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!
Angelina said:Wow Retro!
If there were a competition for the longest post on this forum...you may have taken it out! ^_^ This seems like an interesting topic but I am afraid that I do not have the time to read it all or contribute...my blessing to you thoughh34r:
Wormwood said:I agree with Angelina. I would love to participate in the discussion, but comments need to be much more concise. Posts that are 20 pages long with multiple extensive quotes are way too time consuming. Try sharing one thought at a time rather than trying to dump the whole pick-up load on us at once.
It would IF that was the only covenant involved. It's not. There are TWO covenants in play within Yeshua`s first advent. The Davidic covenant, which was already in place and invoked for His Son when YHWH called Yeshua` His Son at His mikvah (baptism), and then the New Covenant which began with Yeshua`s death, although foreshadowed by the last Seder (the last supper) with His disciples.Poppin said:"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
...
this clears up the Daniel 9 issue, right?![]()
In reply to such allegations, it is necessary to observe certain essential facts about the new covenant.The passage speaks of the new covenant. It declares that this new covenant has been already introduced and that by virtue of the fact that it is called "new" it has made the one which it is replacing "old," and that the old is about to vanish away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah.... (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the church, p. 154.)
Furthermore, Pentecost notes these Scripture locations for the Davidic Covenant (words of YHWH in purple):First, it is seen by the fact of the words of establishment of the covenant ... Jeremiah 31:31... . Other passages which support this fact are Isaiah 59:20-21; 61:8-9; Jeremiah 32:37-40; 50:4-5; Ezekiel 16:60-63; 34:25-26; 37:21-28.
Secondly, that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel is also seen by the fact of its very name. ... contrasted with the Mosaic covenant ... the new covenant is made with the same people as the Mosaic ... the Scripture clearly teaches that the Mosaic covenant of the law was made with the nation Israel only. Romans 2:14 ... Romans 6:14 ad Galatians 3:24-25 ... 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 ... Leviticus 26:46 ... Deuteronomy 4:8.
There can be no question as to whom pertains the law. It is for Israel alone, and since this old covenant was made with Israel, the new covenant is made with the same people, no other group or nation being in view.
Thirdly, that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for israel is also seen by the fact that in its establishment the perpetuity of the nation Israel and her restoration to the land is vitally linked with it (Jeremiah 31:35-40) ... .
Thus we conclude that for these three incontrovertible reasons, the very words of the text, the name itself, and the linking with the perpetuity of the nation, the new covenant according to the teaching of the Old Testament is for the people of Israel. (Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 108-10.)
So, the Davidic covenant was also reinforced with the "son of David," Yeshua`, when YHWH, His Father, confirmed it at His mikvah with the words "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." THIS covenant was confirmed at the BEGINNING of Yeshua`s ministry - His offer of the Kingdom. Therefore, I believe that it is to THIS covenant - the DAVIDIC Covenant - to which Gavri'el was alluding in Daniel 9:27.What do the major terms of the covenant mean? By David's "house" it can hardly be doubted that reference is made to David's posterity, his physical descendants. It is assured that they will never be slain in toto, nor displaced by another family entirely. The line of David will always be the royal line. By the term "throne" it is clear that no reference is made to a material throne, but rather to the dignity and power which was sovereign and supreme in David as king. The right to rule always belonged to David's seed. By the term "kingdom" there is reference to David's political kingdom over Israel. By the expression "for ever" it is signified that the Davidic authority and Davidic kingdom or rule over Israel shall never be taken from David's posterity. The right to rule will never be transferred to another family, and its arrangement is designed for eternal perpetuity. Whatever its changing form, temporary interruptions, or chastisements, the line of David will always have the right to rule over Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege. (John F. Walvoord, "Millennial Series," Bibliotheca Sacra, 110:98-99, April, 1953.)
Hello Retrobyter,.Retrobyter said:Shalom, Poppin.
It would IF that was the only covenant involved. It's not. There are TWO covenants in play within Yeshua`s first advent. The Davidic covenant, which was already in place and invoked for His Son when YHWH called Yeshua` His Son at His mikvah (baptism), and then the New Covenant which began with Yeshua`s death, although foreshadowed by the last Seder (the last supper) with His disciples.
The New Covenant superseded the Old Mosaic Covenant, but the Davidic Covenant was still in place and will NEVER be superseded or suspended or rescinded! (It doesn't NEED to be because Yeshua` was and will be the LAST KING of Isra'el, who will reign forever and ever!)
To this I say, SO?! God His Father, YHWH, made Him both Lord (Master) and Christ (Messiah - Anointed to be King). It does NOT say that He made Him KING! Show me ONE PLACE (outside of a prophecy) where Yeshua` is called a King! (And being "born king" is not the same thing as being King! It means "born TO BE king," speaking of a baby's inheritance! Also, tongue-in-cheek doesn't count.)Poppin said:Hello Retrobyter,.
What Davidic Covenant?
That God promised one of his own line (David's) would take his throne and rule?
Here's the Davidic Covenant - as Fulfilled in and by Christ at His Resurrection:
Acts
22“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus,d delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. 25For David says concerning him,
“‘I saw the Lord always before me,
for he is at my right hand that I may not be shaken;
26therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced;
my flesh also will dwell in hope.
27For you will not abandon my soul to Hades,
or let your Holy One see corruption.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of gladness with your presence.’
29“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
36Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
...
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ,
Jeremiah 12:15Retrobyter said:Shalom, Poppin.
To this I say, SO?! God His Father, YHWH, made Him both Lord (Master) and Christ (Messiah - Anointed to be King). It does NOT say that He made Him KING! Show me ONE PLACE (outside of a prophecy) where Yeshua` is called a King! (And being "born king" is not the same thing as being King! It means "born TO BE king," speaking of a baby's inheritance! Also, tongue-in-cheek doesn't count.)
To that I say, "So?!" There's nothing wrong with a viewpoint when it matches what the Scriptures teach! I will happily admit to being both a millennialist and a chiliast. (Is that the right word?) However, you should know that I'm not one of those who believes that it will all be "an era of temporal bliss on earth." I believe there WILL be conflict although severely SQUELCHED by the King of kings and Master of masters! Yeshua`, still the Messiah - the Anointed by God to be King - will actually BECOME Isra'el's King during that time period and will gradually become King of Kings - World Emperor - as He subjugates all of His enemies throughout the Millennium. People will still die during that time period and people will still weep during that age. Death is not conquered until the END of the Millennium! Furthermore, tears are not wiped away until AFTER the New Earth has been established.Poppin said:-------
CHILIASM.
Chiliasm, or Millennialism, is that peculiar doctrine which expects an era of temporal bliss on earth, with an earthly kingdom for all believers, Christ being the King, while Satan and all forces of evil are removed from the earth for the time being. All this is supposed to take place before the Day of Judgment and to last for one thousand years according to human reckoning, Hence the name Millennialism, or Chiliasm, from the thousand years spoken of in this chapter.
http://www.kretzmannproject.org/REV/Chiliasm.htm
You have identified one of the inconsistencies of the ideology of Amillennialism.ENOCH2010 said:If you think the Islamic nations are going to convert to Christianity you must not watch the news, and for satan to be bound now, there sure are a lot of evil nations in the world.
No, I'm not forgetting about or leaving out 1 Thessalonians 4. To the contrary, it is a vital link in the scenario for when Yeshua` returns. HOWEVER, it is an ASSUMPTION that the resurrection of the godly and the ungodly happen at the same time. Upon what do you base that assumption?! Actually, they are separated by a thousand years. Follow the TIMING, even if you think the "thousand years" is just a "long time":Wormwood said:Retrobyter,
I agree that we must harmonize what Scriptures teach on the Second Coming if our view is to line up with what the Scriptures teach. However, Revelation 20:1-21:8 should be understood in light of its genre. The numbers throughout Revelation are symbolic (7 eyes, 7 horns, 10 horns, 144,000, 7 lampstands, 7 seals, 7 churches, 10,000 x 10,000 angels etc...) So why should we expect anything different with the 1,000 years...especially in reference to binding Satan with a "chain" and throwing him in a "pit/abyss." It seems clear to me that this is symbolic language describing spiritual events. Nothing in this text says anything about conflict being "severely squelched" either. It says that Satan will no longer be able to "deceive the nations" and once he is release he will "deceive the nations" again. The text says nothing about conflict or the lack thereof in the world. Rather, Jesus indicates that the "labor pains" will increase before the end and there will be ongoing "wars and rumors of wars" prior to his return.
I think a text you are also leaving out is 1 Thess. 4. Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that it seems very apparent that Paul was expecting the Second Coming at any moment and that this event would result in immediate resurrection of both the godly and ungodly, bodily transformation as well as the eternal judgment of the wicked in "that day." (cf. 1 thess. 4-5).
Really? So, you already have your incorruptible body, eh? No, I've heard a LOT of misuse of the term "resurrection." Even the song "Resurrection" by Nicole Sponberg is such a misuse. You can hear the song and read the lyrics on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnfapqiQyTsWormwood said:What if the "first resurrection" happens at baptism or when a believer is "born again?" After all, this is when a person "comes to life" and when death no longer has "power over them." I think 1 Thess 4-5 make it clear that the righteous and unrighteous are resurrected on the same "day" which happens to be when Christ is revealed with the trump and the voice of the archangel.
And if Christ is reigning right now, how about HE do something with (Ras)Putin? Or maybe Assad? Seems they are doing their own (their father's John 8:44) will unbridled. This is as good as Christ can do?poppin do people like you who think the Lord is reigning as king now, believe the devil is removed for a time being now ? If so why is there so much evil in the world?
Poppin ?
That you believe in a literal resurrection is good to hear. However, while there may be some symbolism in Revelation, there's not as much as some would have us believe. As far as the "locusts with hair and teeth," for instance, there is good reason to accept this as a literal identification of these creatures that arise out of the hole in the ground created by the meteorite being described. We have archaeological evidence of dragonflies that lived x number of years ago (we won't get into how long ago right now) with 2-foot wingspans, whereas the dragonflies we have today barely get to a 3-inch wingspan. I don't see these 2-foot-wide dragonflies as "prehistoric" but rather as "antediluvian." That is, creatures that lived in the more lush environment of the earth before the Flood.Wormwood said:Yes, I believe in a literal resurrection. However, Revelation is a book full of symbols and images. Dragons, beasts, locusts with hair and teeth, prostitutes drinking the blood of the saints, etc. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that this "resurrection" that protects a person from the "second death =hell" is being born again. Even books that are not filled with symbolism view salvation in this manner. (see Rom. 6:4; Eph. 2:6; Col. 3:1; 1 John 3:14).
As far as your interpretation of 1 Thess 4-5, I simply have to disagree. There is nothing there that suggest this is speaking of Jesus rescuing Jerusalem from foreign armies. There is no division from the end of chapter 4 to the discussion in chapter 5. Paul is clearly talking about the return of Jesus and resurrection that these Thessalonians fear they will miss if they die before the Second Coming. Paul then says, "concerning times and seasons we do not need to write you..."
This entire context is about these 1st century Jews being prepared for the Second Coming when God will raise the dead in Christ and will judge those who are "in darkness." I think its a leap to see this otherwise.
Regarding Matthew 13:24-50, these parables are NOT about the present at all! They are, being about the Kingdom of God, about the Kingdom that the Messiah Yeshua` will establish AFTER He has arrived! Yeshua` will certainly be the King of the Kingdom in these verses; HOWEVER, He is NOT YET KING! And, "Lord Jesus" means "Master Jesus." "Lord" doesn't mean "King" anymore than "Kurios" means "Basileus" or "Adonai" means "Melekh!" Don't forget Yeshua`s parable:Wormwood said:John,
I would invite you to read Matthew 13:24-50 as it relates to the "Kingdom of God." Are you suggesting Jesus is not the King of this kingdom mentioned in these verses? Jesus was "born" a King (Psalm 2; Matt. 2:6; Matt. 28:18; John 18:37) and he still reigns as King in a kingdom that has yet to be sifted. What exactly do you think "Lord Jesus" means?
Uh, how about this...John,
I would invite you to read Matthew 13:24-50 as it relates to the "Kingdom of God." Are you suggesting Jesus is not the King of this kingdom mentioned in these verses? Jesus was "born" a King (Psalm 2; Matt. 2:6; Matt. 28:18; John 18:37) and he still reigns as King in a kingdom that has yet to be sifted. What exactly do you think "Lord Jesus" means?