Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so a 1000 yr reign on this earth is false

[CadyandZoe]

When it talks of God judging the nations, that means the people of those nations. A group of persons creates a nation.
And if I am a believer in Christ, my nation is a holy nation as I am joined to that. I am not recognized by God according to the flesh.

Peter speaks of believers as a holy nation.


1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Exodus 19:6
And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Peter is speaking of those of the Jewish diaspora who were living outside the country of Israel.

 

[covenantee]

Peter is speaking of those of the Jewish diaspora who were living outside the country of Israel.

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That's the Church.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Better promises are better promises.

Okay, but the better promise is made better through two changes: 1) a better priesthood and 2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These changes do not nullify God's original promise that "each man and his brother shall know me." This has not yet come to pass.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Don't confuse the last days with the Last Day. The two are not the same thing.

When did I say that last days (plural) are the same as the last day? Never. The last day is the last of the last days. I showed, using scripture, that the last days refer to the time period between the first and second coming of Christ by citing Acts 2:16-21 and 2 Peter 3:3-4. So, the last day refers to the day Jesus returns.

Isaiah 2:2
Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.

The above passage directly contradicts the Amillennial position.
1. A chief of the mountains implies subject mountains.

How does this contradict the Amill position? It does not. It looks like you are revealing once again a lack of understanding of the Amill position which states that all things are currently under Christ's feet (Matt 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-22).

2. Raising a mountain above hills implies that hills exist.

How does this contradict the Amill position that the last days refer to the time between the first and second coming of Christ?

3. Since the nations stream to the mountain of the Lord, then the nations exist as separate entities.

Again, how does this contradict Amill?

Isaiah employs the literary device of parallelism to draw a vivid comparison between mountains and nations. In this metaphorical landscape, the tallest mountain symbolizes the nation endowed with the highest authority, standing majestically above all others. Surrounding this lofty peak are the hills, representing national authorities that exist in a subordinate relationship to this supreme power. It is to the great mountain, the pinnacle of governance, that the nations turn, seeking guidance and wisdom in their endeavors.

This hierarchy remains valid only as long as the first earth and the first heaven persist in their existence.

I agree. And the fact that I agree shows your lack of understanding of Amillennialism since you think you're making an argument refuting Amillennialism.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

1 Peter 2
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

That's the Church.

Yes, it is.

It's just like the description of the church that Paul gave here:

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[CadyandZoe]

If Christ was on this earth, He could not be a priest
So how can anyone say Christ will rule on a physical throne over flesh and blood people?

A priest doesn't rule over the people; he intercedes for the people.

 

[shepherdsword]

The text tells us: David has been reigning on David's throne since the resurrection. He has the key of David now. Your fight is with the Book. Not Amils.

This why every reader should reject Premil. It butchers the Word of God.

That's not what the text says at all. It's what you think it says.There is nothing in the text that states that Jesus currently occupies the throne of David. It simply says the Christ one day would sit on David's throne. In fact, when the disciples asked Jesus IF he would now restore the kingdom they were met with this proof that the kingdom spoken of was not yet restored:

Ac 1:6-7When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Although, I can see that amils have the unmitigated audacity to think THEY KNOW the time and season because they say it is now.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Jeremiah passage is quoted virtually verbatim in Hebrews 8:8-12.
It is prefaced by Hebrews 8:6 and concluded by Hebrews 8:13:
Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Both verses are expressed in the past and present tenses, signifying that what lies between them was true and fulfilled when written.

It became and becomes true and fulfilled for every Jew who received and receives salvation through Christ's New Covenant and Blood.
Which began 2,000 years ago at Calvary.

The letter is written to the Hebrews. Paul is talking about things of interest to Hebrew believers. The Jeremiah prophecy contains a section that has not come to pass yet.

 

[covenantee]

Okay, but the better promise is made better through two changes: 1) a better priesthood and 2) the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These changes do not nullify God's original promise that "each man and his brother shall know me." This has not yet come to pass.

The Jeremiah passage is quoted virtually verbatim in Hebrews 8:8-12.
It is prefaced by Hebrews 8:6 and concluded by Hebrews 8:13:
Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Both verses are expressed in the past and present tenses, signifying that what lies between them was true and fulfilled when written.

It became and becomes true and fulfilled for every Jew who received and receives salvation through Christ's New Covenant and Blood.
Which began 2,000 years ago at Calvary.

 

[Doug]

If one THINKS that Jesus shed His blood for the new covenant?

I KNOW He did.

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Do you understand that when this refers to "that first covenant" it's referring to the old covenant, which makes the second covenant the new covenant? Look at what the following says about the new (second) covenant.

Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This says God took away the first, which refers to the old covenant, to establish the second, which is the new covenant. How did He do that? By way of "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.".

So, yes, of course He shed His blood for the house of Israel and the house of Judah in fulfillment of the new covenant.

As far as what I was saying about if one thinks Jesus shed his blood for the new covenant is this....he shed his blood for the new covenant so the new covenant is in effect......so Jeremiah 31:31 is fulfilled.....so I can claim the new covenant

As I said the terms testament and covenant share a reliance one upon the other....God could not be just in declaring forgiveness for Israel's trespasses under the first covenant without the shed blood of Christ

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Believing Jews don't cease to be Jews. That's Paul's point.

The passage that was referenced in relation to his comment was this one.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,

You think Paul's point here is that believing Jews don't cease to be Jews? It seems to me that his point is that, despite most Israelites having rejected His Son, God did not cast away the Israelites that he foreknew and Paul used himself as evidence for that. Later, he talked the remnant of believers in his day that included him. Believing Jews not ceasing to be Jews has nothing to do with what he said there.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As far as what I was saying about if one thinks Jesus shed his blood for the new covenant is this....he shed his blood for the new covenant so the new covenant is in effect......so Jeremiah 31:31 is fulfilled.....so I can claim the new covenant

As I said the terms testament and covenant share a reliance one upon the other....God could not be just in declaring forgiveness for Israel's trespasses under the first covenant without the shed blood of Christ

Please address what I said in my post.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Notice here that Peter said there was a prophecy made by David where God told him that He would raise up Christ to sit on his (David's) throne and then said the prophecy was speaking "of the resurrection of Christ".

Peter quotes David to prove that God would not allow his descendant to suffer decay. This does not mean that Jesus' resurrection is Jesus sitting on David's throne.

 

[CadyandZoe]

the new covenant has not been established yet it will be in the millennium kingdom

The New Covenant was established at the cross. But contrary to what some people think, the entire New Covenant hasn't yet come to pass. Perhaps you have that in mind. At some point in our future they will say of the nation of Israel, "they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest." This is in our future.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Do you think that Christ and the writers of the Scriptures that I cited knew what Ezekiel had written?

Yes, they were aware of what Ezekiel had written. Ezekiel 36 has yet to come to pass.

 

[Doug]

How can you think it's for future Israel when verses 6 and 7 says that it WAS ESTABLISHED on better promises than the first, old covenant, which means it has been in effect for a long time already?

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Since you think that the new covenant is not yet in effect, does that mean you think the old covenant is still in effect?

How can you think it's for future Israel when verses 6 and 7 says that it WAS ESTABLISHED on better promises than the first, old covenant, which means it has been in effect for a long time already?

because of this verse...........[Eze 36:24 KJV] 24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land........this is future

Since you think that the new covenant is not yet in effect, does that mean you think the old covenant is still in effect?

we are in the dispensation of grace.....Israel is saved today by grace and believing the gospel revealed to Paul

 

[CadyandZoe]

Galatians 3 And Ephesians 2 says there is NO DIFFERENCE between jew or gentile for those who are in Christ

Yes, but in Romans, Paul recognizes a difference between Israel and the other nations.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, they were aware of what Ezekiel had written. Ezekiel 36 has yet to come to pass.

What I cited has come to pass.

 

[CadyandZoe]

In Romans 9, Paul includes the gentiles into the New Covenant promises

Not all of them. While it is true that the future will see each and every man and his neighbor knowing the Lord, this will never be true of the Gentiles.

 

[covenantee]

The New Covenant was established at the cross. But contrary to what some people think, the entire New Covenant hasn't yet come to pass. Perhaps you have that in mind. At some point in our future they will say of the nation of Israel, "they will all know me from the least of them to the greatest." This is in our future.

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Have you told Jesus that His New Covenant hasn't yet come to pass?

What did He say?