Who will populate the earth in the 1000 year Reign

[TheDivineWatermark]

[quoting some old posts' content]

"Forty Reasons for Not Reinterpreting the OT by the NT: the last twenty" By Paul Martin Henebury

https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-last-twenty

33. It ignores the life-setting of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 in the context of their already having had forty days teaching about the very thing they asked about (“the kingdom” – see Acts 1:3). This reflects badly on the clarity of the Risen Lord’s teaching about the kingdom. But the tenacity with which these disciples still clung to literal fulfillments would also prove the validity of #’s 23, 26, 27, 28 & 32 above.


34. This resistance to the clear expectation of the disciples also ignores the question of the disciples, which was about the timing of the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, not its nature.

[…]

40. Finally, there is no critical awareness of many of the problems enumerated above because that awareness is provided by the OT texts and the specific wording of those texts. But, of course, the OT is not allowed a voice on par with what the NT text is assumed to make it mean. Only verses which preserve the desired theological picture are allowed to mean what they say. Hence a vicious circle is created of the NT reinterpreting the Old. This is a hermeneutical circle which ought not to be presupposed because it results in two-thirds of the Bible being effectively quieted until the NT has reinterpreted what it really meant.


____________

Here's the "first twenty" - https://sharperiron.org/article/forty-reasons-for-not-reinterpreting-ot-nt-first-twenty




[cont in next posts]

 

[Dave-L]

What you seem to be doing is taking a couple of verses (out of context I might add) and coloring your misunderstanding of those [few] ONTO the vast majority of the REST of the gospels [accounts]...

For example, you are continually suggesting (it seems to me) that "the kingdom OF THE heavenS" has nothing to do with an earthly-located setting, but rather could better be translated (according to your view) as "UP IN Heaven" (which is not what the phrase is referring to).

I'm going to go search for some posts I've made in the past, that cover some of these flawed ideas that you are presenting in these most recent posts.

brb...

It's scripture, not my ideas. The Kingdom is spiritual only. Therefore you must interpret Zechariah spiritually and not literally.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[cont'd from previous post]

"Biblical Interpretation Series: Spiritualization" by Paul Martin Henebury [17:24-min video]

[cont in next posts]

 

[Dave-L]

[cont'd from previous post]

"Biblical Interpretation Series: Spiritualization" by Paul Martin Henebury [17:24-min video]

[cont in next posts]

There's no such thing as Replacement Theology.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Face it, the promises are for Christ and we who are in him.

I was NEVER promised a plot of land in the middle east as an ETERNAL inheritance.

Face it. Your wrong..

 

[Dave-L]

I was NEVER promised a plot of land in the middle east as an ETERNAL inheritance.

Face it. Your wrong..

Then you are not part of the Church? All of the promises are YES in Jesus.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There's no such thing as Replacement Theology. It's a lie.

so is amillenialism.

Its a lie. based on replacement theology

The church did not replace Israel. Gods specific temporal promises to them still stand

 

[Dave-L]

so is amillenialism.

Its a lie. based on replacement theology

The church did not replace Israel. Gods specific temporal promises to them still stand

Jesus taught Amillennialism.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Then you are not part of the Church? All of the promises are YES in Jesus.

if being part of the children of Israel means I am automatically saved. Then there will be alot of lost people in heaven.

You sir are bordering on harassment.

Abraham's promise had two parts

one temporal as an internal physical gift though one seed ( I give you and your descendents after you this land as an eternal inheritance.)

one eternal for all seeds. (in you shall all nations be blessed)

God made two eternal promises. and he does not go back on his promises.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Jesus taught Amillennialism.

good day sir

I am done playing childish games

 

[Dave-L]

good day sir

I am done playing childish games

You need to study Jesus in the gospels about the kingdom before writing him off.

 

[Dave-L]

if being part of the children of Israel means I am automatically saved. Then there will be alot of lost people in heaven.

You sir are bordering on harassment.

Abraham's promise had two parts

one temporal as an internal physical gift though one seed ( I give you and your descendents after you this land as an eternal inheritance.)

one eternal for all seeds. (in you shall all nations be blessed)

God made two eternal promises. and he does not go back on his promises.

I'm only quoting scripture saying ALL the promises ever made to Abraham are YES in Jesus. How can that be harassment?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

[cont'd from prev post]

"How is the Term Israel Used in the New Testament?"

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/israelaf.htm

All 73 occurrences of "Israel" in the NY ALL mean "Israel"

(even the poster in this thread showed the distinction that Eph1 provides... in showing how "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY [Eph1:20-23] is made up of both Jew and Gentile, but is considered neither in our standing before God IN CHRIST; Romans 1-3 is also showing this same kind of covering the topic of Jews and then Gentiles before providing the CONCLUSION that is, all have sinned/all are guilty... but the point being [here] that the verse in Romans 2:28 is solely covering "JEWs" in its showing that "he is a Jew which IS ONE inwardly" [this is not covering the Gentiles here! but "true Jews" versus ones who are not "inwardly" so (NOTHING ABOUT THE GENTILES, whether "believing" ones or "unbelieving" ones! The verse is strictly covering: JEW)])




[see esp the article entries on Rom9:6, 11:26 and Gal6:16... see also the entry on Eph2:12, since this verse is often misunderstood as well ]


____________


I know it's doubtful anyone will actually take the time to consider these several "studies"... but I place it here for the readers out there who MAY (at some future point, who knows... )

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm only quoting scripture saying ALL the promises ever made to Abraham are YES in Jesus. How can that be harassment?

Harassment is saying because I was not given a plot of land I am not saved.

It is a habit of amil people. they can not argue scripture so they attack to try to tear the person down they do not agree with.

Keep it up..

and your not quoting scripture your quoting one verse and ignoring ever part of scripture I posted.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Note also Romans 11:27 (which Dave-L is saying already took place, when the 70th Week, according to his viewpoint, came to a conclusion [at the Cross??]):

"And this is the covenant from Me to them, when I shall take away their sins."



Presently, though, it is the "blindness [/hardening]… UNTIL" (v.25... see also v.15 and the parallel passages I've LISTED before that correlate with v.15--where this is LIKENED UNTO a resurrection)


[and this has to do with Romans 9:26/Hosea 1:10 (re: Israel) and Romans 9:25/Hosea 2:23b (re: the Gentiles)--few will look these up to examine them, I realize... but oh well, lol]

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You need to study Jesus in the gospels about the kingdom before writing him off.

I am not writting him off

Once again your ar bordering on harrasment

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm only quoting scripture saying ALL the promises ever made to Abraham are YES in Jesus. How can that be harassment?

Gods promise to physical Israel was eternal

Has time stopped?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

There's no such thing as Replacement Theology.

I know the argument.

Fine (if you say so... after I've just seen you take a verse [or more] which IS speaking of the JEWS and attempt to convince us that it is saying WE BECOME JEWS )


… but you could at least consider the "spiritualization" aspect of the video (if you dare to take a listen ), which was my AIM in posting it


for you again DID write:

It's scripture, not my ideas. The Kingdom is spiritual only. Therefore you must interpret Zechariah spiritually and not literally.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

“forbidding us to speak to the nations that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always, but the anger did come upon them—to the end!” 1 Thessalonians 2:16 (YLT)

Consider also the following, in 1Th2:16:

G5348 - ephthasen - translated "is come" in the kjv, and "has come" in other versions...

but then take a look at the left side of this page from BibleHub, where first it says,

[quoting BibleHub] "HELPS Word-studies
5348 phthánō – properly, precede, arrive ahead of time, i.e. before something which indicates priority in importance or sequence."


[and then, continuing from BibleHub]

"Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5348: φθάνω

"φθάνω: 1 aorist ἔφθασα (Winer's Grammar, § 15 under the word); perfect ἐφθακα (1 Thessalonians 2:16 L text WH marginal reading); from Homer down;
1. to come before, precede, anticipate: ἡμεῖς οὐ μή φθάσωμεν (see μή, IV. 2) τούς κοιμηθέντας, we shall not get the start of those who have fallen asleep, i. e. we shall not attain to the fellowship of Christ sooner than the dead, nor have precedence in blessedness, 1 Thessalonians 4:15; ἔφθασεν ἐπ' αὐτούς ἡ ὀργή, (God's penal) wrath came upon them unexpectedly, 1 Thessalonians 2:16; ἔφθασεν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, the kingdom of God has come upon you sooner than you expected, Matthew 12:28; Luke 11:20; (but all the preceding examples except the first are referred by the majority of recent interpretations to the following heading; — a meaning especially common when the verb is construed with prepositions).

2. in the Alex. (and other later) writings the idea of priority disappears, to come to, arrive at: […]"


[ https://biblehub.com/greek/5348.htm ; end quoting from BibleHub; bold and underline mine]

 

[Journeyman]

There's no such thing as Replacement Theology.

Right. Believers have always been the chosen people of God, regardless of ethnicity