Isaiah 2 (Temple?)

[Guest]

Although I am Amil I understand how you could interpret there being a future temple. What I don't understand is how you think it could be God honoring. I mean, in ignorance the Jews will rebuild a temple if they get the chance but this would be an abomination to God.

What makes you think they'll be doing it in ignorance? That's an unfounded assumption. In any case, the "messenger of the covenant" will be the one to announce the rebuilding of the Temple to the Jews.

Jesus came as a Lamb the first time, to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The second time, He'll come as a Lion, to Judah. After all, why do you think the two witnesses of Revelation 11 preach from Jerusalem, immediately prior to Christ's return? To whom are they preaching??

Another problem is how to identify who is of what blood line. Who is from the Aronic line, etc. How will this be determined? These records are lost and no one knows for sure who has Jewish blood in their viens.

Well, read Nehemiah 7:63-65. There's an example of priests who couldn't prove that they were legitimate because they couldn't prove their genealogy. Only a priest with the Urim and Thummim could test them, since their recorded genealogy wasn't available.

I believe that part of what's being indicated here is a recovery of the Urim and Thummim.

How can sacrifices be honorable to God? Isn't this the reason the temple was destroyed in 70AD, because it was no longer needed?

No, not at all. It was destroyed in 70 AD for the same reason that it was destroyed in 586 BC. Because the Jews of both times refused to repent.

Just as the exodus went on for 40 years before entering the promised land while the unbelievers died in the deasert, there was a 40 year gap from Jesus grumblers wandering until Jerusalem's destruction in 70AD were we "rest" from our works in Christ (Hebrews 4).

There's no biblical basis for that interpretation, though. The analogy is off. Rather than entering into the Promised Land, we're dealing with the destruction of the Temple. A biblical analogy should be between the same symbolic elements, like the destruction of the Temple the first time versus the destruction of the Temple the second time.

I also get the impression that you're not coming from love in your interpretation. Rather, you seem to be coming from a "holier than thou" attitude, which is very dangerous to have. What makes you think you're really any better than the Jews who rejected Jesus in the first century? How do you know you wouldn't have done the same, given the same circumstances? Furthermore, how do you know that you're not just claiming faith in Him in words but denying Him in deeds (by being unmerciful to those who rejected Him in 70 AD and are rejecting Him now in Israel, for instance)?

Damon

[_Sean]

What makes you think they'll be doing it in ignorance? That's an unfounded assumption. In any case, the "messenger of the covenant" will be the one to announce the rebuilding of the Temple to the Jews.

Because God took away the daily sacrifice by sending Jesus as a once for all sin offering because the sacrifices offered in the old covenant were unable to take away sin, this is what much of the book of Hebrews (9) tells us. (2 Cor 3:12-16)

If they go back to the old covenant sacrifices that were replaced by the new covenant, this is a direct rejection of Christ, which is a rejection of God. (1 John 5:10-12)

Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. It vanished in 70AD.

Jesus came as a Lamb the first time, to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The second time, He'll come as a Lion, to Judah. After all, why do you think the two witnesses of Revelation 11 preach from Jerusalem, immediately prior to Christ's return? To whom are they preaching??

Actually:
Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

His second coming is to appear not to take away sin (again) but to bring Salvation to those who eagerly await for Him.

After a few years (after Pentacost) Jesus sent Paul to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Gentiles as well.

I take the two witnesses to be the church.

Well, read Nehemiah 7:63-65. There's an example of priests who couldn't prove that they were legitimate because they couldn't prove their genealogy. Only a priest with the Urim and Thummim could test them, since their recorded genealogy wasn't available.

I believe that part of what's being indicated here is a recovery of the Urim and Thummim.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.

No, not at all. It was destroyed in 70 AD for the same reason that it was destroyed in 586 BC. Because the Jews of both times refused to repent.

It was destroyed because the sacrificial system is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

Also (this relates to your other questions as well):
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Paul put it this way:

Phil 3:3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

There's no biblical basis for that interpretation, though. The analogy is off. Rather than entering into the Promised Land, we're dealing with the destruction of the Temple. A biblical analogy should be between the same symbolic elements, like the destruction of the Temple the first time versus the destruction of the Temple the second time.

For about 40 years there were Jews who didn't know what to make of Christianity. There were Jewish Christians and there was the Temple. The confusion is over what to do. Do you go to the temple? Keep making offerings? Obey the Cheif Priest and Pharisies? In the desert there were many who wanted to go back to Egypt, to bondage. The very bondage God freed them from. Just as Christ lifted off the yolk of the law and there was a 40 year limbo were there was the temptation of going back into the bondage of the law (Gal 4:21-31). But God destroyed the temple, elimintating the possibility of going back.

I also get the impression that you're not coming from love in your interpretation. Rather, you seem to be coming from a "holier than thou" attitude, which is very dangerous to have. What makes you think you're really any better than the Jews who rejected Jesus in the first century? How do you know you wouldn't have done the same, given the same circumstances? Furthermore, how do you know that you're not just claiming faith in Him in words but denying Him in deeds (by being unmerciful to those who rejected Him in 70 AD and are rejecting Him now in Israel, for instance)?

Damon

Where did I say I was better? Please show me where I said I was better than the Jews? Your reading into what I am saying and not actually reading what I am saying.

Sorry but I like to keep it to the text we are discussing and away from emotionalism and ad hominem attacks and questioning others salvation. This is a tactic used to divert attention from the topic being discussed.

You seem very offended at the remarks I quoted from Jesus and John. I didn't make them up, they are the word of God. They were directed at the unbeliving Jews, not ALL Jews. Some believed and some did not. This is nothing against the Jewish race but their religious beliefs. They need to hear the Gospel and be saved, not patted on the back being helped to build "the" temple so the "antichrist" can come.

Paul agrees with Jesus and John:

Pil 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

[_Steve]

The preterist view of Old Testament prophecy can begin its assumptions with the declaration of Christ that the temple would be destroyed and Jerusalem overthrown by Rome, “so that all things that are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:20-22). While it is true that these words could less-naturally be construed to mean something else, their plainest meaning would be that the events of AD 70 brought the culmination of all that was predicted in the Old Testament writings, including Malachi. Obviously, this interpretation will be disputed by Christians of the “futurist” persuasion, but taking this statement of Christ at face value provides a strikingly workable paradigm into which all Old Testament prophecy fits without violence to the text.

It is not very difficult for a preterist to demonstrate that the apostolic writers applied these prophecies to the time inaugurated by the first coming of Christ, and that no biblical writer applied any of them to the second coming of Christ. What is very difficult is to prove a man wrong who, like yourself, wishes to postulate multiple fulfillments or multiple layers of fulfillment. To prove this idea wrong would be like attempting to prove a universal negative. If a man were to assert that, when Jesus advocated the removal of an offending eye or hand, He meant this both literally and figuratively, it might be difficult to demonstrate him to be in error, even though it is counterintuitive and there is no concrete support for his position.

I think it is possible to show from the scriptures that God will never again embrace a Jewish temple in Jerusalem (John 4:23), a Levitical priesthood (Heb.7:12), animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:8-10), etc. But for many people, belief in the future reestablishment of such things is deeply ingrained in their minds and their emotions. When they are shown the first-century fulfillment of the things that they have always applied to the future, they invariably resort to an appeal for multiple fulfillments.

While secondary or antitypical fulfillments may be found for a number of Old Testament institutions and prophecies, I do not think we are entitled to create theories of additional fulfillments out of nothing, whenever it might please us to do so. This approach is particularly inappropriate when 1) there is no biblical warrant to suggest a secondary fulfillment after the first and most obvious fulfillment has occurred, and 2) when a secondary fulfillment would, by its nature, contradict what is clearly stated in scripture, and would amount to a reduction of the glory of Christ and His accomplishments.

This reduction in honor given to Christ is observable in the theology of those Christians who take a sympathetic interest in apostate Judaism (just as would be the case of a Christian who became sympathetic to the views of Islam or Hinduism). It is hard to be fully loyal to Christ and sympathetic to His enemies as well. Though he greatly desired their salvation (Rom.9:3; 10:1), Paul felt no sympathy toward the views or motivations of his apostate countrymen (Acts 13:46/ Rom.10:21/ 1 Thess.2:14—16/ Phil.3:2). Those Christians who decry what they call “replacement theology” (i.e., the position taken by the apostles and historic Christianity about Israel and the church), are observably guilty of making their own “replacement” of Christ with Israel as being the center of their eschatological interest.

Your suggestion (above) that the Jews rebuilding a future temple might not be an ignorant act shows that you have, in measure, made this “replacement” in your own thinking. The Jews who want to rebuild the temple, just as the Jews who defended the old temple against the Roman invasion, are, by biblical definitions, “antichrist” (1 John 2:22). If you read the references to Christ in the Talmud (which describes Him as the bastard son of a naughty Jewish girl, a sorcerer, and one an accursed by God), it will be unmistakably clear that Judaism is as antichrist as is any pagan religion, but is more rabidly so than most (Islam calls Him a prophet; Hinduism sees Him as an avatar; Talmudic Judaism sees Him as a bastard, occultist, and false prophet!).

The interpretations of Old Testament scripture that the Jews have adopted are the speculations of rabbis who have a veil over their eyes, and the veil is only removed when they turn to Christ (2 Cor.3:14-16). Jews who reject Christ have been “blinded” (Rom.11:7), and do not understand the scriptures. It is significant that Jesus needed to open the disciples’ understanding, “that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45).

If such understanding were available from the speculations of the rabbis, such an act of enlightenment would have been unnecessary. And if such enlightenment from Christ was indeed necessary, then those rabbis who did not have this Christian enlightenment were in the dark, and can not be expected to have a correct understanding of their own scriptures. If the inspired prophets themselves did not understand their own messages (1 Peter 1:10-12), then what hope have Christ-rejecting, uninspired teachers of the law of correctly understanding them?

It may surprise you to learn that I was once as sympathetic to the religion of the Jews as you are now. My views and sympathies were forced in a different direction, however, by my study of Jesus’ words, by the apostolic writings of the New Testament (the guys whose understanding Christ had quickened), and by the realization that it makes more sense for a Christian to form his theological opinions from Christ and His inspired messengers than from those who posture themselves as His adversaries.

Now concerning Malachi, I understand his message as I do that of the other prophets. The burden of the Old Testament prophets (according to preterist interpreters) is that the purpose of God would culminate in the appearing of the Messiah, who would inaugurate a New Order, where the temporary types and shadows of the Old Order would be replaced with spiritual, eternal counterparts (Col.2:16-17), and the Old Order, with all its trappings, would be abolished permanently (Heb.8:13). This is certainly the view that the writer of Hebrews advocates in rather unmistakable terms, and we find it in John the Baptist’s, in Christ’s, in Paul’s, Peter’s, James’ and John’s writings as well.

Christ gave us the correct understanding of Malachi 3 and 4, when He applied both passages to the era which began with John’s preaching in the wilderness (Matthew 11:10, 14; 17:11-12). These statements make it clear that Jesus saw, in John the Baptist, the fulfillment of both Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6. John’s message heralded the coming of the messianic age, but not merely in the Messiah’s role as savior, but also His role as destroyer of the apostate Jewish order, and thus, the purging of God’s people—His “Levites” (Mal.3:3). In fact, this message of impending judgment appears to be John’s primary emphasis (Matt.3:7). The great and dreadful day of the Lord (destruction of the Jewish order) was immanent (Mal.4:5; comp. Joel 2:31 w/ Acts 2:16ff). The Messiah’s ax was already poised to strike the fruitless trees, and His fan was prepared even now to purge His threshing-floor of “chaff” (Matt.3:10-12).

This is precisely what Malachi said John and Jesus would do. John would come as the precursor of impending judgment (Mal.3:1-2; 4:1-6), to gather the remnant into the safety of God’s salvation, like a man rescues his jewels from the flames of his burning house (Mal.3:16-17). The messenger of the covenant, who suddenly comes to the temple (Mal.3:1) is best understood as Christ, coming in judgment in AD 70 upon the apostate chaff and fruitless trees in the apostate city. This was the day “that burns like an oven” (Mal.4:1). That the remnant were saved from this holocaust is a matter of historical record, and that they went out like stall-fed calves (Mal.4:2) to trample the wicked (Mal. 4:3) agrees with Paul’s assessment of the role of the church in Romans 16:20.

This is a very natural understanding of the message in Malachi, especially given Christ’s authoritative declaration of John’s role in the fulfillment of these prophecies.

As I said above, if you were to say, “But Jesus was only talking about one layer of fulfillment. There is another yet to come,” it would be impossible for me to prove you wrong. My only answer would have to be, “How do we know this?” Though I could not disprove your assertion, I do not think it possible to prove it either. It is 100% speculation. If a prophecy has been once adequately fulfilled in history, and the Bible gives no evidence that another is required, the burden of proof lies crushingly upon anyone who wishes to say that other fulfillments are to be expected as well as the first one. I do not think that the futurist is capable of bearing this burden.

[Guest]

What makes you think they'll be doing it in ignorance? That's an unfounded assumption. In any case, the "messenger of the covenant" will be the one to announce the rebuilding of the Temple to the Jews.

Because God took away the daily sacrifice by sending Jesus as a once for all sin offering because the sacrifices offered in the old covenant were unable to take away sin, this is what much of the book of Hebrews (9) tells us. (2 Cor 3:12-16)

If they go back to the old covenant sacrifices that were replaced by the new covenant, this is a direct rejection of Christ, which is a rejection of God. (1 John 5:10-12)

Sean, IS THERE A TEMPLE IN HEAVEN NOW? (Rev. 7:15, 11:19 and etc.) ARE ANIMAL SACRIFICES BEING OFFERED AT THAT TEMPLE? If not, then why are you making yet another false assumption that having a Temple constitutes a rejection of Christ? If that were true, why even have the Temple in heaven??

Hebrews 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. It vanished in 70AD.

You might seriously consider going back and looking at the context of the book of Hebrews' quotation from the Old Testament. The quote is from Jeremiah 31:31-34. But look at the immediate context of this promise! Verses 35-40 have to do with two promises to national Israel, the first concerning the fact that God will never forsake them or stop caring for them, and the second concerning the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem. Verses 1-20 of this chapter talk about yet another of God's promises that the northern kingdom of Israel, consisting of the "lost" ten tribes, would once again return to the land and worship God in truth. Even the quotation itself is directed at Israel and Judah.

These promises are not just spiritual. They have to do with all of the physical people of Israel dwelling in their physical land! The "lost" ten tribes have never returned to the land, so this promise has not yet been fulfilled. So why do you claim that any Temple that exists today or will exist in the future must only be spiritual, and that that was what the writer of Hebrews intended to be understood? That does violence to the very passage that Hebrews is quoting from.

His second coming is to appear not to take away sin (again) but to bring Salvation to those who eagerly await for Him.

The two witnesses preaching to the Jews in Jerusalem has nothing to do with Jesus' second coming having to do with taking away sin. It has everything to do with God never stopping to care for His people. The Jews to this day are awaiting a Conquering King as their Messiah, and this time around they'll get exactly what they're expecting.

I take the two witnesses to be the church.

That's one aspect of the "two witnesses" symbolism throughout the bible, but Revelation 11 is specifically and literally talking about two individuals who preach in Jerusalem and are murdered. Their bodies lie in the streets for three and a half days and are then resurrected and raised into the air to meet with the returning Lord. Are you telling me that that's all just spiritual and symbolic?

No, not at all. It was destroyed in 70 AD for the same reason that it was destroyed in 586 BC. Because the Jews of both times refused to repent.

It was destroyed because the sacrificial system is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

Hebrews 8:13 does not apply to the destruction of the Temple. It's a misapplication on your part. Read what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:37-39. The "house" that He's talking about is the Temple, and He gives the explicit reason that it will be left "desolate" right there in the text! When the disciples came to Him privately immediately afterwards, at the beginning of the next chapter, He made the famous prediction that the Temple would be torn down so that not one stone would be left upon another, reiterating what He'd just said to the Pharisees.

Also (this relates to your other questions as well):
John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Yes, and in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul pointed out that the "rock" which followed the Israelites in the wilderness was "Christ". Literally, Paul was talking about Jacob's pillar stone, which the Israelites took with them when they left Egypt. This stone was called "Beth-El," meaning the "house of God." It represented the then-future Temple. So, THE HOUSE OF GOD - AND ACCESS TO GOD - WAS WITH THE ISRAELITES WHEREVER THEY WENT! But even though they wandered for 40 years, there came a time when a Temple was to be built in Jerusalem afterwards.

Just because the time that now is, is when we should worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth, and not at Jerusalem, that does not preclude a Temple ever being built in Jerusalem. Otherwise, why would passages like Isaiah 2:1-5 have ever been written??

For about 40 years there were Jews who didn't know what to make of Christianity. There were Jewish Christians and there was the Temple. The confusion is over what to do. Do you go to the temple? Keep making offerings? Obey the Cheif Priest and Pharisies? In the desert there were many who wanted to go back to Egypt, to bondage. The very bondage God freed them from. Just as Christ lifted off the yolk of the law and there was a 40 year limbo were there was the temptation of going back into the bondage of the law (Gal 4:21-31). But God destroyed the temple, elimintating the possibility of going back.

Then why did Paul himself offer sacrifices at the Temple, if that represented bondage to the Law?? (Acts 21:17-28 ) Your analogy is therefore still flawed.

I also get the impression that you're not coming from love in your interpretation. Rather, you seem to be coming from a "holier than thou" attitude, which is very dangerous to have. What makes you think you're really any better than the Jews who rejected Jesus in the first century? How do you know you wouldn't have done the same, given the same circumstances? Furthermore, how do you know that you're not just claiming faith in Him in words but denying Him in deeds (by being unmerciful to those who rejected Him in 70 AD and are rejecting Him now in Israel, for instance)?

Where did I say I was better? Please show me where I said I was better than the Jews? Your reading into what I am saying and not actually reading what I am saying.

Because the impression I get from you is that there's no good reason for, say, two literal witnesses to literally preach in Jerusalem to the Jews. But why couldn't God call them and save them wholesale that way?? And Zechariah 12:10 indicates that they will, as a whole nation, accept Christ at His return.

If God has historically dealt with Israel and Judah on a national level and in connection with the land that they were promised in perpetuity, but has instead dealt with Christianity on a spiritual level, wherever they might be in the world, are we therefore better than the Jews? Should we expect God to deal with everyone in the same way? Must God deal with those Israelites who haven't yet repented in a way that you would feel comfortable with, or is it okay for Him to do it the way He's worked with them in the past, and the way He's promised to work with them according to passages like Jeremiah 31, from which Hebrews 8:9-12 was quoted?

That's what I meant by you being unmerciful to them.

I don't know about you, but I have a personal stake in understanding what God is doing with the Jews. I'M PART JEWISH, and I have a deep love for them. That's one of the reasons that I fervently cling to the promise of the two witnesses literally preaching there in Jerusalem.

[snip]

They [the Jews] need to hear the Gospel and be saved, not patted on the back being helped to build "the" temple so the "antichrist" can come.

Is that all you can see? According to Malachi 3:1, Jesus will suddenly come to HIS Temple! Any physical Temple built in Jerusalem will therefore belong to God, not the antichrist. The antichrist will only be there to USURP God's rightful place! Even 2 Thessalonians 2:4 acknowledges that the Temple that the antichrist will usurp is "the Temple of GOD."

By the way, yes, I am angry at you. But I'm not angry at you personally, just angry at what seems like a very cavalier, condescending attitude that puts on airs of understanding things better than I do. (It's not who understands things better that's the issue, though. It's the less-than-humble attitude.) Every time I tried to answer one of your questions, you always blew it off, except for one thing that you weren't already familiar with. You didn't look into what I was saying at all. In this reply, I've pointed out some very obvious things that you should have already seen yourself - and would have, if you'd taken the time to look into what I was saying before.

A good example of this is the reason I gave for why the Temple was destroyed. You blew off my answer the first time around without even looking into it. Also, what about acknowledging what I said concerning Malachi 3 having physical Levites being purified for Temple service? Is this not a reason for interpreting Malachi 3 to be referring to a physical Temple that the Lord comes to?

If you'd treated my beliefs with more respect in the first place, I wouldn't be upset with you. So, why not take more time to look into what I'm saying this time around?

Damon

[_Sean]

Damon,
There is a great danger in looking to the old testament and reading it the way you want. The new testament writers, whenever they quoted these texted quoted them as pointed to or fulfilled in Christ. When Christ came because the "time was fulfilled" and the "Kingdom was at hand" what do you think it meant? I know what it meant. It was a fulfillment of the Daniel prophecies and the days spoken about by all the prophets from Samuel (Acts 3:24). Acts also clearly states that anyone who does not heed Jesus (Acts 3:23) will be utterly destroyed from his people. The Jewish Christians were the ones who escaped the destruction in 70AD because they heeded the signs of the coming destruction. So the destruction of the temple was for several reasons. But why would you think that now, worshiping in Spirit we would go back to the old types and shadows? The reason for the temple on earth is to have a copy of what was in heaven. It was viable until Christ came and offered the final sacrifice and entered the most holy place in heaven. It was a type of what was in heaven, given so we could understand the significance of what was done in the true tabernacle.

The land looked foreward to was not an earthly one but a heavenly one that God is preparing (Heb 11:16). It's not something men build, it comes out of heaven as a bride prepared for the bridegroom who we know is the Church comprised of Jews and Gentiles. (2 Cor 11:2)


The New Covenant was made by Jesus to Jews but later also extended to the Gentiles (Acts 9-11).

While you point to many passages I don't understand why you apply them strictly to the Jews, as if these promises don't apply to Gentiles as well.

Galations 3 says the promises spoken to Abraham were to him and to Christ. So to recieve them, you need to be part of Christ. Once you are part of Him you are part of the Church. And those who are of the faith of Abraham are sons and heirs of the promise of God.

In Epesians 2 it says that we Gentiles are no longer strangers excluded from Israel and it's covenants but now we are at peace being united into one body (the Church) having torn down the wall of division (law) between Jew and Gentile.

If we are one, how is it that you speak about what the Jews are going to get, and how the Jews are the ones who are being spoken to in Hebrews when were are being built into one dwelling for God. Not two seperate ones. Their isn't a Jewish land and a Gentile land, or a Jewish heaven and a Gentile heaven, etc.

The mystery that Paul revealed is that the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. That's believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Because as I stated from Acts 3, those who reject Christ are cut off from their people. (Acts 3:23)

[_Steve]

Good heavens! I can't believe what I am seeing! Your Christian attitude is melting down before our eyes, Damon!

I hardly know where to begin answering you. It is not Sean who isn't listening to you. He knows your position, understands it and rejects it for biblical reasons. You, on the other hand, don't understand his position, are obviously either unfamiliar with any view of prophecy other than the futuristic view, or are so conceited as to think everyone should accept your futurism without you giving so much as one shred of evidence that it is true!

Then you admit to getting angry because he has the audacity to discredit your arguments that do not commend themselves to him as biblical. You admit that your being "part-Jewish" has prejudiced your opinion. Paul was 100% Jewish, and did not share your prejudices. Forgive us if we decline to adopt them as well. I will say more about this later. Right now, I have less than 15 minutes till my broadcast.

[_Sean]

Damon,
Why don't you go to the "tape download page" and download some of Steve's studies, like the escatology series. You don't have to agree with them, but at least you will know how what vantage point the Amil interpretation comes from.

[Guest]

Damon,
There is a great danger in looking to the old testament and reading it the way you want.

Why are you making the assumption - again! - that I'm simply reading the OT the way I want?? I'm most certainly not doing that! I'm trying to understand it the way the original authors intended it, in its historical context, and THEN going to the New Testament to look at how it was interpreted - or oftentimes REinterpreted - there.

I bet you've probably never studied the cultural context of the Old Testament, have you?

[snip]

But why would you think that now, worshiping in Spirit we would go back to the old types and shadows? The reason for the temple on earth is to have a copy of what was in heaven. It was viable until Christ came and offered the final sacrifice and entered the most holy place in heaven. It was a type of what was in heaven, given so we could understand the significance of what was done in the true tabernacle.

And is that ALL it's for?

Do you realize that the whole earth is simply a "shadow", as it were, of heaven? Because Christ came, do we no longer need the physical creation??

I realize that you're never going to agree with me, but the least you could do is to treat me with respect even though I see things differently than you do. I hope you can at least do that much.

The land looked foreward to was not an earthly one but a heavenly one that God is preparing (Heb 11:16). It's not something men build, it comes out of heaven as a bride prepared for the bridegroom who we know is the Church comprised of Jews and Gentiles. (2 Cor 11:2)

If this is all that those OT promises meant, then I can imagine that a lot of the Old Testament saints are going to be sorely disappointed to find this out. If I were them, I would feel misled, deceived and cheated.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to even consider that that's the ONLY meaning of those OT promises.

While you point to many passages I don't understand...

Then at least admit that you don't understand them and that they might change your perspective if you did understand them! I can respect where you are now in your beliefs, even though you believe differently than I do. What I cannot respect is how you treat my beliefs.

If there are things you don't yet understand, then by default you don't have the whole picture. If you don't have the whole picture, then you shouldn't make the assumption that I must automatically be wrong.

Galations 3 says the promises spoken to Abraham were to him and to Christ. So to recieve them, you need to be part of Christ. Once you are part of Him you are part of the Church. And those who are of the faith of Abraham are sons and heirs of the promise of God.

Fine, I agree with that. But I also believe that God doesn't give up on His people, even if they're apostate - including the Jews. Read Hosea 1 and 2, for instance. Furthermore, Christ Himself even gave a parable, in Matthew 24:32, that showed that it wasn't the end of the story with the Jews. "When [the fig tree]'s branch sprouts and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. Likewise, when you see all these things [coming to pass], know that He [Christ] is near, at the doors." Mark 11:12-21 shows clearly that the fig tree represented the Jews, including their "house" which would be left desolate for a time. The passage in Mark says that "it was not yet the time for figs [to grow on the fig tree]". If that's not clear enough, Jesus also says at the end of Matthew 23, "See, your [the Jews'] house is left desolate. I say to you that afterwards you will not see Me until you say,'Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.'" In case you didn't know, that's one of the things that a Jewish bride traditionally says to her husband at their wedding.

That's why I must disagree with you that God's physical promises to the OT nation of Israel have been either nullified or spiritualized away.

In Epesians 2 it says that we Gentiles are no longer strangers excluded from Israel and it's covenants but now we are at peace being united into one body (the Church) having torn down the wall of division (law) between Jew and Gentile.

If we are one, how is it that you speak about what the Jews are going to get, and how the Jews are the ones who are being spoken to in Hebrews when were are being built into one dwelling for God. Not two seperate ones. Their isn't a Jewish land and a Gentile land, or a Jewish heaven and a Gentile heaven, etc.

I disagree. Read Acts 21:20-25. God does treat the Jews and the Gentile Christians differently. And there are many other passages - especially in the Old Testament - which indicate a profound difference in how God deals with them.

The mystery that Paul revealed is that the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. That's believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Because as I stated from Acts 3, those who reject Christ are cut off from their people. (Acts 3:23)

Read Hosea 1 and 2. Apparently there's more to the story than you're letting in.

Damon

[_Sean]

Why are you making the assumption - again! - that I'm simply reading the OT the way I want?? I'm most certainly not doing that! I'm trying to understand it the way the original authors intended it, in its historical context, and THEN going to the New Testament to look at how it was interpreted - or oftentimes REinterpreted - there.

I know how you are interpreting it, my point is I try to interpret the way the Apostles did, which is different than reading them in their original context., but pointing to Christ.

Do you realize that the whole earth is simply a "shadow", as it were, of heaven? Because Christ came, do we no longer need the physical creation??

Wow, why would you say I think that? Is that what I said? No I said the temple was a type.

I realize that you're never going to agree with me, but the least you could do is to treat me with respect even though I see things differently than you do. I hope you can at least do that much.

I'm trying to dialogue with you but you seem offended when I speak.

If this is all that those OT promises meant, then I can imagine that a lot of the Old Testament saints are going to be sorely disappointed to find this out. If I were them, I would feel misled, deceived and cheated.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to even consider that that's the ONLY meaning of those OT promises.

That's what the book of Hebrews says.

While you point to many passages I don't understand...

Then at least admit that you don't understand them and that they might change your perspective if you did understand them! I can respect where you are now in your beliefs, even though you believe differently than I do. What I cannot respect is how you treat my beliefs.

If there are things you don't yet understand, then by default you don't have the whole picture. If you don't have the whole picture, then you shouldn't make the assumption that I must automatically be wrong.

Sorry but I missed my punctuation. This is what I meant:
While you point to many passages, I don't understand why you apply them strictly to the Jews, as if these promises don't apply to Gentiles as well.

Fine, I agree with that. But I also believe that God doesn't give up on His people, even if they're apostate - including the Jews. Read Hosea 1 and 2, for instance.

Who are "His people". They are the believers. The unbelieves are being reached through the Gospel. But they've got to believe.

Furthermore, Christ Himself even gave a parable, in Matthew 24:32, that showed that it wasn't the end of the story with the Jews. "When [the fig tree]'s branch sprouts and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. Likewise, when you see all these things [coming to pass], know that He [Christ] is near, at the doors." Mark 11:12-21 shows clearly that the fig tree represented the Jews, including their "house" which would be left desolate for a time. The passage in Mark says that "it was not yet the time for figs [to grow on the fig tree]".

This parable is about a fig tree puting forth it's leaves, when it does you know that summer is near.

Jesus went on to say. So, you too, when you see ALL THESE THINGS (meaning, the things He mentioned in Matt 24) regognize He is near. There is nothing in this parable about Israel becoming a nation again. The parable clearly says these things are the signs He mentioned in Matt 24.

Do you remember when Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered? And He said may you never bear fruit again? What do you think that meant? If Israel is symbolizes by the fig tree, that's not a good sign.

If that's not clear enough, Jesus also says at the end of Matthew 23, "See, your [the Jews'] house is left desolate. I say to you that afterwards you will not see Me until you say,'Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.'" In case you didn't know, that's one of the things that a Jewish bride traditionally says to her husband at their wedding.

That's right, until an unbelieving Jew says that phrase, meaning they believe that Jesus was the Messiah, coming in the name of the Lord, they would not see Him again. (John 14:21)

That's why I must disagree with you that God's physical promises to the OT nation of Israel have been either nullified or spiritualized away.

The Apostles "spiritualized" OT texts too.

I disagree. Read Acts 21:20-25. God does treat the Jews and the Gentile Christians differently. And there are many other passages - especially in the Old Testament - which indicate a profound difference in how God deals with them.

You disagree with what Paul said in Ephesians 2-4? It is clear that we are one from what he says.

Read Hosea 1 and 2. Apparently there's more to the story than you're letting in.

Is Acts 3:23 incorrect then?

Really, you should listen to Steve's escatology series as this is covered in much more detail.

[Guest]

Good heavens! I can't believe what I am seeing! Your Christian attitude is melting down before our eyes, Damon!

I hardly know where to begin answering you. It is not Sean who isn't listening to you. He knows your position, understands it and rejects it for biblical reasons. You, on the other hand, don't understand his position, are obviously either unfamiliar with any view of prophecy other than the futuristic view, or are so conceited as to think everyone should accept your futurism without you giving so much as one shred of evidence that it is true!

No, Sean isn't listening to me, and I gave the evidence just now to show exactly how he isn't listening.

Think about this for a second. Why would I get this angry with Sean if there weren't a problem between us? Why would there be a need? Furthermore, why would I, on the one hand, respect your beliefs about certain topics (such as Melchizedek) even though I disagree with them, but get angry with Sean when there's a disagreement between him and I? Why would I react differently to what seems like the exact same situation?

Something is going wrong, I agree, and I'm trying to show what it is.

Then you admit to getting angry because he has the audacity to discredit your arguments that do not commend themselves to him as biblical.

Hardly. He keeps blowing off things I've said. On the other hand, I acknowledge what he says. I've also done the same with you, and you with me.

You admit that your being "part-Jewish" has prejudiced your opinion. Paul was 100% Jewish, and did not share your prejudices. Forgive us if we decline to adopt them as well. I will say more about this later. Right now, I have less than 15 minutes till my broadcast.

Well, Paul had a half-brother who was part Roman. (Rom. 16:13; according to secular history, Rufus Pudens was a Roman senator.) So, did he have a great desire to minister to the Gentiles, possibly on account of his half-brother? Yes. Did that cause him to misinterpret God's word? I submit that it did not, and I further submit that that's not the case with me either.

Damon