The end in relation to when Christ initially returns.

[Davidpt]

So what you’re saying is in the past there are events that are greater in scope as far as death and physical destruction than the Matthew 24 tribulation because they are wrath not tribulation. If this is the case then the great tribulation could end up being mild in comparison.

I guess it could be kinda like saying I had the greatest hang nail ever and there will never be a hang nail like it ever again. But when compared to something like a heart attack it is mild.

What I am saying is, events such as Noah's flood affected pretty much everyone on the planet while great tribulation will only be affecting the church, thus not everyone on the planet. Per my view great tribulation parallels the time of the 42 month reign of the beast. It will be those that refuse to worship the beast that it will then be difficult to survive during these times. Look at Revelation 13. Those worshiping the beast during it's reign have no cares in the world. The beast isn't making war with them and killing any of them, it's making war with the saints and killing many of them.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The elect meant here is not meaning unbelieving Jews, it is meaning the church. IOW, it is for the church's sake these days will be shortened, otherwise there will be no Christians remaining alive because the beast will have managed to wipe them all off the face of the planet eventually.

 

[grafted branch]

What I am saying is, events such as Noah's flood affected pretty much everyone on the planet while great tribulation will only be affecting the church, thus not everyone on the planet. Per my view great tribulation parallels the time of the 42 month reign of the beast. It will be those that refuse to worship the beast that it will then be difficult to survive during these times. Look at Revelation 13. Those worshiping the beast during it's reign have no cares in the world. The beast isn't making war with them and killing any of them, it's making war with the saints and killing many of them.

Matthew 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

The elect meant here is not meaning unbelieving Jews, it is meaning the church. IOW, it is for the church's sake these days will be shortened, otherwise there will be no Christians remaining alive because the beast will have managed to wipe them all off the face of the planet eventually.

So then only the church experiences the tribulation but the entire planet experiences the bowls of wrath? The tribulation being the greatest ever and the bowls of wrath may or may not be the greatest when compared to the flood which left only eight souls. Would that be a fair assessment of your view?

If so then those who came out of great tribulation in Revelation 7:14 are serving him in his temple in vs 15. In Revelation 15:8 the temple is filled with smoke and no man can enter until the seven plagues (bowls of wrath) are fulfilled.

Matthew 24:22 says no flesh would be saved but for the elect they are shortened. This means some of the elect make it past the tribulation and into the bowls of wrath, however they can’t enter the temple until after all the bowls are poured out due to the smoke. Wouldn’t this also be considered tribulation, not being able to enter the temple, or is their plight now considered wrath?

I guess what I’m saying is if only believers can enter the temple during the tribulation then not being able to enter the temple during the bowls of wrath would seem to qualify as tribulation still occurring because it only happens to believers. Maybe not being able to enter the temple is just not as great of a tribulation as the tribulation on earth during the reign of the beasts, I don’t know.

You don’t have to respond to this, I’m just kinda thinking out loud.

 

[rwb]

And yet here is some more of your logic I can't seem to grasp, that how a one time only event can have a dual fulfillment?

You're the one limiting "great tribulation" to a onetime event. Scripture doesn't. The Bible does not say 'the' great tribulation or even 'a' great tribulation, but many often assume that. The prophecy speaks of great and repeated great tribulation that shall come upon the earth as the Gospel is proclaimed unto all the world.

Matthew 24:21 (KJV) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Entrance into the Kingdom of God for which His disciples are to preach is accompanied by "much tribulation" not the or a tribulation as you appear to reason, but much tribulation wherever the Gospel is proclaimed.

Acts 14:21-22 (KJV) And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[rwb]

What I am saying is, events such as Noah's flood affected pretty much everyone on the planet while great tribulation will only be affecting the church, thus not everyone on the planet. Per my view great tribulation parallels the time of the 42 month reign of the beast. It will be those that refuse to worship the beast that it will then be difficult to survive during these times. Look at Revelation 13. Those worshiping the beast during it's reign have no cares in the world. The beast isn't making war with them and killing any of them, it's making war with the saints and killing many of them.

David you seem not to know that Israel of Old was the church as it existed then.

Acts 7:37-38 (KJV) This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Just as in Israel of Old the Jewish remnant according to election of grace was surrounded by Jews in unbelief, so too the universal Church in time also does. The Church as it exits on earth has always had both wheat and tares growing together.

 

[PinSeeker]

No! I try to distance myself from all forms of Preterism.

Okay, cool...

My view is that prophecy has dual fulfillment with the main focus being the Chruch that Christ came to this world with.

Hm. An interesting way of putting it. Still not quite sure where you stand. Would you agree if I said the believing Israelites of the Old Testament were in Christ and therefore part of Christ's Church also, just as all of those who have come after Jesus's time on earth are now? That, even for us Gentiles, they were our fathers, whom God spoke to through the prophets, as Hebrews 1:1 says? And that we all are true Jews of the Israel of God, as Paul says in Romans 2:28-29. We are all, together, God's elect, as Paul calls us in Romans 9-11. We are all, together, the temple that God will dwell in by His Spirit, as Paul says in Ephesians 2, fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.. I think you would/do, but like I said, I'm just not sure. Do you?

Preterits seem to have their mind fixed mostly on Jerusalem of Old whether they be partial or full.

Maybe...

Preterists think all the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, and partial preterists think some or many were. So you are neither, you say, but here again... I'm not sure exactly where you are. My belief is that all the prophecies of Revelation are in the process of being fulfilled, that most of the prophecies have many, many fulfillments ~ multiple iterations, like the first resurrection spoken of in Revelation 20 ~ over the course of... well... ... until Christ's return. So, you say "dual fulfillment." I would call it a layered fulfillment, and when all the layers are completed, ultimate fulfillment. Is that your understanding?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[rwb]

Hm. An interesting way of putting it. Still not quite sure where you stand. Would you agree if I said the believing Israelites of the Old Testament were in Christ and therefore part of Christ's Church also, just as all of those who have come after Jesus's time on earth are now? That, even for us Gentiles, they were our fathers, whom God spoke to through the prophets, as Hebrews 1:1 says? And that we all are true Jews of the Israel of God, as Paul says in Romans 2:28-29. We are all, together, God's elect, as Paul calls us in Romans 9-11. We are all, together, the temple that God will dwell in by His Spirit, as Paul says in Ephesians 2, fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.. I think you would/do, but like I said, I'm just not sure. Do you?

Exactly! The only thing I would not agree with here is Gentiles being true Jews. I see all people of faith being Israel of God who are neither Jew nor Gentiles but whosoever is of faith in Christ. I view Jew as representing ethnicity, where Israel of God representing faithful saints. So even though I understand why you say this, I'm not inclined to view all believers as Jews.

Maybe...

Preterists think all the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, and partial preterists think some or many were. So you are neither, you say, but here again... I'm not sure exactly where you are. My belief is that all the prophecies of Revelation are in the process of being fulfilled, that most of the prophecies have many, many fulfillments ~ multiple iterations, like the first resurrection spoken of in Revelation 20 ~ over the course of... well... ... until Christ's return. So, you say "dual fulfillment." I would call it a layered fulfillment, and when all the layers are completed, ultimate fulfillment. Is that your understanding?

Grace and peace to you.

Yeah, I've never really thought of fulfillment of prophecy in that sense, but it sure makes good sense, and I think you make a good argument. Thanks

Grace and peace to you also.

 

[PinSeeker]

Exactly! The only thing I would not agree with here is Gentiles being true Jews.

Hm. I mean there's the ethnic Jews for sure, and no other human being is a Jew in terms of ethnicity. But Paul ~ who was Jewish ~ does say that "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly" ~ Romans 2; 'outwardly' meaning ethnically, as the world sees them ~ and "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" ~ Romans 9. Then he says, contrastingly, "...a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" ~ so, one made a Jew of God, by the Spirit. He's making a distinction between Jews as people see Jews and Jews as God sees Jews. This seems unquestionable to me, that all believers, regardless of ethnicity or even the time in which they lived (before or after Jesus) ~ those who are called by God, both Jew and now Gentile ~ are true Jews in the eyes of God, part of His Israel. You don't believe this?

I see all people of faith being Israel of God who are neither Jew nor Gentiles but whosoever is of faith in Christ.

I mean... great. So it seems you do believe what I just said, but say you don't. Puzzling.

I view Jew as representing ethnicity...

Right, and this is the outward sense, and I do, too, but...

...Israel of God representing faithful saints.

Well, right again, but because we are part of His Israel, we are Jews inwardly, circumcised of the heart, by the Spirit, and so true Jews of God, Still no?

So even though I understand why you say this, I'm not inclined to view all believers as Jews.

Well, again, not in the outward sense, but the inward sense, and it's the latter that really matters. But to what you say here, that's fair.

Yeah, I've never really thought of fulfillment of prophecy in that sense, but it sure makes good sense, and I think you make a good argument.

Cool.

Again, grace and peace to you! We can never get enough of God's grace and peace... and the Prince of Peace... you know.

 

[rwb]

Hm. I mean there's the ethnic Jews for sure, and no other human being is a Jew in terms of ethnicity. But Paul ~ who was Jewish ~ does say that "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly" ~ Romans 2; 'outwardly' meaning ethnically, as the world sees them ~ and "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" ~ Romans 9. Then he says, contrastingly, "...a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter" ~ so, one made a Jew of God, by the Spirit. He's making a distinction between Jews as people see Jews and Jews as God sees Jews. This seems unquestionable to me, that all believers, regardless of ethnicity or even the time in which they lived (before or after Jesus) ~ those who are called by God, both Jew and now Gentile ~ are true Jews in the eyes of God, part of His Israel. You don't believe this?

But don't you think Paul is referring to their ethnicity? I believe Paul is making a distinction because he wants them to know being a Jew from the line of Abraham is not what will save them. Even those ethnic Jews of faith are not of faith because they are Jews, but because they are of faith. No, I don't believe Scripture is saying mankind of faith whether Jew or Gentile is a true Jew, but rather that the faithful are the Israel of God.

I mean... great. So it seems you do believe what I just said, but say you don't. Puzzling.

Do you believe calling believers true Jews is the same as calling them the Israel of God? That's not how I understand Paul. The Israel of God doesn't come from any natural ethnic seed. Israel of God comes from the supernatural SEED that is Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile but one new man, people of faith.

Well, right again, but because we are part of His Israel, we are Jews inwardly, circumcised of the heart, by the Spirit, and so true Jews of God, Still no?

Gentiles of faith are not part of Israel, which both Jews of faith and Jews in unbelief are. Again, we belong to the Israel of God that are not ethnic, but are spiritual people. I think this is why ethnic Jews became so confused, they had always heard that salvation is of/for the Jews. When in reality eternal life through Christ was available to anyone of faith both before and after the cross.

Again, grace and peace to you! We can never get enough of God's grace and peace... and the Prince of Peace... you know.

Amen!

 

[PinSeeker]

But don't you think Paul is referring to their ethnicity?

Sure, but, unmistakably, he's saying just because someone is ethnically a Jew, that someone may or may not be a Jew in the eyes of God.

No, I don't believe Scripture is saying mankind of faith whether Jew or Gentile is a true Jew, but rather that the faithful are the Israel of God.

This, to me, is a contradictory statement, even in and of itself. But okay.

Do you believe calling believers true Jews is the same as calling them the Israel of God?

Well... I believe that because believers are part of the Israel of God, they are Jews of God, and worldly ethnicity is irrelevant. Thus, as Paul says to the Galatians, "in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith... as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ... (so) (t)here is neither Jew nor Greek..."

That's not how I understand Paul.

Fair enough.

The Israel of God doesn't come from any natural ethnic seed. Israel of God comes from the supernatural SEED that is Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile but one new man, people of faith.

Well, agreed. Absolutely. But these people of faith, all of them, have become ~ been made ~Jews. God's true Jews.

But you don't see it that way, and that's... fair enough. I'm really not trying to argue...

Gentiles of faith are not part of Israel, which both Jews of faith and Jews in unbelief are.

Not part of physical Israel, so not outwardly Jewish, no. But part of spiritual Israel, by and of the Spirit of God, yes. This the distinction Paul is making there. What's puzzling is that you seem to be acknowledging it and denying at the same time. But... yeah, okay.

Again, we belong to the Israel of God that are not ethnic, but are spiritual people. I think this is why ethnic Jews became so confused, they had always heard that salvation is of/for the Jews. When in reality eternal life through Christ was available to anyone of faith both before and after the cross.

Sure.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Freedm]

I was just pointing out your own conclusions as you described them.

Those are not my conclusions. I don't know how you made that leap. I said death has already been defeated, and we already have eternal life. How do you go from that to "So technically we don't exist? We just think we exist in the mind of God?"?

 

[Timtofly]

Those are not my conclusions. I don't know how you made that leap. I said death has already been defeated, and we already have eternal life. How do you go from that to "So technically we don't exist? We just think we exist in the mind of God?"?

Because death is the last enemy to be defeated before creation is returned to God. Christ took away the sting of death for those in Christ on the Cross. But death has continued and will continue as long as this creation is in existence.

 

[Freedm]

Because death is the last enemy to be defeated before creation is returned to God. Christ took away the sting of death for those in Christ on the Cross. But death has continued and will continue as long as this creation is in existence.

Death was the last enemy defeated, and the kingdom was returned to God. I think the problem is that you think death still exists for us. Why do you think death still exists for us? Is it because the body dies? That doesn't mean that we die, so explain to me why you think death still exists for us.

And if death still exists for us, then what did Jesus accomplish on the cross? If we're still doomed to death for our sins, if we're still slaves to sin, and prisoners of death, then what was the point of all that?

 

[ewq1938]

Death was the last enemy defeated

Not past tense as if it has happened. It shall be defeated when death is cast into the LOF.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

, and the kingdom was returned to God. I think the problem is that you think death still exists for us. Why do you think death still exists for us? Is it because the body dies? That doesn't mean that we die, so explain to me why you think death still exists for us.

So despite the fact that the body dies, "we" don't die? That clearly makes no sense. When we die, it is known as the first death which is death of part of us with a promised resurrection. Parts live on and in the second death there is a death of all the parts and no chance of resurrection.

Rom_5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died for us. Your personal objection to death of the body not meaning the person died falls on it's face as a falsehood. We do die, and Christ died.

Death still exists for us all but not a death of all our parts. I recommend you adjust the language you use to reflect this fact.

Act_9:37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

 

[Freedm]

Not past tense as if it has happened. It shall be defeated when death is cast into the LOF.

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

It was written as still future, prior to 70 AD. It was future for Paul at that time. It's not future for us. If it were, then we would still suffer death, and Jesus said we would not. I believe him.

 

[Freedm]

So despite the fact that the body dies, "we" don't die? That clearly makes no sense.

It does make sense because when the body dies, we are immediately transformed (in the blink of an eye) into our new heavenly state of being, never experiencing death. We move straight from one life into the next. So we will never die, we will only transform.

When we die, it is known as the first death which is death of part of us with a promised resurrection. Parts live on and in the second death there is a death of all the parts and no chance of resurrection.

Rom_5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died, yes. He really died, so that we don't have to. He did not "leave his body" as some would have us believe, because that would not be death, but scripture tells us that Jesus actually died. Don't you believe that?

Christ died for us. Your personal objection to death of the body not meaning the person died falls on it's face as a falsehood. We do die, and Christ died.

Death still exists for us all but not a death of all our parts. I recommend you adjust the language you use to reflect this fact.

We are not made up of different parts. We have one body, which will be replaced with another body, but we never have two bodies at the same time. Only one at a time.

Act_9:37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber.

That was written prior to 70 AD.

 

[ewq1938]

It does make sense because when the body dies, we are immediately transformed (in the blink of an eye) into our new heavenly state of being, never experiencing death. We move straight from one life into the next. So we will never die, we will only transform.

The bible states someone has died if their body died. That's a fact I have already proven.

We are promised the first death, but are also promised not to experience the second death.




"

 

[Freedm]

The bible states someone has died if their body died. That's a fact I have already proven.

We are promised the first death, but are also promised not to experience the second death.

What you proved is that death existed in the old testament, and with that I agree, but things changed when Jesus came. He conquered death, and now we have immortality.

 

[rwb]

What you proved is that death existed in the old testament, and with that I agree, but things changed when Jesus came. He conquered death, and now we have immortality.

For those who are of faith in Christ, we have eternal life through His Spirit in us. We won't have immortal & incorruptible life until our body is resurrected and changed from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible.

 

[Freedm]

For those who are of faith in Christ, we have eternal life through His Spirit in us. We won't have immortal & incorruptible life until our body is resurrected and changed from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible.

But see, I don't believe we need this old body to live in for eternity. I believe we would be much happier in pure spiritual form. In fact, isn't that what Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 15? Yes, he told us that there are two types of bodies, and that we would have a spiritual body after our natural body, so which body do you think we'll spend eternity in? The spiritual of course. So why then would this old natural body need to be resurrected? It makes no sense. It won't happen. This body will return to dust, never to be resurrected. We won't need it anymore, because we'll have better bodies, spiritual bodies, immortal bodies.

 

[rwb]

But see, I don't believe we need this old body to live in for eternity. I believe we would be much happier in pure spiritual form. In fact, isn't that what Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 15? Yes, he told us that there are two types of bodies, and that we would have a spiritual body after our natural body, so which body do you think we'll spend eternity in? The spiritual of course. So why then would this old natural body need to be resurrected? It makes no sense. It won't happen. This body will return to dust, never to be resurrected. We won't need it anymore, because we'll have better bodies, spiritual bodies, immortal bodies.

It there will be no need to have a body of immortal flesh, why will the body of believers be resurrected and changed from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible? Yes, Paul does say there is both a natural, physical body, and a spiritual body and the two are not the same. That's because our outer body of flesh is mortal and destined to die. But the spiritual body of believers that faithful saints shall be when their body dies is spirit without form still a living soul in heaven. That's exactly what Paul says. He says that when our body is dead and buried the body of believers is raised a spiritual body of believers to heaven, where we shall be a celestial body, like the angels of God, and the spirit image of Christ from heaven. If you don't believe our body that returns to dust shall be resurrected immortal and incorruptible why will there be a new earth after this first earth passes away? Earth was created for mankind, and the new earth too shall also be where believers shall live with Christ forever when time given this earth shall be no longer.