that into account? In Psalm 2:7-9 it talks about Him breaking the heathen with His rod of iron and compares that to Him breaking pottery into pieces. What does that tell you about what His rule with a rod of iron entails? It tells me that it has to do with Him destroying His enemies, not ruling over them the way an earthly ruler rules over people.

As I said, we come back to 1st establish our reign and 2nd to actually rule. Both are true. We cast Satan out, and then we rule over the mortal world in the name of Christ.

A number of Scriptures I quoted from Revelation indicate we *will* rule--future tense. That isn't just a matter of defeating the enemy. More, it's about a reign over the earth that has yet to take place. And it requires time to actually reign over the earth.

Furthermore, it requires mortal humanity for there to be someone to have to rule over. We may not agree, so I'm not arguing angrily against your position--just giving reasons for my own. Your position has about 2000 years worth of arguments for it!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I sometimes edit out parts that I *know* will go down a rabbit hole and miss the point I'm making. The idea is not to edit out the meaning of a passage, but to avoid things that will conflate the main point with other legitimate points. I'm well aware of portions of passages that are controversial.

This is weak. You should not have left that out. It talks about Jesus being led into the presence of the Father and Him then being given "authority, glory and sovereign power", which, according to Ephesians 1:19-23, is exactly what He was given when He ascended to heaven and was placed at the right hand of the Father. Please address this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You don't believe that? What do you think "heavenly" clothing is?

It tells us that. Your attention to detail is lacking.

Revelation 19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.)

It's not talking about literal fine linen here. The fine linen symbolically represents "the righteous acts of God's holy people").

I don't agree. He's still called "the ruler of the Kingdom of the air"--Eph 2.

The kingdom of the air is not heaven. I said he, "the accuser of the brethren", was kicked out of heaven long ago and that is true. If he was still there then he could still accuse us before God, but he can't.

Romans 8:33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

You tell me! As I said, sometimes we enter into the area of "speculation."

Shouldn't our speculations make some semblance of sense, though? We will be changed to have immortal bodies and I suppose we will have some amazing abilities at that point, but we aren't going to be God. How can we rule over people on earth from heaven? Even angels don't interact with people from heaven. They come to earth to do that. But, we will somehow be able to rule over earth from heaven? How? You're not really even speculating how, you're just speculating that it will happen. But, if you can't even come up with any kind of explanation how that could be possible, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

I think we ascend to heaven to get our immortal bodies *in heaven.*

Again, your lack of attention to detail is being shown. Paul said that we will be changed at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52). He said the dead in Christ will be raised first and then we will all be changed. Where do we go at that point, Randy? To heaven? No. Paul said we will meet Jesus "in the air" (1 Thess 4:14-17). That is not heaven. You're making the same mistake that pre-tribs make. You are post-trib, right? Why are you interpreting scripture like a pre-trib?

Then we return to earth with Christ to establish his spiritual theocracy here on earth. Then we return to heaven, leaving our spiritual reign here, just like God's Presence was in the Tabernacle. Some of this is, as I said, speculative. But it is informed by Scriptures--not proven.

It's all speculative and can't be supported by scripture whatsoever. Therefore, I cannot take this seriously.

As I said, we come back to 1st establish our reign and 2nd to actually rule. Both are true. We cast Satan out, and then we rule over the mortal world in the name of Christ.

We cast Satan out? You continue to make things up that aren't true. If you read Revelation 12:7-9 you can see that it was Michael and his angels who cast Satan out of heaven, not us.

A number of Scriptures I quoted from Revelation indicate we *will* rule--future tense. That isn't just a matter of defeating the enemy.

Why didn't you address anything I said about this? The context indicates that it is a matter of defeating the enemy. You are ignoring the context that associates the ruling with a rod of iron with complete destruction. Tell me how exactly Jesus breaking His enemies with a rod of iron to the point that it can be compared to destroying pottery into pieces equates to Him ruling over them in the way that you think He will?

More, it's about a reign over the earth that has yet to take place. And it requires time to actually reign over the earth.

Furthermore, it requires mortal humanity for there to be someone to have to rule over. We may not agree, so I'm not arguing angrily against your position--just giving reasons for my own. Your position has about 2000 years worth of arguments for it!

Let me be honest here, Randy. I find your position on all this to be extremely weak. I mean, I can't even believe anyone would believe all this when there is so little (none if you ask me) support for it. But, you believe what you want. That's up to you, of course.

 

[Timtofly]

Yes! He is coming to resurrect man, judge man, exercise perfect judgment, reward every man according to his works, glorify the redeemed and glorify all creation. He is introducing perfection forever.

By destroying everything?

 

[Timtofly]

Ok. You seem to be presenting what you have been taught. Not what Revelation 20 teaches.

Where does Revelation 20 teach the Jesus will be on earth?
Where does Revelation 20 teach that there will be no more war?
Where does Revelation 20 teach a "very greatly improved time"?
How can there be widespread deaths and there not be countless mortals on your millennial earth?

Where does Scripture teach there will not be a future millennium kingdom after the Second Coming, but some future theologian will invent amil after looking back at the last 1900 years and declare Christ's kingdom on earth is the here and now?