When was the A.O.D fulfilled?

[Jay Ross]

Fact: the sun and moon do not obey the Genesis 1:14 ordinances in Isaiah 60:20.

Isaiah 60:20 Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

Fact: - Isaiah 60:20 is pointing to a time after the GWTR judgement when the righteous of Israel will be in the time period of eternity on the earth.

Fact: if the ordinances of the sun, moon, and stars depart from before the LORD, Israel ceases from being a nation forever in Jeremiah 31:36.

Jeremiah 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Fact: - Jer 31:36 is pointing to time period after the GWTR judgement, that if God's ordinance has departed from Israel before the GWTR judgement, then Israel as a nation will cease to exist during the time period of eternity on the earth. We cannot just consider Jer 31:36 without also considering the context of the passage from Jer 31:31ff, otherwise we will come to the wrong conclusion as to what is being said in the Jer 31:36.

Shalom

 

[Phoneman777]

Hi.

Can I ask you some clarifying questions, so I can understand your position better, please? I do not meant to derail your present interaction with another, just would like to understand your thinking/position better.

I don't mean to derail your discussion with him, but know this: he has nothing but unBiblical positions to offer.

 

[Phoneman777]

Do you not read your own posts with your many insults? What a hypocrite you are. I'm just talking your language, buddy. I guess you can dish it out, but can't take it? Maybe you should try toning things down yourself then? Ever think about that? Do you imagine that you are trying to agreeably disagree with me with the kind of comments you're making to me? Read your own posts and see. Your lack of self awareness is incredible. I suppose you think that referring to "Spiritual Israelite's Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics" is not meant to be an insult? Look in the mirror.

Bro, you call people "liars" and "goofy person" and "stupid" and a host of other insults - I DO NOTHING OF THE KIND! You spiritually immature children are known by your inability to disconnect criticism of one's opinions with the person himself - as if disagreeing with your position is somehow an attack on your person which you conclude warrants a counterattack barrage of insults.

Understand?

Limit your negative comments to only a person's beliefs/arguments/line of reasoning or get out until you're mature enough to come back.

 

[The Light]

All 10 countries have been formed and the little country which is diverse from the first has been formed too.

And you are correct,it is not the Roman empire.

These are world regions and not countries, and yes, they have already been formed.

As to the country that is diverse from the first, I don't think that is a country but is a man, the little horn.

Daniel 7
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

 

[grafted branch]

Fact: - Isaiah 60:20 is pointing to a time after the GWTR judgement when the righteous of Israel will be in the time period of eternity on the earth.

Irregardless of the time period Isaiah 60:20 is pointing to, at some point the sun and moon do not obey the ordinances.

Fact: - Jer 31:36 is pointing to time period after the GWTR judgement, that if God's ordinance has departed from Israel before the GWTR judgement, then Israel as a nation will cease to exist during the time period of eternity on the earth. We cannot just consider Jer 31:36 without also considering the context of the passage from Jer 31:31ff, otherwise we will come to the wrong conclusion as to what is being said in the Jer 31:36.

You are adding in the stipulation of “if God's ordinance has departed from Israel before the GWTR judgement”. That is not in Jeremiah 31:36.

Jeremiah 31:31 is referring to the new covenant, so if Jeremiah 31:36 is true under the new covenant then Israel ceases from being a nation before God, forever. No matter when Israel ceases from being a nation, it still means no unconditional eternal promises are made to the nation of Israel.

 

[tailgator]

These are world regions and not countries, and yes, they have already been formed.

As to the country that is diverse from the first, I don't think that is a country but is a man, the little horn.

Daniel 7
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

No,they are all countries with kings .The little country is diverse from.the first and he subdued three kings when he conquered in seven hilled city.


Daniel 7
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.




Last year he was trying to change laws and is still attempting to find a way to control the supreme Court.I expect next year he will start persecuting the saints after the second beast arrives in his little kingdom.

 

[Phoneman777]

The foolish nonsense continues. They believe it is an individual Antichrist and I do not. So, my belief has nothing to do with theirs. Nice failed try yet again.

Your willful ignorance continues. Read Fallon's commentary in which he applies the rise of the "man of sin" to the future, suggesting this rise comes after the release of the four winds of strife. Sound familiar? It should, because it's along the very same nonsensical lines of your preaching.

Ahhhhhh, I see. You are not able to differentiate between literal and figurative text. Something you have made clear repeatedly in this discussion.

There is no differentiation! "God of the living" is as much a figurative expression of a future reality as "made to sit down in heavenly places" is a figurative expression of a future reality.

Admit it - the reason you get so angry, so insulting, so condescending is because my logic exposes your "absolutes" as nothing more than "subjective rigidity".

You are not accepting that Paul talked about that in the present tense. You are constantly twisting and turning scripture to make it say what you want it to say.

Is not "made us sit...in heavenly places" present tense, as well? Are you presently sitting there?

God is not the God of the dead. Did you forget that part?

Did you forget the part where I said "God of the living" is a figurative expression of future reality - just like "sit together in heavenly places"?

Such as? You try to say I agree with them about the man of sin and I don't. Acting as if believing 2 Thess 2:3 is talking about a future falling away from the faith and future revealing of the man of sin (sinful mankind who has fallen away from God) is equivalent to the belief of a future individual sitting in some imaginary future physical temple while claiming to be God is ludicrous! I don't agree with them about that any more than you do, you silly goose! What other things do you think I agree with them about that I don't?

So, you don't believe the Man of Sin will sit in a rebuilt temple...so what? Your belief the Man of Sin is future, arising after the four angels release the four winds of strife, lines up with catholic Fallon and Jesuit Futurism - not Protestant Historicism which accurately teaches the Man of Sin is the papacy.

LOL. Your drama queen histrionics mean nothing to me. My understanding of the man of sin does not agree with the Jesuit understanding of the man of sin, so you are just telling a lie by trying to equate my view with theirs. It's not even close.

The only drama you perceive arises from your frustration at attempting to answer my unanswerable arguments, friend - the future Man of Sin idea was born out of catholicism!

Squirming? LOL!!!!!! Anyone reading this discussion can see that I'm not squirming at all in response to your weak arguments. Scripture says they will be resurrected (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2, Acts 24:15). It's not literal fire. They will be separated from the Lord's presence for eternity and will feel the regret of not having repented when they had the chance. The fact that they will be tormented for eternity is made clear here:

Pretty sure the wicked get tossed in fire, friend, and only those who "seek for immortality" are granted immortality...but you say the wicked don't burn and are granted immortality to live apart from God?

Got it.

It is utterly foolish to try to call a passage containing references to real people and places, with specific details about the number of brothers the rich man had, a fictional parable the way you do. Your interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 is a huge joke. It's utterly ridiculous.

The only joke is your constant appeal to subjective reasoning which ignores the many contradictions which arise when making the passage literal.

I show you a verse where it is contrasted with heaven and what do you do? Ignore it. You can't be taken seriously. You cherry pick the scriptures that you think fit your doctrine and you ignore the rest and you change many of those scriptures to fit your doctrine. You are completely dishonest with those scriptures.

You show nothing at all but stubborn refusal to admit truth. For instance:

You claim "God of the living" proves the saints are now in heaven.
I refute by showing "God of the living" is figurative of a future reality like "made us sit...in heavenly places".
You don't say "Good point - my rigid interpretation is not so rigid" - you dig in your club foot shoes...

What in the world are you talking about? Jesus was talking to the people of Capernaum of His day and telling them that they were going to end up in hell/hades instead of heaven as they thought. You are not making any sense. Please ask God for wisdom so that you stop butchering all these verses (James 1:5-7).

Yes, "hell" being "hades" aka "the grave" - not the fiery, burning, blazing "gehenna".

Nope. That's like saying the third heaven/paradise where Jesus is is only "physiological". He brought the souls in Abraham's bosom to the third heaven/paradise long ago.

Wrong, because no one tries to make any Bible figure's physiological body part "heaven" or "paradise" like you ridiculously try to make "Abraham's bosom" a place underground when the verse plainly tells you that Lazarus is "in the bosom of Abraham" which reference is physiological, not geographical.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Bro, you call people "liars" and "goofy person" and "stupid" and a host of other insults - I DO NOTHING OF THE KIND! You spiritually immature children are known by your inability to disconnect criticism of one's opinions with the person himself - as if disagreeing with your position is somehow an attack on your person which you conclude warrants a counterattack barrage of insults.

Understand?

Limit your negative comments to only a person's beliefs/arguments/line of reasoning or get out until you're mature enough to come back.

Please stop the holier than thou act. It's not fooling anyone. You are welcome to put me on your ignore list.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Your willful ignorance continues.

So, calling it willful ignorance is the more polite way of calling it foolish nonsense, right?

Read Fallon's commentary in which he applies the rise of the "man of sin" to the future, suggesting this rise comes after the release of the four winds of strife. Sound familiar? It should, because it's along the very same nonsensical lines of your preaching.

LOL. I don't need to read that nonsense. That's your problem. You rely too much on the teachings of man. It seems you read the teachings of man more than you read scripture. What you're saying does not sound familiar at all because my understanding of the man of sin is just as different from the one who sees it as some individual sitting in an imaginary temple as yours is. But, go ahead and keep thinking your insults that blatantly misrepresent my view are not as insulting as my insults. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for that one.

There is no differentiation! "God of the living" is as much a figurative expression of a future reality as "made to sit down in heavenly places" is a figurative expression of a future reality.

Looks like your goal is to make the entire Bible figurative.

Admit it - the reason you get so angry, so insulting, so condescending is because my logic exposes your "absolutes" as nothing more than "subjective rigidity".

LOL. I would never admit such falsehood. Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable no matter how badly you want it to be.

Is not "made us sit...in heavenly places" present tense, as well? Are you presently sitting there?

What are you even arguing here? Did I say nothing in scripture is ever figurative? No. We have to discern what is figurative and what is literal and I happen to believe you are not good at that.

So, you don't believe the Man of Sin will sit in a rebuilt temple...so what?

Yeah, so what? My belief is exactly the same as theirs other than that minor detail, eh?

Your belief the Man of Sin is future, arising after the four angels release the four winds of strife, lines up with catholic Fallon and Jesuit Futurism - not Protestant Historicism which accurately teaches the Man of Sin is the papacy.

My view has nothing to do with theirs. Stop this nonsense already. It's embarrassing (for you).

The only drama you perceive arises from your frustration at attempting to answer my unanswerable arguments, friend - the future Man of Sin idea was born out of catholicism!

My particular understanding of the man of sin comes from my own studies and has nothing to do with Catholicism. That is a fact. Your misrepresentation of my view does nothing to support your claims.

Pretty sure the wicked get tossed in fire, friend, and only those who "seek for immortality" are granted immortality...but you say the wicked don't burn and are granted immortality to live apart from God?

Why do you make no differentiation between eternal bliss and eternal torment?

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

You show nothing at all but stubborn refusal to admit truth. For instance:

You claim "God of the living" proves the saints are now in heaven.
I refute by showing "God of the living" is figurative of a future reality like "made us sit...in heavenly places".
You don't say "Good point - my rigid interpretation is not so rigid" - you dig in your club foot shoes...

You're wrong that it's figurative. He IS the God of those who are now living which includes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And Moses and Elijah. You know, the dead guys who talked to Jesus at His transfiguration? Don't respond with your nonsense about Moses supposedly being resurrected because there is nothing which teaches that. It also would contradict 1 Cor 15:22-23 if he was, but you don't care about such things, apparently.

Wrong, because no one tries to make any Bible figure's physiological body part "heaven" or "paradise" like you ridiculously try to make "Abraham's bosom" a place underground when the verse plainly tells you that Lazarus is "in the bosom of Abraham" which reference is physiological, not geographical.

I don't claim that Abraham's bosom was underground. You continue to misrepresent my view. That's all your able to do. It is a spiritual place apart from the earth, not some place underground.

 

[Phoneman777]

I'm not saying it's his literal bosom you goofy person.

If none of the passage is literal, stop using symbolism to "prove" dead people are conscious!

They are separated from the Lord now in hell, but are awaiting judgment (Hebrews 9:27) at which point they will have to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12, Matthew 25:31-46) and then they will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:15). Is there anything you don't understand about this?

Wrong, Genesis 2:7 KJV says the Soul exists as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath.

At death, the Body returns to dust, the Spirit to God, and the Soul ceases to be - they don't exist.

LOL. Is there not a mix of literal and symbolic text in the book of Revelation? What is your deal with not allowing for literal and symbolic text to be side by side? LOL. Good gravy, man.

The difference is there is actual side by side literalism and symbolism in Revelation...is not Jesus literally in the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary as He reveals symbolic prophecies?

In the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, whatever we try to make literal will contradict the rest of Scripture.

You have no rules for what makes a parable so I guess the Bible is just one big parable in your mind.

Unlike your Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics which allows you to make the Bible say whatever you want, the rest of us know if hermeneutical interpretations which contradict the rest of Scripture are invalid.

Dead people don't know, remember, feel, reason, strategize, or praise anything...until they are resurrected.
The Rich Man, Abraham and Lazarus are depicted as having previously died but gathered together bodily before the resurrection - which the Bible says is entirely impossible which makes it entirely symbolic.

Total nonsense. Are you forgetting that Jesus usually explained His parables after He told them?

Yes, sometimes immediately and other times later...and later is where you'll find His explanation for the Rich Man and Lazarus which has nothing to do with your ridiculous private interpretations.

Where does He give any indication of something like this in Luke 16:19-31? Nowhere. You are constantly trying to make scripture say what you want it to say, which is shameful.

Jesus explains the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus later...as He sometimes does with other parables.

LOL. You have quite an active imagination. The Jews with five brothers? LOL. Get out of here with this nonsense.

By His explanation, we can easily infer who the 5 brothers are.

Holy goodness. This is truly unbelievable. Now you are really twisting scripture. You should repent of this wicked deception! That was only said in relation to the parables He told in Matthew 21, not anything He said in Luke 16! We're talking about Luke 16:19-31 here, not Matthew 21. This really shows how you truly are willing to change any scripture to make it say what you want it to say. Plus, Luke 16:19-31 isn't even a parable, anyway.

Every single one of His parables was either talking about the kingdom of God or a warning to the Jews!

Does Matthew 21 say "And when the chief priests and pharisees had heard His parables...in Matthew 21"??
Does Matthew 13 say, "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables...in Matthew 13"??
Does Matthew 13 say, "And without a parable spake He not unto them...in Matthew 13"??
Does Matthew 13 say, "That it might be fulfilled...I will open My mouth in parable...in Matthew 13"??

Good gravy, a blind man can see that "had heard His parables" ain't limited to just Matthew 21, but to every parable they were privileged to hear.

Do you think he already has an immortal body? That would contradict 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 which says that Jesus Himself was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality and next in order are those who are His at His second coming. You need to rethink this.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 KJV doesn't say "bodily" immortality - you think so because you don't understand "order" isn't referencing "sequential" but "hierarchical" - because "if Christ is not raised" the rest of us are doomed.

Paul is clear in 2 Corinthians 5 nobody is "present with Christ" unless he's clothed in his "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" - so unless you're willing to argue that Moses and Elijah were kicking around down here waiting for the Mount of Transfiguration, stop denying they were clothed in immortality.

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

A blind man can see this refers to hierarchical - not sequential - because there were many in the OT who were raised or went to be "present with the Lord".

Your doctrine has Christ as being the second (or third, apparently, since you foolishly think Moses was resurrected unto bodily immortality, too) to rise from the dead unto bodily immortality, thereby contradicting scripture with your doctrine yet again.

My doctrine of "hierarchical, not sequential" harmonizes Scripture.
Your doctrine denies Paul's testimony that no one is "present with the Lord" without an immortal body.

Why would Paul be so concerned about being "naked" and "unclothed" without a body if he thought he'd go straight to heaven at death? Who the flip cares if you go "naked" as long as you go, right? No, Paul said we groan to escape the burdens of life, but not by getting "unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality (our mortal body) might be swallowed up of life (immortal body)".

LOL! Again you are making up nonsense! Nowhere does it say that Moses was resurrected! Your doctrine is entirely based on speculation and changing scripture to make it say what you want it to say. And, like I said above regarding Elijah, it would contradict scripture if Moses already had an immortal body since scripture teaches that Jesus was the first to have an immortal body. You don't take all of scripture into account regarding these things and that's why your doctrine contradicts scripture.

His appearing before Jesus in the Mount says it all!

Was the Archangel/Satan dispute over the body of Moses over whether to stuff it or donate it to science?
Does not the "voice of the Archangel" raise the dead?
Did not Moses appear to Jesus thousands of years after his death?

When will you stop denying the truth that the Soul can only exist as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life?

 

[Phoneman777]

Please stop the holier than thou act. It's not fooling anyone. You are welcome to put me on your ignore list.

What? And miss the opportunity to teach/share with others at your expense?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If none of the passage is literal, stop using symbolism to "prove" dead people are conscious!

You are saying that none of the passage is literal, not me.

Wrong, Genesis 2:7 KJV says the Soul exists as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath.

Wrong. You act as if there is only one definition of the word soul. The word can refer to a whole person. Or it can refer to the part of a person called the soul, which is separate form the body and the spirit (1 Thess 5:23). And the word has other definitions as well.

At death, the Body returns to dust, the Spirit to God, and the Soul ceases to be - they don't exist.

So, you think John was delusional when he said he saw the souls of dead people then (Rev 6:9-11, Rev 20:4)?

In the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, whatever we try to make literal will contradict the rest of Scripture.

In your mind, but not mine. The bible repeatedly teaches of real places called heaven and hell and refers to people having consciousness after physical death.

Unlike your Big Book of Subjective Hermeneutics which allows you to make the Bible say whatever you want,

False accusation and nothing more.

the rest of us know if hermeneutical interpretations which contradict the rest of Scripture are invalid.

You mean the rest of you Seventh-day Adventists who teach other false doctrines as well?

Dead people don't know, remember, feel, reason, strategize, or praise anything...until they are resurrected.

Scripture does not teach this. The verses that you think teach that (Eccl 9:5, etc.) are actually talking about those people not doing those things on earth anymore and they say nothing about what happens to them after physical death.

The Rich Man, Abraham and Lazarus are depicted as having previously died but gathered together bodily before the resurrection - which the Bible says is entirely impossible which makes it entirely symbolic.

We're not currently capable of comprehending heaven and hell and the spiritual realm, so that's why those things are only ever described figuratively, including in the book of Revelation. It doesn't mean those places aren't real.

Yes, sometimes immediately and other times later...and later is where you'll find His explanation for the Rich Man and Lazarus which has nothing to do with your ridiculous private interpretations.

Jesus explains the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus later...as He sometimes does with other parables.

Where? Why say this without even giving the reference?

By His explanation, we can easily infer who the 5 brothers are.

LOL. What explanation is that exactly? Your interpretation of the 5 brothers that you've given before was completely ridiculous and was your own explanation, not His.

Every single one of His parables was either talking about the kingdom of God or a warning to the Jews!

Does Matthew 21 say "And when the chief priests and pharisees had heard His parables...in Matthew 21"??

Does Matthew 13 say, "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables...in Matthew 13"??
Does Matthew 13 say, "And without a parable spake He not unto them...in Matthew 13"??
Does Matthew 13 say, "That it might be fulfilled...I will open My mouth in parable...in Matthew 13"??

Good gravy, a blind man can see that "had heard His parables" ain't limited to just Matthew 21, but to every parable they were privileged to hear.

How can you think that all of His parables were about them? That is simply not true. For example, how is the parable of the five foolish and five wise virgins about them (Matthew 25:1-13)? It's clearly not. You are just making things up.

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 KJV doesn't say "bodily" immortality - you think so because you don't understand "order" isn't referencing "sequential" but "hierarchical" - because "if Christ is not raised" the rest of us are doomed.

Here you are again making scripture say what you want it to say, as you do so often. Are you being serious here? What other resurrection will occur at His second coming besides a bodily resurrection? Do you deny that 1 Cor 15:52 is referring to a bodily resurrection, too? And 1 Thess 4:14-17?

Paul is clear in 2 Corinthians 5 nobody is "present with Christ" unless he's clothed in his "house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" - so unless you're willing to argue that Moses and Elijah were kicking around down here waiting for the Mount of Transfiguration, stop denying they were clothed in immortality.

I will continue denying that because it can't be true. Scripture says Jesus was the first to be resurrected unto bodily immortality. That is what 1 Cor 15:20-23 indicates and what the following implies as well:

Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Christ was the first to rise from the dad unto bodily immortality, not Moses, which made the way for the dead in Christ to be able to rise unto bodily immortality when He returns.

Not only is there no scripture which says Moses was resurrected from the dead, it contradicts scripture to believe that as well. Scripture is definitely not on your side here.

A blind man can see this refers to hierarchical - not sequential - because there were many in the OT who were raised or went to be "present with the Lord".

My doctrine of "hierarchical, not sequential" harmonizes Scripture.
Your doctrine denies Paul's testimony that no one is "present with the Lord" without an immortal body.

Paul fully expected to be in the presence of the Lord immediately upon his physical death. That's why he said this:

Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

In your doctrine, to live is Christ, and to die is to lose all consciousness and is not gain at all. Paul indicated here that departing (physically dying) would result in being with Christ and he said that was "far better" than staying physically alive, but he knew people needed him, so that is what he wanted because he was unselfish.

Why would Paul be so concerned about being "naked" and "unclothed" without a body if he thought he'd go straight to heaven at death? Who the flip cares if you go "naked" as long as you go, right? No, Paul said we groan to escape the burdens of life, but not by getting "unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality (our mortal body) might be swallowed up of life (immortal body)".

He was speaking figuratively. Though the souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven, they still look forward to one day having immortal bodies. Why would Paul talk in 2 Cor 5:6-8 about being away from the body if it was not actually possible to be away from the body? That makes no sense. He was fully expecting for his soul and spirit to go be with Christ in heaven while waiting for the redemption of his body there.

His appearing before Jesus in the Mount says it all!

It doesn't say what you think it says. Angels were sometimes able to be seen even though they are spirit beings, so Moses and Elijah being visible does not prove that they had immortal bodies.

Was the Archangel/Satan dispute over the body of Moses over whether to stuff it or donate it to science?

The fact of the matter is that the reason Michael and Satan disputed over the body of Moses is not given, so all we can do is speculate. And, people have speculated a lot about it. But, speculation is no way to determine truth. Especially when your speculation contradicts other scripture as yours does.

Does not the "voice of the Archangel" raise the dead?

LOL. As if that proves anything regarding Moses? You make so many leaps in logic with your doctrine. It's not based on clear scripture.

Did not Moses appear to Jesus thousands of years after his death?

Yes, and this proves what exactly? Does the fact that angels sometimes appeared to people mean they are physical beings instead of spiritual beings?

When will you stop denying the truth that the Soul can only exist as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life?

I will never stop denying that falsehood. You certainly have done nothing to convince me that is true. Not even close.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What? And miss the opportunity to teach/share with others at your expense?

LOL. Keep dreaming then if you want. Did you remember to bow down before your statues of William Tyndale and Ellen G. White today?

 

[Phoneman777]

So, calling it willful ignorance is the more polite way of calling it foolish nonsense, right?

Describes his thinking, not the person.

LOL. I don't need to read that nonsense. That's your problem. You rely too much on the teachings of man. It seems you read the teachings of man more than you read scripture. What you're saying does not sound familiar at all because my understanding of the man of sin is just as different from the one who sees it as some individual sitting in an imaginary temple as yours is. But, go ahead and keep thinking your insults that blatantly misrepresent my view are not as insulting as my insults. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for that one.

You're confusing my humble consultation of experts with your prideful exaltation of presumed but nonexistent Bible skill.

Looks like your goal is to make the entire Bible figurative.

That only appears as such to ignorant layman. It's not difficult to discern literalism from symbolism when the Holy Spirit guides.

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable no matter how badly you want it to be.

Yes, it's a figurative story that means something else...but it's not a parable. LOL

Yeah, so what? My belief is exactly the same as theirs other than that minor detail, eh?

It's a lot closer to the Jesuit Futurism than Protestant Historicism.

My view has nothing to do with theirs. Stop this nonsense already. It's embarrassing (for you).

Your view is from papal origins, friend. Before the 16th century, there was no such thing as Jesuit Futurist ideas like your future "man of sin".

My particular understanding of the man of sin comes from my own studies and has nothing to do with Catholicism. That is a fact. Your misrepresentation of my view does nothing to support your claims.

The problem is your views are derived from those who study catholicism. No one discovers them from Scripture alone.

Why do you make no differentiation between eternal bliss and eternal torment?

Because the one exists while the other doesn't.

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:

Smoke continues to rise after fires go out.
"Forever" comes from "aionios" which means "undefined BUT NOT ENDLESS or undefined because endless".

So, the smoke can refer to distance ("forever out of sight") or a duration of time that ends, and not necessarily "eternity"

and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Of course, for "the way of the transgressor is hard" right? Those take the Mark will have no peace now, nor when they're cast into the LOF.

You're wrong that it's figurative. He IS the God of those who are now living which includes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And Moses and Elijah. You know, the dead guys who talked to Jesus at His transfiguration? Don't respond with your nonsense about Moses supposedly being resurrected because there is nothing which teaches that. It also would contradict 1 Cor 15:22-23 if he was, but you don't care about such things, apparently.

So, you still refuse to say, "Good point" when I remind you that "sit down...in heavenly places" is a figurative expression of a future reality, right? Just like "God of the living", right? That's what I mean by "stubborn ignorance". Tyndale would like a word with you about you "stealing away Christ's arguemnt wherewith He proveth the resurrection."

I don't claim that Abraham's bosom was underground. You continue to misrepresent my view. That's all your able to do. It is a spiritual place apart from the earth, not some place underground.

So, where is "Abraham's Bosom" then, if it's not "underground?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're confusing my humble consultation of experts with your prideful exaltation of presumed but nonexistent Bible skill.

You think you are humble? LOL! You are too funny.

That only appears as such to ignorant layman. It's not difficult to discern literalism from symbolism when the Holy Spirit guides.

Ah, yes, the ol' "The Holy Spirit is guiding me, but not you" claim. Such a humble guy you are.

Yes, it's a figurative story that means something else...but it's not a parable. LOL

Again....you are the one saying it's all figurative despite the mention of real people and places. So, I should be the one laughing. And I am. LOL.

It's a lot closer to the Jesuit Futurism than Protestant Historicism.

Absolutely not. What do you think your false claims accomplish? Nothing. It's no wonder that you resort to this tactic instead of using scripture to back up your doctrine.

Your view is from papal origins, friend. Before the 16th century, there was no such thing as Jesuit Futurist ideas like your future "man of sin".

Do you know what I call people who make false accusations about me even after I correct them after making false accusations about me? That's right. Liars. You are a liar.

The problem is your views are derived from those who study catholicism. No one discovers them from Scripture alone.

Another lie. Show me where Jesuit futurism teaches that the man of sin is not an individual person and where it teaches that the temple of God where the man of sin sits ins not a physical temple I'll wait.

Smoke continues to rise after fires go out.
"Forever" comes from "aionios" which means "undefined BUT NOT ENDLESS or undefined because endless".

So, the smoke can refer to distance ("forever out of sight") or a duration of time that ends, and not necessarily "eternity"

Not necessarily eternity, he says. The Greek words translated as "for ever and ever" are "eis" (for) and "aion" (ever). Any time scripture says "for ever and ever" (eis aion aion) it means eternity. This includes the verses that refer to how long glory should be to Jesus/God (Gal 1:5, Phil 4:20, 1 Tim 1:17, 2 Tim 4:18, Heb 13:2, 1 Peter 4:11, 1 Peter 5:11, Rev 1:6, Rev 4:9, Rev 5:13, Rev 7:12, ) and how long Jesus/God lives and reigns on His throne (Hebrews 1:8, Rev 4:10, Rev 5:13, Rev 10:6, Rev 11:15, Rev 15:7, Rev 22:5).

Those words are also used here:

Revelation 20:10 Revelation And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Do you claim that the devil, Satan, won't be tormented for eternity, either?

So, you still refuse to say, "Good point" when I remind you that "sit down...in heavenly places" is a figurative expression of a future reality, right?

It's not a point that has anything to do with what we're talking about, which is whether Luke 16:19-31 is a parable or not. You have come up with your own man-made rule that says if any passage has any figurative text in it, then the whole passage is figurative and it is a parable. I don't need to abide by your man-made rules.

Just like "God of the living", right?

I'm not saying "God of the living" is figurative, you are. It's quite strange to me that you would consider that to be figurative. I can't make any sense out of that whatsoever. He is clearly literally the literal God of the literal living. You can't accept that Moses was still bodily dead when he talked to Jesus at His transfiguration, so you come up with the wild theory that he was resurrected even though ther eis no scripture which teaches that. And scirputre is clear that Jesus was the first to be resurretcted

That's what I mean by "stubborn ignorance". Tyndale would like a word with you about you "stealing away Christ's arguemnt wherewith He proveth the resurrection."

LOL. Go polish your statue of him and the one of your hero Ellen G. White. They're dusty.

So, where is "Abraham's Bosom" then, if it's not "underground?

Not on or in earth. It's a spiritual place, not an earthly place. It's a reference to the third heaven/paradise. Jesus ascended there, He didn't descend there.

 

[Jay Ross]

Regardless of the time period Isaiah 60:20 is pointing to, at some point the sun and moon do not obey the ordinances.

I agree with you. All that I have done is point to the time period of when it will occur.

You are adding in the stipulation of “if God's ordinance has departed from Israel before the GWTR judgement”. That is not in Jeremiah 31:36.

Jeremiah 31:31 is referring to the new covenant, so if Jeremiah 31:36 is true under the new covenant then Israel ceases from being a nation before God, forever. No matter when Israel ceases from being a nation, it still means no unconditional eternal promises are made to the nation of Israel.

Let us consider Jeremiah 31:31ff. In these verses God is telling Israel that He will make like new again the covenant that he had made with Israel at Mt Sinia to be a Kingdom of Priests, a Holy Nation and His Possession among the nation covenant. However, the covenant that He will remake with the nation of Israel will have a tweet or two which will be slightly different to the covenant that He had made with Israel which they had rebelled against.

Here is the interlinear of Jer 31:36 to consider: -



If we consider what is said in this verse, we can paraphrase it as saying, "If the ordinances of this renewed covenant departs from the nation of Israel before the end of the seventh age then they shall cease being a nation before me during the age of eternity.

The common misunderstanding is that Jer 31:31ff is the "New Covenant" whereas the Covenant that God has with mankind has not changed with regards to their salvation. But what was changed by Christ on the cross was the process by which mankind will receive salvation from that time onwards. Daniel 9:24b also tells us this.

What you are actually presenting is replacement theology.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Bro, you call people "liars" and "goofy person" and "stupid" and a host of other insults - I DO NOTHING OF THE KIND!

Maybe not, but you have no qualms about calling the Catholic Church the Whore of Babble-on. Or all of Protestantism "daughters of the whore". Or the Pope or future popes the anti-Christ. The reason there were not one SDA members killed in the Holocaust was because Hitler liked what they were teaching about the pope.
You and your sect has "0" credibility.

 

[covenantee]

What you are actually presenting is replacement theology.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's physical DNA.

Replacement theology does not replace Christ's invitation to Israel to receive Him.

Replacement theology does not replace Israel's opportunity to receive Christ.

What does replacement theology replace?

 

[Douggg]

If we consider what is said in this verse, we can paraphrase it as saying, "If the ordinances of this renewed covenant departs from the nation of Israel before the end of the seventh age then they shall cease being a nation before me during the age of eternity.

Hi Jay,

You were referring to Jeremiah 31:35-36.

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.


In those verses, God is giving his assurances that with the new covenant, God will forgive the iniquity and sins of the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Verse 35, God is saying as surely as He ordains that the sun gives light during the day, and the moon and stars shine by night - that Israel will continue being a nation.

Verse 36, God is giving the same assurance that he will not destroy nor reject all of Israel's descendants in spite of all they have done.

The current generation of Jews, although currently unbelievers in Jesus and the gospel of Salvation - will turn to Jesus in the middle part of the 7 years that immediately precede Jesus's Second Coming.

 

[Timtofly]

I don't believe anyone other than Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.I don't believe people who say Abraham ascended into heaven.If Abraham had ascended to heaven after his death ,then Christ would be wrong.Christ is not wrong.

All the souls from Abraham's bosom left their graves in physical bodies, the instant Jesus said, "It is finished". When Jesus ascended Sunday morning, they all ascended physically into Paradise, where the tree of life and the thief on the cross were already waiting.

All who are born of the second birth get a permanent incorruptible physical body, the instant the soul leaves this temporal corruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5:1.

Daniel was saying those dead in Revelation 20:12 will be either given eternal life or eternal damnation.

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

No one born from above prior to physical death is part of the dead whom Daniel saw. Daniel said God still shows mercy, to even the dead, at that point.

Jesus cleared up some of what Daniel saw behind a glass darkly, that even Paul said, had not lifted in his day. You cannot even interpret Daniel the way you do, without contradicting the first resurrection in Revelation 20:4 prior to the Day of the Lord.

There is a rapture into heaven at the Second Coming. People who physically die after the 7th Trumpet are resurrected a thousand years before the Resurrection of Daniel. The OT redeemed are already physically in Paradise, and they come with Jesus at the Second Coming over a thousand years before the time, the dead are judged and either receive eternal life or tossed into the LOF.

Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life. Not the "wait in Abraham's bosom until the end of the Day of the Lord". Daniel saw all the way to the end. Jesus offered a physical resurrection at the Cross, and every day since the Cross.