Featured Prophecy fulfilled today! Jesus is coming soon.

Well thank you very much.

 

You have yet to disprove John's writing of the Revelation 20.

In all you wrote on the Revelation nothing you stated even came close to proving there was no millennium.

So, sure, I haven't spent a lot of posts on "exegesis" for it is incumbent upon you to show John's writing was not authoritative.

All I asked is for one simple chapter.

A chapter that not only shows the glorious return of the Savior as King of Kings (as prophecy clearly states), but the binding of Satan and satanic forces, the rule of the nations (as prophecy clearly states), and the reign of the believers as joint heirs.

Even the people in the day of the earthly ministry of Christ contended that He was to be a physical ruler - and they were right, but that was not God's purpose for Christ as the suffering lamb. At the ascension, the angels asked the apostles, why they were standing around looking up. They stated that Christ was to return. What is wrong with the a-mill folks in understanding that promise?

Perhaps you can "exegesis" the Revelation 20 (haven't seen it, yet), but if you do so properly and with Scriptural authority it will show the millennium and reign as Scriptural.

I am chief cook and bottle washer in the home, so, I spend time in cook books.

Sometimes, one might wish the Scriptures were so easily discerned, and could be added too, and substituted for other preferred ingredients.

But, then the recipe wouldn't be the same, and the true essence and presentation of the dish would be lost in compromise.

I will refrain from appointing the a-mill as a cook who compromises the message.

 

Your welcome.

For the readers of the BB:

The typical reading level of a newspaper is that level.

Back when newspapers were much more, (before the invention of the internet by Gore) the longer articles would start out just shy of that level, and then as the reader stayed engaged, the article would move up to a bit higher vocabulary level.

All such popular writers are not writing for theological discussion, but to entice the reader to purchase the book.

Mystery writers work at a middle school reading level to the first years of high school, and serious biographical writing is usually not written for the casual reader.

It is all a matter of the audience and targeting a selection in which one is to market the product.

When you read fiction (such as the Amish books that seem so popular) or even historical fiction (such as the Winslow series by Gilbert Morris) there are few compound sentences and wording that challenges the mind to concentrate. That is why it is easy to "get into the story" and the mind creates a series of pictures more than actually needing to read for information.

In comparison, the typical freshman college textbook requires far more purpose of intellectual engagement and even most have a highlighter in hand to help with keeping the understanding.

Hope that helps the readers of the BB with a bit more discernment when they read a popular book of any genre.

 

Alright, but haven't you held in the past that for someone to blaspheme the Holy Spirit Jesus has to be physically present just like He was in the first age?

 

Ezekiel 40:1-46:24. More below.

Unrecognized, apparently, but not unsupportable. But you refuse to look at the support.

I most certainly did and do read Ezekiel. I read through it, on the average, every two years. What I do not do - and apparently you do - is immediately confer with flesh and blood (commentaries).

Let's think a bit about your "appropriate and scholarly help". This is the core problem. One man's "appropriate and scholarly help" is another man's conferring with flesh and blood, as well as vain tradition that makes the Word of God of no effect. I say this particularly concerning Dispensational application of these last chapters of Ezek.

Now, getting to the particulars of your contention. Look up the following verses in context. How - in the light of even a cursory reading - can this not be seen as anachronisms - a return to the very things that Christ saved the Jews - and us - from?

"the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar: these are the sons of Zadok among the sons of Levi, which come near to the LORD to minister unto him." 40:46

A return to a priesthood that has been permanently superseded - except in Dispensationalism's odd scenario.

" And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel." 45:17

The Prince here is sacrificing, not as a memorial, but to make reconciliation. Verse 15 says it is for "atonement". Your McGee says it is memorial. He has no proof.

" In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.
And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering." 45:21-22

A return to observing the Passover - that sin-reminding temporary expedient feast that pointed to Christ - now returns! Christ work apparently is not enough. No word here about a memorial, rather these are all "according to the sin offering", vs. 25 - according to the original commandment in the Law.

But “the man who does them shall live by them.” Galatians.

"The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened." 46:1

A return to both Temple worship and observation of the Sabbath, even though Christ is our Sabbath rest.

"Thus saith the Lord GOD; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession by inheritance." 46:16

The Prince gives his inheritance to his sons. That means he will die. Another incongruity. At least it is to me. And just who is this prince, anyway? He cannot be Christ or King David, seeing that he will die. Yet why would an ordinary mortal do this, given what Scripture says elsewhere? But many just do not connect these dots. Or they connect the dots the way their favorite authors tell them to connect them.

These are just a few of the passages in Ezekiel that come to mind. A lot more could be mentioned.

Now I ask you: Have you seriously read Ezekiel? On your own? Don't be lazy. Don't quote McGee to me, or any other of your favorite authors. Read the Book. Quote the Book -in context.

That will get my attention, and will make me take you more seriously, which is what I sincerely want to do.

 

It seems sometimes that the obsession of dispensationalists with Israel approaches idol worship. What say you agedman?

 

I don't know where you got that idea but not from me!

Is it possible that one is blaspheming the Holy Spirit when by their free will they reject the drawing to Salvation.

 

Sounds like Texas to me!

 

The insistence of dispensationalists on the return to the temple sacrifices is denial of the cross work of Jesus Christ.

 

This is what scripture says;
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

It is not about rejecting salvation, but speaking against the Spirit. The age in which Jesus spoke those words He was physically present, so it seems that He would have to be physically present in the age to come for this to be able to take place. There is no suggestion this could happen before when He was not here so the 1000 year time period He is here would satisfy this saying.

 

I do not understand how you restrict blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to the period of the physical presence of Jesus Christ. Scripture does not imply this.

Don't people speak against the Holy Spirit when they reject His mission?

 

Your main problem, from my perspective at least, is your reading of the "age to come" as being necessarily still "to come". Many things are spoken of as future in Scripture which we now look to as past. The age to come is the Church Age. The "this age" is the Jewish Age which was drawing to a close.

 

Many who are pew sitting do esteem Israel and some do not even allow for the suggestion that the political system can and should be held accountable.

I am not of that group.

Not certain what the point you are attempting to make.

 

Do you really mean for me to take you seriously?

If you are that familiar with the passage, then you will have little problem in seeing the last chapters of Ezekiel (all 9 of them) as literal.

Here is offered summary, and a bit of my own thinking (latter points) that distinguish various highlights.

1) The measurements do not fit ANY past temple construction, therefore the measurements must pertain to the temple of the millennium, for there is no temple suggested by Scriptures for the new heaven and earth. (Ezekiel 40 - 43)

2) You will see the sacrifices as recognition and acknowledgement of the redemption, just as before the cross such were offered in hope of the redemption. It is important to keep in mind that the condition of the church and the relationship to Christ of the church age has no determination as to past or future conditions as to relationship being the same. That means sacrifice and offerings may certainly occur in the future just as in the past. An example is found every time the assembly gathers at the Lord's table. We take the elements in memorial to Him, however, at the last supper, the Lord declared that He will take the memorial again when we gather with him for the marriage supper.

Please recall that sacrifices and offerings in them self were of no power or provided no redemption - but were offered in hope of the future promised messiah. Those of the millennium are offered in thanksgiving and appreciation. Both point to redemption. (Ezekiel 43 - 46)

3) The literal view describes the land and water much differently than that what is currently existing. It shows commerce and activity that is considerably more rich and nourished than any scene found in the OT. Only during the millennium can this scene be held valid - for it does not and has never occurred. (Ezekiel 46 - 48)

4) The literal view of the chapters in Ezekiel is that of the blending of the Spiritual Israel with the natural Israel. The Scriptures mark clear lines of difference of those who "went astray" and those who did not. (Ezekiel 44)

This is a difficult concept for those who do not take the passage as literal, and who do not desire the ultimate reconciliation of God. However, the literal reading can not render any other meaning. In these passages - there is no separation of authoritarian power into a political and a spiritual - but it is all blended.

5) I differ from some of the dispensation view, in that I accept that the "spiritual Israel" includes all the truly saved, for in Christ we are joint heirs and are "grafted in." In that, there is no true separation, though the church is not political Israel (but Spiritual Israel) so the redeemed of Israel are BOTH the "Spiritual" and "Political" Israel. Therefore, it follows that taking Ezekiel at factual and literal would show "All Israel" would include gentiles in political and spiritual unity.

Note: Until the millennium there is no joining of the political and redeemed in ANY setting of the past or present. The closest came when Israel was under the judges, but that was a failed system. The Scriptures clearly state that the believers are NOT of this world system. The redeemed can function (as Daniel) in the courts of the heathen, and even the courts of the assembly there are the unregenerate members, but in the millennium such is not the case. The redeemed serve both in political and Spiritual office and ONLY the redeemed rule - not one heathen. There is NO separation between the political and spiritual. There is one supreme ruler over all matters both Spiritual and political over the whole world - that includes even in the plant and animal living, too. For the lamb lays down unafraid of the lion and actually snuggles with the lion.

6) The ultimate problem that other views have of Ezekiel is attempts of assigning the text to other that the nation of Israel. Nowhere is there an indication that other than the nation of Israel is being discussed and that is the direction and application to be made. For some to insert the church as it currently resides in the "age, or dispensation" of grace, into the scene is problematic. Rather, if as noted in #5 a the redeemed rule, then there is no disagreement with the text.



Now, that is a VERY brief six point guide of the last 9 chapters (40 - 48).

It renders a literal interpretation and not something that is manipulative or fanciful in application.

This is offered merely as a brief and not meant to be an exhaustive rendering of every element and text.

 

saturn, you're a hoot! :laugh:

Your sense of humor is about as warped as mine. Maybe that's why I like you so much.

 

There is no need to speak of two different ages if this could happen at any time in the past or future. If this was not some special time periods and was always true then there is no need to point out two distinct ages.
Also there is something special about the first age so there must be something special about the age to come, and that is the literal presence of the Lord.

 

Just forget it. There is such a basic disconnect going on here - on several levels. Non-literalists do not desire ultimate reconciliation of God? (With God, perhaps?)

Too many things here to fix. You ignore my verses. Why should I discuss any more? You are so soaked in the literalist paradigm - contrary to much of Scripture - I just don't want to bother anymore.