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!
What are you even trying to say here? Are you denying that the word "many" doesn't have to mean not all?
The sheep will inherit "eternal life" (Matt 25:46). How do you figure that they will be mortal at that point? Is the kingdom that the sheep will inherit a different kingdom than the one Paul referenced here:
What are you talking about? I don't claim to know what day or hour Jesus will come, at which point heaven and earth will pass away (Matt 24:35-39, 2 Peter 3:10-13).
This has nothing to do with the point I was making about Matthew 24:39. I don't think you read what people are saying very carefully.
You're right. That's not the point here. So, why even bring it up?
Still not addressing the point....
And you never did address the point. The point is that just as all unbelievers died in the flood in Noah's day (regardless of how long that took!), Jesus said "That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.". Please address this instead of everything but this.
So, can you paraphrase John 5:28-29 for me so that I can see exactly how you interpret it? Is it something like this:
Matthew 25:31-34, 46 KJV
You mean like, God must have feathers? This is a good question you ask, though, I'm glad you did!
I'm saying that I see many times how people's interpretations of Scripture often gloss over a word or two here and there, sometimes more than that.
As you were asserting "all" I was pointing out that the passage says "many". Should we take it to mean all? I think "many" can encompass "all", but I think that we need other Scriptures to verify which way we should understand it.
Great example! This is the very thing I had in mind saying "many" can encompass "all". And then again, a quick review of it's uses in the Bible show that mostly it's used of less than the total number. Many of the publicans, for many days, things like that.
We are mortal, yet we also have eternal life. Mortal meaning this body can die, eternal life meaning we are alive in the eternal realm.
By "Israel", I mean Jacob's children.
You are doing it again. Jesus didn't say that heaven and earth would pass away when He comes in power and glory.
It was a comparison, not a calendar. And there it quite a bit of Scripture which prophesies what will happen on the earth after Jesus comes in power and glory.
What are you trying to say here? The timing of Matthew 25:31-46 is clearly at His second coming. Are you trying to deny that?
You seem to be forgetting that mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50). You are contradicting scripture here. The time for entering the spiritual kingdom of Christ is now and before He returns, not after.
Do you understand that keeping the feast of tabernacles involves performing animal sacrifices? How can you think that animal sacrifices would be reinstated in light of the fact that Jesus made the "once for all" sacrifice for sins long ago already? That would be an insult to what Christ has already accomplished. He put an end to the need for animal sacrifices long ago already, so why would they be reinstated? That makes no sense.
"Ruling" with a rod of iron is associated with destruction, not ruling in the way you're thinking about. Just read Psalm 2:7-9 and Revelation 19:15-18 to see the context of what "ruling" with a rod of iron entails.
Nice story, but it's not taught anywhere in scripture.
No, I want to talk about 2 Peter 3 if you don't mind. It's rather straightforward. Paul wrote about it in 1 Thess 5:2-3. There's no need to make something straightforward into something convoluted, as you typically do.
In 2 Peter 3:10-12, which you avoided addressing, it indicates that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Do you know what that means? It means it will arrive suddenly and unexpectedly. And it will be accompanied by global destruction, according to Peter in 2 Peter 3:10-12. How does your understanding of the day of the Lord line up with that? Please explain that.
Yes, He did. He first said that heaven and earth would pass away in Matthew 24:35 and then said that no one knows the day or hour that will happen. He then proceeded to talk about His second coming. This is no different than what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:3-13. Peter also associated the passing away of the heavens and the earth with the day of Christ's return.
He implied it by indicating that no one knows the day or hour that heaven and earth will pass away. He said the same thing about His second coming, that no one knows the day or hour. He associated the passing away of heaven and earth with His second coming just like Peter did in 2 Peter 3:3-13. You are denying the obvious here, in my opinion.
What does this mean?
Such as?
But, He did. Your doctrinal bias is keeping you from seeing that. And you're not interpreting scripture with scripture. We can be confident that is what Jesus was saying because Peter taught the same thing.
We currently have the hope of eternal life. We do not yet possess it. We will possess it when our bodies are changed to be immortal. That has obviously not yet occurred. Whenever scripture speaks about inheriting the kingdom it's talking in terms of inheriting it bodily. Only doctrinal bias could cause someone to deny this.
Nope. That is not at all what Jesus taught in Matthew 25:31-46. Mortal flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. You are contradicting scripture.
Gives them faith? What are you talking about? Since when does God force anyone to believe? Your doctrine is terrible because it teaches that Jews don't need to worry about taking the responsibility of repenting and putting their faith in Christ because God will just do that for them one day. Today is the day of salvation! Your doctrine teaches that Jews can put it off until tomorrow even though tomorrow may not come!
Do you know that this verse is quoted with a first coming context in John 19:37? What are you attempting to say by bringing up this verse?
Do you know that the Redeemer, Jesus, already came to Zion to die for the sins of Jacob (and the world)? Why are you acting as if this is a prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled yet? That's like saying that Jesus hasn't come yet to sacrifice Himself for people's sins. That is talking about the new covenant that was established long ago by the blood of Christ.
Yes. Did you not see where I said there's no reason to think that Daniel 12:1-2 is talking about some other event than John 5:28-29?
Like John 5:28-29?
So what? Does that dictate how it is used in Daniel 12:2? Of course not. John 5:28-29 tells us how that should be understood.
Yes, and John 5:28-29 is unambiguous.
I understand how you are reading this. But if you keep it in context, the day and hour Jesus is speaking directly of is the day of His coming in power and glory, and the following verses make that abundantly clear to me.
However, all the resurrection passages need to be reconciled together without negating any of them.
What does this even mean? You say so many things that don't make any sense. How does the Bible itself tell us which is which? I'm sorry, but I find that statement to be ludicrous. Instead, I believe the Holy Spirit tells us which is which. It's not always easy to tell which is which, if we're honest about it. So, we need the Holy Spirit's help in those cases.
So am I. Which is why I point out that Daniel 12:1-2 can be understood more fully by reading John 5:28-29.
For the most part that's correct. It would be the rare case where a doctrine can only be found taught in one verse or passage in all of scripture.
If that was true then why doesn't everyone always agree on what are metaphors and symbols?
Sometimes, but not always.
I agree with all this. I don't know how anyone can understand these concepts and still be a Premillennialist. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
It doesn't always explain the symbols that clearly. For example, the beast. There are who knows how many opinions on who or what the beast is. It doesn't tell us specifically. Yet, you're over here trying to tell me that symbols are always explained? No, not true. Not always with explicit detail such as the text stating specifically that the dragon represents Satan.
This is ridiculous. Do you never use any spiritual discernment? Why in the world would someone's sexual purity have anything to do with being part of the 144,000? I believe that is complete nonsense. They are set apart because of their SPIRITUAL purity. Have you never read this:
Another one of your vague comments that I can only guess as to what it means.
I think because we have such different ways of looking at things.
That's part of it, but you also are not specific in what you're saying a lot of the time. So, I'd be surprised if anyone can understand some of the things you say.
It's completely up to you what you want to respond to or not. It's very clear we will never come anywhere close to agreeing on these things. I don't think that makes them not worth discussing. But, I don't personally have anything more to add right now to what I've already said, so I'm fine to just agree to disagree at this point.
