Indisputable proof that the Premillennial theory contradicts Scripture

[covenantee]

That one was a copy and you still call it David's throne, the same as the one that will be rebuilt in the future

If David never sat on it, then it wasn't David's throne, and it can't be called David's throne.

Simple semantics.

What is the evidence that David sat on a second literal physical throne? Where is there a reference to "King David's thrones" plural?

David reigned from about 1000 to 962 BCE. A single throne would easily have lasted for 38 years, and did.

Solomon sat on David's throne subsequently. 1 Chronicles 29:23

There is no Scriptural evidence for "one that will be rebuilt in the future".

Your claims are spurious.

 

[RLT63]

If David never sat on it, then it wasn't David's throne, and it can't be called David's throne.

Simple semantics.

What is the evidence that David sat on a second literal physical throne? Where is there a reference to "King David's thrones" plural?

David reigned from about 1000 to 962 BCE. A single throne would easily have lasted for 38 years, and did.

Solomon sat on David's throne subsequently. 1 Chronicles 29:23

There is no Scriptural evidence for "one that will be rebuilt in the future".

Your claims are spurious.

You're the one denying scripture

Luk 1:32 - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 - “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Hasn't happened yet

 

[covenantee]

You're the one denying scripture

Luk 1:32 - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David.

Luk 1:33 - “And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Hasn't happened yet

Fulfilled at Christ's Resurrection long ago.

Acts 2
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No! You're wrong! You are teaching the opposite to what Paul was teaching here. You're teaching the opposite to what Jesus taught. God is bound to a spiritual elect people, not a natural Christ-rejecting ethnic people.

He is bound to both.
The word "holy" means "set aside to serve God in a special and unique way." The Bible uses the term "holy" in two distinct senses of the word: 1) a role or a place that God has consecrated to himself, and 2) individuals that God has chosen to sanctify through the fruit of the spirit.

All the kings of Israel were considered holy in the first sense because they held the title of king. However, not all of them were holy in a deeper moral or spiritual sense. For example, consider King Saul.

1 Samuel 24 5-7 It came about afterward that David’s conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul’s robe. So he said to his men, “Far be it from me because of the Lord that I should do this thing to my lord, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the Lord’s anointed.” David persuaded his men with these words and did not allow them to rise up against Saul. And Saul arose, left the cave, and went on his way.​

David and his men recognized that Saul was a weak leader, evil, and a bad person. Nonetheless, David refrained from raising his hand against Saul because Saul was God's anointed. Striking God's anointed is akin to striking against God Himself. While Saul himself may not have been a holy person in the conventional sense, he held a holy position as king. The role of the king is sacred.

God refers to the family line of Jacob as His holy people, indicating this in the primary sense. They are considered holy because they fulfill a consecrated purpose. While they are deemed holy in this sense, some members may not be morally or spiritually holy in the second sense. God has established a covenant with the entire family line of Jacob, even though some of them are spiritually unholy, promising to never leave them or forsake them.

You are teaching a false gospel. You are preaching a racial gospel.

That is not true.

There is no favoritism now with God.

I disagree. God has always favored one person over another. "Jacob I loved; Esau I hated."

The Gospel has reached out to all nations today under the new covenant.

That's correct. I agree with you. Here, you are referring to holiness in the second sense. God chooses to save whomever He wishes. He circumcises their hearts, opens their eyes, increases their knowledge and wisdom, and pours His Spirit into them. As a result, they begin to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit. The church that Jesus is building consists of "a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and languages" (Revelation 7:9).

A person chosen by God for salvation is considered holy because they have been set apart for a special purpose. Moreover, this individual is also holy in another sense: God has committed Himself to perform a good work in them, sanctifying them spiritually.

In light of this, we can summarize Paul's argument in Romans 9 as follows: God chose a holy people for Himself and promised to save His people by transforming some of them into holy people in a different sense. Not everyone who is considered God's people in the first sense will be saved in the second sense.

I would like to respond to your last comment in a new post. Stay tuned.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not true. Again, you are constantly butchering the meaning of words in order to fit your false teaching. The word "holy" refers to the "saints" of God. It is talking about those that have a personal relationship with God. It is not talking about children of the devil. It speaks about those that are set apart and sanctified for a holy purpose. It is talking alone about the redeemed.

Refer to my previous post. The Bible uses the word "holy" in two distinct ways: (1 a place or position is holy, 2) someone whom God chose to save.

a place can be holy

Exodus 3:5​

Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”​

God does not suggest that the ground is morally and spiritually good or righteous. The place itself is holy because God chose to meet Moses there. Holiness in the first sense, relates to the role of a person or the consecration of a place, which serves God in a special and unique way and for a good purpose.

The place of God's worship is holy because the temple itself has been consecrated to the service of God, as seen in the follow verse:

1 Chronicles 29:3 Moreover, in my delight in the house of my God, the treasure I have of gold and silver, I give to the house of my God, over and above all that I have already provided for the holy temple . . .

King David does not suggest that a building can be morally and spiritually good. The temple is not "holy" in the second sense. The temple is holy in the first sense: dedicated to the service of God.

According to the book of Deuteronomy, God chose the descendants of Jacob to be His holy people, addressing holiness in the first sense. This does not imply that Jacob's lineage is holy in the second sense, as God had not yet consecrated their hearts. Later in Deuteronomy, God promises that He will circumcise their hearts. At that time, they will be holy in both senses of the word. Not only will they be a lineage set apart to be His people among all other nations, but they will also have their hearts circumcised and be sanctified in a moral and spiritual sense.

 

[CadyandZoe]

His covenant is not with an ethnic physical nation today, especially one that rejects Him.

I disagree. In Romans 3, Paul argues that the unfaithfulness of Israel will not nullify the faithfulness of God. In Romans 11, Paul argues that Israel did not stumble so as to fall when she put the Messiah to death. With regard to the ethnic physical nation today, he has kept for himself a remnant, while hardening the others. Finally, Paul asserts that the gifts and he calling of God are irrevocable.

He has already cursed the fig tree. The old ethnic theocracy is gone forever.

I agree with you here.

He is committed to a new nation, a spiritual nation, the International NT Church, true Israel, those that accept His Son - the Lord Jesus Christ.

I disagree with you here. The Bible does not teach that the NT Church is true Israel. God is dedicated to both the Israel of God and the New Testament church.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Did God bring salvation to the 24,000 that He slew?

Once again, why does that matter? I am guessing you are trying to make a point here, but I am at a loss to understand your meaning.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is therefore time for you to leave the old covenant. It has gone forever. It has been superseded by the new covenant. It is time for you to enter into the new covenant arrangement. It has rendered the old redundant. This is a far-superior and longer-lasting covenant

You are assuming something about me that isn't true. I am not dedicated to the Old Covenant. After all, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13) And, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second." (Hebrews 8:7)

But finally, "For finding fault with them, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . . ."

Was the issue with the covenant itself, or were the people flawed in some way? Paul seems to suggest that the Old Covenant failed because the people were constitutionally destined to break it. The fault was with them.

Yes, the fault was in the people, not in the covenant itself and we can see this from the following:

Jeremiah 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

The text above reveals two main ideas. First, the prophet explains why Israel broke the Old Covenant: The people didn't have the law within them. And Second, God will once again make a covenant with the house of Israel. Both will be true after those days.

Today, God is writing his law on the hearts of individuals from all walks of life. And on the basis of the cross of Christ, all of these individuals are being forgiven of their sins and will be found in the coming age.

Some time in the future, God will make a covenant with the house of Israel such that,

Jeremiah 31:34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”​

This has never happened. There has never been a time when it was not appropriate to teach each man and his neighbor and each man his brother "know the Lord." But when God circumcises their hearts, it won't be necessary to teach them "know the Lord" because they will all know him.

 

[covenantee]

Once again, why does that matter? I am guessing you are trying to make a point here, but I am at a loss to understand your meaning.

Because sin matters.

God dealt with 24,000 natural Israelites by slaying them because of their sin. He didn't bring them salvation. He brought them destruction.

Their DNA didn't save them then.

Their DNA does not save them now.

God deals with natural Israel in exactly the same way as He deals with all of humankind.

For all, the wages of sin is death.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Because sin matters.

God dealt with 24,000 natural Israelites by slaying them because of their sin. He didn't bring them salvation. He brought them destruction.

Their DNA didn't save them then.

Their DNA does not save them now.

God deals with natural Israel in exactly the same way as He deals with all of humankind.

For all, the wages of sin is death.

I accept everything you said. But I don't recognize this as a response or refutation of what I said earlier. Would you care to clarify how they are related?

 

[WPM]

Refer to my previous post. The Bible uses the word "holy" in two distinct ways: (1 a place or position is holy, 2) someone whom God chose to save.

a place can be holy

Exodus 3:5​

Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”​

God does not suggest that the ground is morally and spiritually good or righteous. The place itself is holy because God chose to meet Moses there. Holiness in the first sense, relates to the role of a person or the consecration of a place, which serves God in a special and unique way and for a good purpose.

The place of God's worship is holy because the temple itself has been consecrated to the service of God, as seen in the follow verse:

1 Chronicles 29:3 Moreover, in my delight in the house of my God, the treasure I have of gold and silver, I give to the house of my God, over and above all that I have already provided for the holy temple . . .

King David does not suggest that a building can be morally and spiritually good. The temple is not "holy" in the second sense. The temple is holy in the first sense: dedicated to the service of God.

According to the book of Deuteronomy, God chose the descendants of Jacob to be His holy people, addressing holiness in the first sense. This does not imply that Jacob's lineage is holy in the second sense, as God had not yet consecrated their hearts. Later in Deuteronomy, God promises that He will circumcise their hearts. At that time, they will be holy in both senses of the word. Not only will they be a lineage set apart to be His people among all other nations, but they will also have their hearts circumcised and be sanctified in a moral and spiritual sense.

It is time to enter the New Covenant. The old is gone. There are no racial favors under the new.

 

[WPM]

I disagree. In Romans 3, Paul argues that the unfaithfulness of Israel will not nullify the faithfulness of God. In Romans 11, Paul argues that Israel did not stumble so as to fall when she put the Messiah to death. With regard to the ethnic physical nation today, he has kept for himself a remnant, while hardening the others. Finally, Paul asserts that the gifts and he calling of God are irrevocable.

I agree with you here.

I disagree with you here. The Bible does not teach that the NT Church is true Israel. God is dedicated to both the Israel of God and the New Testament church.

I have gave you the evidence. Your fight is clearly with Scripture. Not wise!

 

[covenantee]

I accept everything you said. But I don't recognize this as a response or refutation of what I said earlier. Would you care to clarify how they are related?

From your post 649: "Paul is talking about corporate salvation for natural Israel."

Since Paul tells us that only the remnant will be saved (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5), define "corporate salvation for natural Israel".

 

[covenantee]

Some time in the future, God will make a covenant with the house of Israel such that,

Jeremiah 31:34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
This has never happened.

Tell a congregation of Messianic Jews that their New Covenant has never happened.

Tell us what they say.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is time to enter the New Covenant. The old is gone. There are no racial favors under the new.

Did I say there were racial favors? Take the requite time to understand.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I have gave you the evidence. Your fight is with Scripture.

So did I.

 

[CadyandZoe]

From your post 649: "Paul is talking about corporate salvation for natural Israel."

Yes, he is.

Since Paul tells us that only the remnant will be saved (Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5), define "corporate salvation for natural Israel".

Only a remnant will exist at that time.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Tell a congregation of Messianic Jews that their New Covenant has never happened.

Why would I do that?

 

[covenantee]

Why would I do that?

To convince them that their New Covenant "has never happened".

Wouldn't you want to share your truth with them?

 

[covenantee]

Yes, he is.

Only a remnant will exist at that time.

Romans 9
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea...

That's the nation.

...a remnant shall be saved:

That's the remnant.

Both exist concurrently.

As they exist concurrently here:

Romans 11
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

They continue to exist concurrently today, and will continue to exist concurrently until Christ returns.