Not ALL the physically dead are raised at the same time, the dead in Christ rise FIRST.

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jesus does not say that there will be a "singular" hour as you suggest. In other words, an hour in which the dead are raised and judged does not rule out another hour when the dead in Christ are raised.

Which English translation that you believe falsely teaches the deity of Christ are you using when looking at John 5:28-29?

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

This says the HOUR is coming when all of the dead will be resurrected. Do you see something that says the HOURS are coming when the dead will be resurrected?

Everyone knows it. It is common knowledge. Why deny it?

Did he? I don't think he did. He said heaven and earth will pass away but he didn't indicate when that would happen. Don't insert ideas that aren't there.

I'm not. He specifically related heaven and earth passing away to the day and hour that is unknown, which He also related to the day of His second coming, as He did in Matthew 24:42-44 and Matthew 25:13 as well. Peter also related heaven and earth passing away with the day of His coming in 2 Peter 3:3-13.

Did he say that the flood killed unbelievers? I don't think he did. He compares the unexpected nature of the flood with the unexpected nature of his coming. He explicitly mentions that they were eating and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage. The one thing these all have in common is that they represent "everyday" activities.

You obviously don't even read all of the scriptures that we discuss. You might actually learn something if you read all of the text.

Matthew 24:37 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In case there's any question of what "took them all way" means, we can confirm that by looking at this passage...

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

So, can you see now that He did indeed say that the flood killed unbelievers while specifically indicating that it destroyed ALL of them?

Why do you answer for me as if you know what I will say? Do you often put words in people's mouths?

I already know what you believe, so I can do that. Deal with it.

I take it literally, but not in the same way you do. You hear Paul talking about the Last Judgment or the Final Judgment. I don't think Paul is talking about the Final judgment.

Not just that, but he refers to Jesus destroying unbelievers when He returns. That's living unbelievers. The same ones that he says in 1 Thess 5;2-3 will have "sudden destruction" come upon them from which "they shall not escape".

Here Paul discusses the Day of the Lord, which is a day of darkness and gloom for Israel, not for all human beings.

Nonsense. The day of the Lord is the day Jesus returns which is a global event.

Yes, because the sudden destruction is coming upon Israel during that time, not the rest of the world.

Show me in 1 Thessalonians 5 where the context is Israel rather than the world? Paul is writing to people in the church, both Jews and Gentiles there and saying we (people in the church) are not in spiritual darkness like the ones who will have sudden destruction come upon them. He is referring to unbelievers in general there. If he was talking about something only happening in Israel then why would Paul tell the Thessalonians "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess 5:4)? He clearly indicated that what he was talking about would affect where they lived as well, so the idea that he was talking about an event that would occur only in Israel is clearly false. You are changing every verse in scripture to make it say what you want it to say and it's just a pathetic thing to witness. No one butchers scripture worse than you do.

Peter is also talking about the Day of the Lord, which is vengeance on his people Israel, not on the rest of the world. Peter is talking about the fires Malachi wrote about.

So far, all your interpretations have been incorrect because they are verses taken out of context.

What an ironic thing for you to say to me when you are clearly the one taking everything out of context, as everyone here can see.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You truly have no rebuttal at all. If you did, you would give it.

I have given you many rebuttals and it clearly makes no difference to you, so this is a total lie. I give more rebuttals to you than anyone and this is what you say to me? What a joke. I don't have the desire to give a rebuttal to literally everything you say in every post you make. I already give more rebuttals to your nonsense than I should because it's obviously a waste of time.

You lie because you don't know me or anything about my spirituality.

Yes, I do. I can see that from the things you say here. I am not lying. Unless you're lying about what you believe. Otherwise, I stand by what I've said.

And you lie to yourself because you make yourself and your own ideas out to be the measure or standard of what is spiritually discerned. Get over yourself and deal with the facts.

You so far haven't shared any facts. You don't know what facts are. You have shared many weak, unsupported opinions. That's all I've seen from you.

An argument filled with ad hominem attacks—where someone attacks the person instead of addressing the argument itself—reveals a lack of solid reasoning or valid points on their part. It's often a sign that they can't effectively counter the actual issue at hand, so they resort to discrediting or insulting the person making the argument.

This is the excuse you try to come up with to distract from the fact that I've destroyed your arguments. I can get personal and refute your arguments at the same time. I'm not going to play nice with someone who wickedly denies the deity of Christ. I don't play games when it comes to that. You are in serious error by denying the deity of Christ and you need to repent of denying who He is.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Jews. That's why it says salvation is of the Jews. So?

So, physical distinction is not eliminated.

Everything you say is straight from the Dispensationalist Manual, so you can deny it all you want. You are a dispensationalist. Denying it shows that you don't even know what dispensationalism is.

If I don't know what it is, how can you accuse me of being something that I don't understand? Talk about nonsense. Your labels do nothing but obfuscate what I say, put words in my mouth, and charge me with saying something I didn't say.

How you can think that he was saying someone's physical ancestry mattered in light of what he was saying in that passage is beyond me.

You wouldn't ask me this question if you had read and understood his opening thesis.

He went out of his way to show that it didn't matter and you completely miss that.

He didn't go out of his way to say that it didn't matter. Again, he compared Abraham's two physical sons and Jacob's physical sons. All other family lines are outside the scope of his argument.

Why? What do you think he meant when he said "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children"? What do you think he meant when he said "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring"?

Paul's statement, taken alone, is not entirely true. It is not accurate to say that Abraham's descendants are not his children, because they are all his children. What Paul means to convey is that not all of Abraham's descendants are children of promise. It is important to note that Paul's focus is on Abraham's descendants, specifically the promise that God made to the direct descendants of Jacob. His argument remains closely aligned with this main idea.

You can lie all you want, but the truth of the matter is that I'm not ignoring Romans 9:1-5 at all.

Your view overly generalizes Paul's argument, making a broad statement about universal salvation. In this manner you ignore his thesis statement where he presents the main idea and point of the discussion that follows, which is narrowly focused on a promise that God made to the physical descendants of Jacob.

You are ignoring the contrasts Paul makes between Spiritual Israel and national Israel in Romans 9:6-8.

Show me. Where does it make that contrast? It isn't there.

Being part of Spiritual Israel is dependent only on spiritual things while being part of national, physical Israel is only dependent on physical things.

Your spiritual/physical either/or is an unjustified template you lay over the New Testament.

That's what you miss, but you lack the spiritual discernment to understand this.

What I am missing is a good Italian Pizza. :) Have a good week.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So, physical distinction is not eliminated.

In relation to salvation and being a child of God, it is, and that's what Romans 9:6-8 is about.

If I don't know what it is, how can you accuse me of being something that I don't understand? Talk about nonsense. Your labels do nothing but obfuscate what I say, put words in my mouth, and charge me with saying something I didn't say.

Yawn.

He didn't go out of his way to say that it didn't matter. Again, he compared Abraham's two physical sons and Jacob's physical sons. All other family lines are outside the scope of his argument.

Yes, he did. It's obvious that you haven't even read Romans 9:6-8, so it's pointless to talk to you about it until you actually do. This is a waste of time because you butcher and twist every scripture and everything I say as well.

Show me. Where does it make that contrast? It isn't there.

I already have several times. You clearly will deny anything I say, so I don't know why I'm wasting time like this. I'm done with this discussion since you're not willing to have an honest discussion and will just act like I haven't shown you things I've already shown you several times. If you disagree with what I'm showing you, so be it, but to act like I haven't even attempted to do that? What a waste of time this is.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Nonsense. The day of the Lord is the day Jesus returns which is a global event.

Show me. I already showed you Malachi 4. Did you forget to read it? If you don't understand Malachi 4, you won't fully understand 1 Thessalonians 5.

Show me in 1 Thessalonians 5 where the context is Israel rather than the world?

The prophets speak about the day of the Lord judgment. Why not take the requisite time to research this for yourself? Why not begin with Malachi 4? Who will Elijah teach to obey Moses?

Paul is writing to people in the church, both Jews and Gentiles there and saying we (people in the church) are not in spiritual darkness like the ones who will have sudden destruction come upon them. He is referring to unbelievers in general there.

What leads you to believe that Paul is referring to unbelievers in a general sense?

If he was talking about something only happening in Israel then why would Paul tell the Thessalonians "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess 5:4)?

Apparently, it had come to Paul's attention that the Thessalonian church was concerned about going through the Day of the Lord and wanted to know when it would arrive. Paul answers that no one knows when it will arrive. It will come as a thief in the night -- unexpectedly and without warning.

While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

Paul's change of pronouns indicates a third party: a group of people who are not Paul nor the Thessalonians. Who does Paul have in mind? Who will experience sudden destruction? If worldwide destruction, then they will experience it. Therefore, Paul is not talking about worldwide destruction but a localized destruction that will come upon them, whoever they are.

He clearly indicated that what he was talking about would affect where they lived as well, so the idea that he was talking about an event that would occur only in Israel is clearly false.

Quite the opposite. The Thessalonians have no need to know the times or the epochs because the day of the Lord will not overtake them. It will overtake another group of people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Show me. I already showed you Malachi 4. Did you forget to read it? If you don't understand Malachi 4, you won't fully understand 1 Thessalonians 5.

LOL. If 2 Peter 3:10-12 can't convince you, then nothing will. Have I mentioned that this is a waste of time? You deny everything that is shown to you.

What leads you to believe that Paul is referring to unbelievers in a general sense?

This is Paul talking to people in the church:

1 Thessalonians 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Paul contrasts those who are in the church with those who are not. Those who are in the church are in spiritual light and are therefore prepared for the wrath to come on the day of the Lord's return and those who are not in the church are in spiritual darkness and are not prepared for it and "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape". If you can't see the general contrast that Paul made here between believers (those in spiritual light) and unbelievers (those in spiritual darkness) then it just proves your lack of discernment yet again.

Apparently, it had come to Paul's attention that the Thessalonian church was concerned about going through the Day of the Lord and wanted to know when it would arrive. Paul answers that no one knows when it will arrive. It will come as a thief in the night -- unexpectedly and without warning.

Yes, and he indicated that it's something that would affect people where they were because he said that the reason it would not affect them was not because they weren't located where the wrath of the day of the Lord would occur, but rather was because they were in spiritual light rather than spiritual darkness. So, they will be taken up to meet the Lord in the air (what Paul wrote about just previous to this) and will be protected from His wrath.

While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

Paul's change of pronouns indicates a third party: a group of people who are not Paul nor the Thessalonians.

No. Once again you are butchering sripture. When he refers to "they" and "them", he refers to those who are in spiritual darkness in contrast to those who are in spiritual light which are the ones Paul was writing to. You could see that if only you would have read beyond verse 3. You always miss the context of scripture.

Who does Paul have in mind? Who will experience sudden destruction? If worldwide destruction, then they will experience it. Therefore, Paul is not talking about worldwide destruction but a localized destruction that will come upon them, whoever they are.

No. Again, you miss the context. They would not experience it because of what Paul had just written about just previous to that passage in 1 Thess 4:14-17. Believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and will be changed to have immortal bodies before that wrath comes down, so it's of no concern to those who are not in spiritual darkness. That's why Paul said "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess 5:4).

Quite the opposite. The Thessalonians have no need to know the times or the epochs because the day of the Lord will not overtake them. It will overtake another group of people.

Nonsense. Why would Paul write to them about it if it had nothing to do with them and where they were located? There would be no reason for him to write about that if there was no chance for it to affect them or anyone around them.

 

[rwb]

Who said anything about the persecuted?

Why do you think they were dispersed?

Not according to Peter.

Where does Peter or any other Apostle mention a "chosen race"?

 

[rwb]

Jesus did not deny that the Kingdom is physical.

So where does Jesus say His Kingdom is physical? Why does Christ say the Kingdom of God is within you? And why does Paul write the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit? Point out the verse or passage that speaks of the Kingdom of God being physical! For that matter show us where the Kingdom of God is ever said to be a physical Kingdom on this earth?

You speak without knowledge.

This I find humorous!

You need to clean your glasses.

Perhaps! They are often smudged! I can say with blessed assurance that my doctrine is clean, and truth and I've proven it throughout the Bible. Sadly, you cannot make the same claim. You repeat what you have been taught by man because the doctrine you espouse cannot be found in the Bible.

 

[Davy]

I was taught by Jesus Christ.

If taught by Lord Jesus, then you would understand the things from Bible Scripture I have shown you. But you reveal you haven't even read them.

 

[Davy]

I agree with this as I wrote a thread on how a few men shall be left to repopulate the earth during the millennium.

No such re-population of the earth idea written in God's Word. That's actually a false Jewish tradition from the Old Testament.

Like Apostle Paul showed in 1 Cor.15, we shall ALL... be changed on the "last trump", at the twinkling of an eye, to the "spiritual body".

You do... realize don't you, that your created makeup has 3 parts, right?

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
KJV

When Jesus returns, this 2nd world of flesh will be over. Everyone will be in the type body of the world to come. Or did you miss that the "resurrection of damnation" is also to a "spiritual body"?

In Ecclesiastes 12:5-7, we are shown about our flesh body being connected to our spirit by something Solomon called a "silver cord". When that silver cord is severed at flesh death, then our flesh goes back to the ground where it came from, thus breaking back into earthly matter, but our spirit (with soul) goes back to God (i.e., in the heavenly dimension). Our soul is attached to that 'spirit', as Jesus showed in Matthew 10:28.

And in 1 Cor.15:50, Apostle Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, neither does corruption (flesh) inherit incorruption (spirit body).

The idea that our flesh is what is raised from the grave is an old Jewish tradition, taught the Jews of old because they were hard of understanding this detail shown in The New Testament by Jesus and Apostle Paul.

 

[rwb]

The prophets speak about the day of the Lord judgment. Why not take the requisite time to research this for yourself? Why not begin with Malachi 4? Who will Elijah teach to obey Moses?

Are you so unlearned of the Bible that you don't even understand that John the Baptist came in the spirit, not the body, of Elijah according to Christ? Here again you try to make the New prove the Old, rather than allowing the New to bring greater understanding of that which was of Old that was vague, and shadows that could not be made clear before the advent of Christ coming to earth a man.

Do you even have understanding of the time reference that Malachi foretells to come? Do you think His prophecy shall be in the future? Do you really not understand the prophecies of Old are fulfilled and being fulfilled since the promised Messiah has come to earth a man? Are you still waiting for the words written of Old to be fulfilled PHYSICALLY at some future day?

You keep going on and on about Israel, according to blood line being God's "chosen race"! Then you try to make Paul agree with you through the book of Romans. You keep rambling on about what you think Paul believed regarding Israel alone being a chosen race unto the Lord God, according to their blood line. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the doctrine Paul taught to the men of Athens on Mars Hill, who worshipped an unknown god. Making clear to them how Christ being the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in physical temples (made with hands), neither does He need to be physically worshipped (man's hands), as though He needed anything. What Paul says next may astound you, because he tells the men of Athens that God has made of ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS OF MEN TO DWELL UPTON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The Athenians had not yet been introduced to The One God of heaven and earth because God had determined in time past the appointed TIME, and boundaries of their habitation.

Acts 17:26 (KJV) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

Paul tells them NOW, since Christ has come the time of them being in darkness and unbelief has come to an end, for they too, like Israelites of faith from Old, could know the Lord IF they seek for Him. ALL of mankind being of ONE BLOOD since Christ has come are not to be looked upon any differently than Israel of Old. In the past, before Christ came, they were ignorant about the True God of heaven and earth, but NOW since Christ has come, and died for sin, and defeated death by resurrecting from the grave, God gives assurance to ALL (both Jew & Gentile) that if they believe they are of the chosen SEED (Christ), belonging together with Israel of God. No longer without God in the world, and in darkness and unbelief when the turn to Christ for everlasting life. Just as Israel of faith is His offspring through faith, so too "we also His offspring."

Acts 17:27-31 (KJV) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. If 2 Peter 3:10-12 can't convince you, then nothing will.

I agree with Peter. I don't agree with your interpretation of that passage. Peter is talking about an event predicted by God's prophets. To ignore the prophets is to misunderstand Peter. Which OT passages talk about burning?

If you can't see the general contrast that Paul made here between believers (those in spiritual light) and unbelievers (those in spiritual darkness) then it just proves your lack of discernment yet again.

I don't see it your way. Why? Because your way is contradictory. According to you, the Day of the Lord is attended by a complete and total destruction of the heavens and the earth. Not only would such an event overtake unbelievers, it would overtake everyone. Taking your view to its logical conclusion, Paul's reassurances are worthless.

Yes, and he indicated that it's something that would affect people where they were because he said that the reason it would not affect them was not because they weren't located where the wrath of the day of the Lord would occur, but rather was because they were in spiritual light rather than spiritual darkness. So, they will be taken up to meet the Lord in the air (what Paul wrote about just previous to this) and will be protected from His wrath.

You argue that the Day of the Lord is the day when the entire earth is burned up, and those in spiritual light will be taken off the earth before then. If that's the case, why does Paul recommend that we remain alert and sober? What does being perceptive have to do with being rescued off the earth? If God is going to destroy the earth and everything on it, what difference does it make whether it takes me by surprise or if I know what is about to take place? The outcome remains the same either way.

You seem to be missing something here.

No. Once again you are butchering sripture. When he refers to "they" and "them", he refers to those who are in spiritual darkness in contrast to those who are in spiritual light which are the ones Paul was writing to. You could see that if only you would have read beyond verse 3. You always miss the context of scripture.

The point is, Paul's wording indicates that the destruction will be limited to those who were not sober and awake when the event takes place. Thessalonians can avoid the destruction if they remain alert

No. Again, you miss the context. They would not experience it because of what Paul had just written about just previous to that passage in 1 Thess 4:14-17. Believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and will be changed to have immortal bodies before that wrath comes down, so it's of no concern to those who are not in spiritual darkness. That's why Paul said "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess 5:4).

Nonsense. Why would Paul write to them about it if it had nothing to do with them and where they were located? There would be no reason for him to write about that if there was no chance for it to affect them or anyone around them.

That's my point.

Why do you think they were dispersed?

The Ten Tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians.

Where does Peter or any other Apostle mention a "chosen race"?

1 Peter 2:9

 

[CadyandZoe]

So where does Jesus say His Kingdom is physical? Why does Christ say the Kingdom of God is within you?

He means "among you". The kingdom of God was among them because the King was among them.

And why does Paul write the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit? Point out the verse or passage that speaks of the Kingdom of God being physical!

They are both true at the same time.

For that matter show us where the Kingdom of God is ever said to be a physical Kingdom on this earth?

Wow, that would take pages. Think about what Jesus said to the chief priests and elders. He told them that the kingdom of God would be taken from them. How can an abstract, spiritual, kingdom be taken from anyone, let alone these men? The discussion was centered on rulership of the kingdom. And Jesus was implying that rulership of the kingdom would be taken from the chief priests and Elders and given to the Apostles. Jesus told the apostles that in the coming age, they would sit on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel. And Revelation 20:4 says, "and I saw thrones and they that sat on them."

This I find humorous!

What's so funny about accusing people of things that you can't possibly know?

Perhaps! They are often smudged! I can say with blessed assurance that my doctrine is clean, and truth and I've proven it throughout the Bible. Sadly, you cannot make the same claim. You repeat what you have been taught by man because the doctrine you espouse cannot be found in the Bible.

You don't know that. You don't know me. Why continue to say things about me that you make up about me?

 

[CadyandZoe]

LOL. If 2 Peter 3:10-12 can't convince you, then nothing will.

I agree with Peter. I don't agree with your interpretation of that passage. Peter is talking about an event predicted by God's prophets. To ignore the prophets is to misunderstand Peter. Which OT passages talk about burning?

If you can't see the general contrast that Paul made here between believers (those in spiritual light) and unbelievers (those in spiritual darkness) then it just proves your lack of discernment yet again.

I don't see it your way. Why? Because your way is contradictory. According to you, the Day of the Lord is attended by a complete and total destruction of the heavens and the earth. Not only would such an event overtake unbelievers, it would overtake everyone. Taking your view to its logical conclusion, Paul's reassurances are worthless.

Yes, and he indicated that it's something that would affect people where they were because he said that the reason it would not affect them was not because they weren't located where the wrath of the day of the Lord would occur, but rather was because they were in spiritual light rather than spiritual darkness. So, they will be taken up to meet the Lord in the air (what Paul wrote about just previous to this) and will be protected from His wrath.

You argue that the Day of the Lord is the day when the entire earth is burned up, and those in spiritual light will be taken off the earth before then. If that's the case, why does Paul recommend that we remain alert and sober? What does being perceptive have to do with being rescued off the earth? If God is going to destroy the earth and everything on it, what difference does it make whether it takes me by surprise or if I know what is about to take place? The outcome remains the same either way.

You seem to be missing something here.

No. Once again you are butchering sripture. When he refers to "they" and "them", he refers to those who are in spiritual darkness in contrast to those who are in spiritual light which are the ones Paul was writing to. You could see that if only you would have read beyond verse 3. You always miss the context of scripture.

The point is, Paul's wording indicates that the destruction will be limited to those who were not sober and awake when the event takes place. Thessalonians can avoid the destruction if they remain alert

No. Again, you miss the context. They would not experience it because of what Paul had just written about just previous to that passage in 1 Thess 4:14-17. Believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air and will be changed to have immortal bodies before that wrath comes down, so it's of no concern to those who are not in spiritual darkness. That's why Paul said "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." (1 Thess 5:4).

Nonsense. Why would Paul write to them about it if it had nothing to do with them and where they were located? There would be no reason for him to write about that if there was no chance for it to affect them or anyone around them.

That's my point.

Are you so unlearned of the Bible that you don't even understand that John the Baptist came in the spirit, not the body, of Elijah according to Christ?

So what? Did Jesus say that Elijah wouldn't come? No. Quite the opposite. Jesus confirmed that Elijah would come.

Here again you try to make the New prove the Old, rather than allowing the New to bring greater understanding of that which was of Old that was vague, and shadows that could not be made clear before the advent of Christ coming to earth a man.

Here again, I don't practice eisegesis.

Do you even have understanding of the time reference that Malachi foretells to come? Do you think His prophecy shall be in the future?

Yes. Malachi 4 is yet to be fulfilled.

Do you really not understand the prophecies of Old are fulfilled and being fulfilled since the promised Messiah has come to earth a man?

That isn't true.

Are you still waiting for the words written of Old to be fulfilled PHYSICALLY at some future day?

Yes, aren't you?

You keep going on and on about Israel, according to blood line being God's "chosen race"!

They are. The Bible says so in several places that I already mentioned.

Then you try to make Paul agree with you through the book of Romans.

Show me.

Acts 17:26 (KJV) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The KJV is messing you up. Paul didn't say "one blood" he said "one man" i.e. Adam.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't see it your way. Why? Because your way is contradictory. According to you, the Day of the Lord is attended by a complete and total destruction of the heavens and the earth. Not only would such an event overtake unbelievers, it would overtake everyone. Taking your view to its logical conclusion, Paul's reassurances are worthless.

It won't overtake believers who have been changed and have immortal bodies at that point. Hello? You're not even thinking here.

You argue that the Day of the Lord is the day when the entire earth is burned up, and those in spiritual light will be taken off the earth before then. If that's the case, why does Paul recommend that we remain alert and sober?

He is recommending that we examine ourselves and make sure we are in or remain in right standing with God and not allow ourselves to be deceived and turn to spiritual darkness and be part of those who will have sudden destruction come down on them on that day.

What does being perceptive have to do with being rescued off the earth? If God is going to destroy the earth and everything on it, what difference does it make whether it takes me by surprise or if I know what is about to take place? The outcome remains the same either way.

Your lack of discernment is astounding. You can't even discern that the ones who will be "rescued off the earth" are those who will be made immortal (our bodies) and caught up to meet the Lord in the air and are those who are in spiritual light instead of darkness. It's about making sure we belong to Christ and are in spiritual light rather than darkness so that we avoid the wrath that will come on that day. Read 1 Thessalonians 5. You clearly have never read it carefully before. It's not about knowing the day or hour when it will take place because no one knows that (Matt 24:36, Matt 25:13). It's about being spiritually ready for that day and expecting it to come even without knowing exactly when. And, seeing how lacking in spiritual discernment you are along with your denial of the deity of Christ makes me concerned about your spiritual status and readiness.

You seem to be missing something here.

You are missing everything here.

The point is, Paul's wording indicates that the destruction will be limited to those who were not sober and awake when the event takes place. Thessalonians can avoid the destruction if they remain alert

What do you think it means to remain alert? And why is that something that would concern them if it's something that only takes place in Israel as you claim?

 

[covenantee]

The KJV is messing you up. Paul didn't say "one blood" he said "one man" i.e. Adam.

It says neither "blood" nor "man". It simply says "one".

1520 [e]
henos
ἑνὸς ,
one
Adj-GMS

 

[CadyandZoe]

You keep going on and on about Israel, according to blood line being God's "chosen race"!

I am sending you one more post to clarify something that might not be apparent in this format. Regarding salvation and the idea that we have one church, one savior, and one Lord, we are all on the same page. We all agree on that. Where we disagree is centered on God's role for physical/national Israel. On the question of physical Israel, I would say that God still has a role for them and you disagree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So what? Did Jesus say that Elijah wouldn't come? No. Quite the opposite. Jesus confirmed that Elijah would come.

What you don't understand is that the prophecy is about someone coming in the spirit and power of Elijah which means it would be someone like Elijah rather than Elijah himself.

Luke 1:13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

This passage references the prophecy from Malachi 4 and attributes it to John the Baptist coming in the spirit and power of Elijah. Why not just accept this instead of insisting that Elijah himself still has to come in the future? You continue to not accept what the NT teaches about the fulfillments of OT prophecies.

Jesus explicitly said John the Baptist was the Elijah to come.

Matthew 11:11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

You obviously don't have the ears to hear what Jesus said since you don't accept that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come as Jesus said.

Matthew 17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” 10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” 11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Jesus said "Elijah has already come". You say Elijah has not yet come. I will side with Jesus over you every time.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It says neither "blood" nor "man". It simply says "one".

1520 [e]
henos
ἑνὸς ,
one
Adj-GMS

The question is one what?

On Mars Hill, Paul argues for one God and universal salvation. I get that. Even so, Peter refers to the diaspora as a chosen "genos" referring to the family line that came from Jacob. If "race" is an issue for you, just translate "genos" into "family line."

 

[covenantee]

The question is one what?

On Mars Hill, Paul argues for one God and universal salvation. I get that. Even so, Peter refers to the diaspora as a chosen "genos" referring to the family line that came from Jacob. If "race" is an issue for you, just translate "genos" into "family line."

Nothing to do with race or family line.

​

Strong's Concordance heis: one Original Word: εἷς, μία, ἕν Part of Speech: Adjective Transliteration: heis Phonetic Spelling: (hice) Definition: one Usage: one.​