The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[covenantee]

What covenant did God make with Israel that included unbelievers like the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, etc.?

Doesn't matter that they were unbelievers. CadyandZoe said that Paul said that "salvation belongs to his kinsmen". They were his kinsmen, so salvation belonged to them.

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Jesus was only joking.

Be prepared to meet and greet 'em all in heaven.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Doesn't matter that they were unbelievers. CadyandZoe said that Paul said that "salvation belongs to his kinsmen". They were his kinsmen, so salvation belonged to them.

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Jesus was only joking.

Be prepared to meet and greet 'em all in heaven.

LOL. Yeah, that would have to be true that they would be saved as well if God made a covenant with the entire nation. So, yeah, get ready to meet those "hypocrites", "fools and blind", "serpents" and "vipers" one day.

If God made a covenant with Israel as a whole then there surely would be no reason why any Israelites from the past 2,000 years or so would be excepted, right? It seems that the only criteria is to be a part of this supposed covenant is to be a natural Israelite. No reason to think the covenant would only apply to future Israelites as if they were somehow favored over the Israelites who have lived since the first century.

 

[Timtofly]

I didn't fail to make a point, you failed to see it. I'm telling you that taking any given scripture passage as written means to take it as it was intended to be understood, whether it's symbolic or literal. You do acknowledge that not all scripture is literal and that some of it, especially in books like Revelation, is symbolic text, right? So, we should take the symbolic text as written (it's written symbolically) and the literal text as written (it's written literally). The way you talk makes it as if it's all literal, but even you know that is not the case since even you can recognize that the beast with seven heads and ten horns is not a literal beast that has seven literal heads and ten literal horns.

No, the point is Satan is bound literally, not symbolically. How he is bound is not the point at all. You say he can still influence humanity. I say he cannot. You defer to pointless arguments about literal Satan and literal chains.

I point out Satan is bound after a battle. You say, there was no battle so Satan was never defeated. You claim the power of the Holy Spirit has kept Satan in check.

Now you may claim John was symbolic in his timing and words. Since you don't think "as written" means there was a literal anything having to do with the Second Coming.

Of course, if you make everything symbolic, you can make Scripture say anything you want it to, especially to fit your eschatology. Kind of hard to change things around if you accept God's Word as literal. You have to accept some parts of Scripture even if they don't make sense. God's Word was not written to cater to human sensibility. Nor was it written to prove a certain modern eschatology.

No, the point is not to prove if some Scripture is symbolic or some is literal. The point is to figure out why "as written" should be one or the other, not both. If Revelation makes sense as chapter 20 happening at the same time as chapter 19, why would your defense be, it is too symbolic? Why do we need to come up with a better interpretation than the words John wrote?

You're the one who thinks it does not make sense as written. But your reasoning is that it should be interpreted as symbolic, so we can make it say something totally different. There are enough points made about literal beings, places, and actions to make sense. Satan is literal, a soul is literal, being beheaded is literal. Even a thousand years can be a literal period of time, even if you disagree. It has been 1993 years since 30AD. There have been almost 2 literal thousand years, since the Cross.

 

[covenantee]

LOL. Yeah, that would have to be true that they would be saved as well if God made a covenant with the entire nation. So, yeah, get ready to meet those "hypocrites", "fools and blind", "serpents" and "vipers" one day.

If God made a covenant with Israel as a whole then there surely would be no reason why any Israelites from the past 2,000 years or so would be excepted, right? It seems that the only criteria is to be a part of this supposed covenant is to be a natural Israelite. No reason to think the covenant would only apply to future Israelites as if they were somehow favored over the Israelites who have lived since the first century.

The racialization of salvation.

A dogma of damnation.

 

[Timtofly]

Doesn't matter that they were unbelievers. CadyandZoe said that Paul said that "salvation belongs to his kinsmen". They were his kinsmen, so salvation belonged to them.

Matthew 23
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Jesus was only joking.

Be prepared to meet and greet 'em all in heaven.

You think they could not have been redeemed had they accepted Jesus? They were passed redemption? Paul was a Pharisee, and seemed rather proud even though he was a born again redeemed believer.

How can they escape? By repentance and submission to the Holy Spirit, just like any of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, the point is Satan is bound literally, not symbolically. How he is bound is not the point at all. You say he can still influence humanity. I say he cannot. You defer to pointless arguments about literal Satan and literal chains.

That is your point, not mine. We obviously differ in our understanding of his binding. We've known that for a long time. Clearly, that is not a point that needs to be made as if we didn't already know that. My argument is not pointless. It would be pointless if I made it to anyone else since everyone else but you seems to understand the difference between literal and symbolic text.

I point out Satan is bound after a battle. You say, there was no battle so Satan was never defeated. You claim the power of the Holy Spirit has kept Satan in check.

Now you may claim John was symbolic in his timing and words. Since you don't think "as written" means there was a literal anything having to do with the Second Coming.

I explained my understanding of what "as written" means. If you disagree, so be it. I don't care. You apparently think it has to mean something is literal. But, not all scripture is literal, so it makes no sense to make an argument about accepting something "as written" as if there is no other option but to interpret it literally.

Of course, if you make everything symbolic, you can make Scripture say anything you want it to, especially to fit your eschatology.

Why do you resort to nonsense like this? That is a serious question. I would love to know why you do this? You know that I do not "make everything symbolic". I absolutely do not do that and you know it. Do I interpret more of the book of Revelation symbolicaly than you do? Sure. But, do I interpret all of it symbolically? No. I've never said that. Not once. So, why do you act as if I do that? Give me an honest answer to this question.

Kind of hard to change things around if you accept God's Word as literal.

Is all of God's Word literal? No. So, what does this statement even mean? If I take something that's clearly symbolic such as the beast with seven heads and ten horns and don't interpret it as a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns, am I changing things around to make it fit my doctrine? Should I be taking that literally instead? Of course not, right? So, again, what do you even mean when you make statements like this?

You have to accept some parts of Scripture even if they don't make sense.

LOL. I could say the same to you. You can't make sense of Satan being bound for the past almost 2,000 years, but you should accept it, anyway. Right? You said yourself that you have to accept some parts of Scripture even if they don't make sense. So, there you go. You need to start taking your own advice and start accepting Amillennialism even if it doesn't make sense to you.

God's Word was not written to cater to human sensibility. Nor was it written to prove a certain modern eschatology.

No, the point is not to prove if some Scripture is symbolic or some is literal. The point is to figure out why "as written" should be one or the other, not both.

That's what I have been saying all along, you silly goose. I'm saying we need to discern whether any given text is written symbolically or literally. That's what taking it "as written" means to me.

If Revelation makes sense as chapter 20 happening at the same time as chapter 19, why would your defense be, it is too symbolic?

I don't understand your question. How can something be too symbolic? There is nothing wrong with symbolism. It symbolizes real things, so what does it matter if the real things are depicted literally or symbolically?

Why do we need to come up with a better interpretation than the words John wrote?

What kind of question is this? Should we assume that John wrote about a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns? Is it your view that taking it another way than literally is "a better interpretation than the words John wrote"?

You're the one who thinks it does not make sense as written.

When you say "as written", you mean literally. Can you just say literally instead of "as written"? Some things are written symbolically and we can take them "as written", which is symbolically. So, you just create confusion by talking about things "as written" since not everything is written literally.

But your reasoning is that it should be interpreted as symbolic, so we can make it say something totally different. There are enough points made about literal beings, places, and actions to make sense. Satan is literal, a soul is literal, being beheaded is literal. Even a thousand years can be a literal period of time, even if you disagree. It has been 1993 years since 30AD. There have been almost 2 literal thousand years, since the Cross.

Again, I never said that all of it is symbolic. There is a mix of symbolic and literal text throughout the book. The key is to be able to differentiate which is which. I obviously think you do a poor job of that and you think that of me (and I couldn't care less about that). So be it.

 

[covenantee]

You think they could not have been redeemed had they accepted Jesus? They were passed redemption? Paul was a Pharisee, and seemed rather proud even though he was a born again redeemed believer.

How can they escape? By repentance and submission to the Holy Spirit, just like any of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

We've been told that Paul said that "salvation belongs to his kinsmen".

Do you agree?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The racialization of salvation.

A dogma of damnation.

Exactly. Could Paul have been any more clear than he was in Romans 9:6-8 that being a child of God has absolutely nothing to do with one's nationality? How does someone miss that except for their extreme doctrinal bias blinding them from seeing it?

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 8 In other words, 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 said: "It is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". Which clearly means that being a child of God has NOTHING to do with one's nationality. As Paul indicated in Galatians 3:26-29 it has to do with having faith in Christ and belonging to Him.

People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children". Implying that one's nationality has a bearing on one's salvation, which completely contradicts what Paul taught.

Who to believe? It's not a tough choice. I'm on Paul's team all the way.

 

[n2thelight]

Of course there will be, the unsaved nations that are ruled over. We see a great number of them killed by fire at Jerusalem after the Mill ends. After that they are resurrected to die a second time.

Flesh and blood cannot be in the kingdom of God ,those who will be ruled are those who stand a chance of the 2nd death, they will be taught the true Word of God . After satan is released after the 1000 years some will be deceived yet again, and will have their part in the lake of fire

 

[ewq1938]

Flesh and blood cannot be in the kingdom of God

That isn't true though. It's like people who think the bible says money is the root of all evil. They are not remembering it correctly.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No one needed to tell me that. If that wasn't the case then why did the disciples need Jesus to give them understanding of the OT passages about Him? Why does the NT give fulfillments of OT prophecies if those fufillments were all already known? Where is it made clear in the OT that the promises made to Abraham and his seed applied to Jesus and those who belong to Jesus (Galatians 3:16-29)?

You have no explanation for any of these things, so I couldn't care less if you reject my view of this or not. I believe you have no discernment whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that you deny the deity of Jesus Christ. You have not given me any reason to listen to you.

Again, you are confusing "meaning" with "significance."

 

[CadyandZoe]

Looks like you just completely ignored Romans 9:24 then. It's clear to me that you have a very low opinion of Paul and don't trust his understanding of the Old Testament.

Nothing I said "looks like" I ignored Romans 9:24.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What covenant did God make with Israel that included unbelievers like the Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees, etc.?

Read the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

 

[covenantee]

Read the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Read the New Testament.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Again, you are confusing "meaning" with "significance."

LOL. Again, you are trying to add unnecessary confusion since that's all you can do to keep your false doctrine afloat.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Read the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Who said that I haven't? Not me. Are you acting like you know what I've read or not? You shouldn't. So, this response indicates you DO believe that God makes covenants with unbelievers. So, when should Israelite unbelievers like the Pharisees and scribes expect God to fulfill His covenant with them?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Read the New Testament.

It really seems as if he's never read a word of it. Why is it that some people insist on making things as hard as possible on themselves by not allowing the New Testament to explain the meaning of Old Testament prophecies for them?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nothing I said "looks like" I ignored Romans 9:24.

That's true. I appreciate that correction. It doesn't just look like it, you DID ignore Romans 9:24.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That isn't true though. It's like people who think the bible says money is the root of all evil. They are not remembering it correctly.

You are trying to say that flesh and blood WILL inherit the kingdom of God? What do you think Paul was meaning to say here then:

1 Corinthians 15:50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

 

[marks]

People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children". Implying that one's nationality has a bearing on one's salvation, which completely contradicts what Paul taught.

I just happened to come across this.

Maybe someone who is like me might say such a thing but I highly doubt it. If they are just like me they most certainly would not.

What do you gain speaking falsely of others? I can't imagine that Ad Hominems actually are your best arguments! But then as I read over the thread, they are a large part it seems.

I hope you are not making it a practice of putting false words into my mouth to bolster your assertions!

Much love!