Deadwood of X9 thought

[Hitch]

Taken from the official X9 site;


When we look at "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1), the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Mat 1:1). What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? It is the long awaited good news which specially belongs to the circumcision.


http://www.biblicalanswers.com/questionsanswered/qa_kingdom_1_frameset.htm


Hill says the gospel of Jesus Christ is the property of the circumscision,, meaning the jews. And he cites Luke as proof. Luke is rolling over in his grave.


When we look at "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:1), the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Mat 1:1). What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? It is the long awaited good news which specially belongs to the circumcision. What is the good news of the circumcision? The Messiah has come! The kingdom will be restored to Israel, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end" (Lk 1:32,33).

Luke writes:

Luke 1:68-77
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
(KJV)


The covenant with Abe is fulfilled in the coming of the Savior. There is not a single word here about a geo-political kingdom. there is the prophetic declaration of the fulfillment of the The oath which he sware to our father Abraham and contained in these wonders is the proclamation that Jesu is born. the great promise to Israel is fulfilled;


Luke 2:10-11
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)

And it is expressly offered to 'all people'.


But in the wisdom of Bob Hill spokeman for X9 thought this answers the question:

How do we establish that the Lord was offering a literal physical kingdom to Israel during His earthly ministry?

Not even close Bob.


Now tell me Bob, if christ's mission was to set up a literal physical kingdom to Israel during His earthly ministry how does Jesus truthfully calim that he accomplished all he was sent to do?



John 17:4
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
(KJV)

It is a lie to claim christ came to do anything and didnt accomplish it. it is a lie form the enemy, it loves to discredit Jesus ahd his work, and so does Bob Hill.


No wonder X9ers dont quote Jesus.


Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

And now for something truely pathetic;


I just read Hills response to a question about James' quote of Amos in Acts 15.


Its in the Answered Questions area. I have encountered some trouble getting that link to work, which is why the question and answer are not posted


LMAO

[yxboom]

Hitch:
John 17:4
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
(KJV)

It is a lie to claim christ came to do anything and didnt accomplish it. it is a lie form the enemy, it loves to discredit Jesus ahd his work, and so does Bob Hill.
At the time Jesus said those words had he been crucified, buried and rose again? Had He already ascended into Heaven? Did Jesus come to pay the debt for men's sins by His sacrifice on the cross, had it already happened by the time He said those words?

[Hitch]

I' use X9 to refer genericly to the various Acts based DFs. when spoken it sounds like Acts 9 and its easy to write. So far no complaints.


This guy uses MAD.... Adn you didnt even know Alfred E. Newan was a theologian



http://www.geocities.com/patrick_henry_1776/mad_tenets.html

[Hitch]

yxboom:
At the time Jesus said those words had he been crucified, buried and rose again? Had He already ascended into Heaven? Did Jesus come to pay the debt for men's sins by His sacrifice on the cross, had it already happened by the time He said those words? At the time Jesus spoke those words had Israel been redeemed?


Hitch

[yxboom]

Is that a YES or NO because it looked like an obfuscation to me.

[Darth Xena]

And someone is supposed to be doing server work.. and sigh, look what I catch him doing :rant:

LOLOL!! Just kidding Boom. You know you can never win with me. If you stuck to the server, I would be complaining that you are not posting enough. :argh:

[Hitch]

yxboom:
Is that a YES or NO because it looked like an obfuscation to me. Answer it anyway you like,,,based on Scripture.

[yxboom]

Hitch:
Answer it anyway you like,,,based on Scripture. Are all your replies going to be this asinine?

[yxboom]

Dee Dee Warren:
And someone is supposed to be doing server work.. and sigh, look what I catch him doing :rant:
Well I am stuck right now :hrm:

[Hitch]

yxboom:
Are all your replies going to be this asinine? Interesting. You believe requesting Scripturally based answers is asinine.

I will ask why you are on a christian forum then,,,but not untill after you answwer my question,,,from Scripture.

Hitch


The origianal repeated below...


yxboom:
At the time Jesus said those words had he been crucified, buried and rose again? Had He already ascended into Heaven? Did Jesus come to pay the debt for men's sins by His sacrifice on the cross, had it already happened by the time He said those words?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time Jesus spoke those words had Israel been redeemed?

[yxboom]

I figured you were incapable of discerning that my point was so I will explain. I asked you a Yes or No question based on a previous allegation of Bob Hill which was
Now tell me Bob, if christ's mission was to set up a literal physical kingdom to Israel during His earthly ministry how does Jesus truthfully calim that he accomplished all he was sent to do?based on John 17:4. I posted my reply specific to a YES or NO answer from you and your response was
Answer it anyway you like,,,based on Scripture. So let me clarify for you once again. Are all your replies going to be this asinine?

[Hitch]

yxboom:
I figured you were incapable of discerning that my point was so I will explain. I asked you a Yes or No question based on a previous allegation of Bob Hill which was
based on John 17:4. I posted my reply specific to a YES or NO answer from you and your response was
So let me clarify for you once again. Are all your replies going to be this asinine? Answer anyway you like ,,,based on Scripture.


Please be kind enough to explain why requesting Scripture based answers is asinine.


The origianl question is repeated below.


At the time Jesus spoke those words had Israel been redeemed?

Hitch

[Bill the Cat]

So what's an X9??

[Hitch]

Its a shortened version of 'Acts Nine' a local Mid Acts Dispensationalist. X9 is used to differentiate (sp?) between that variety and the more common Scofield based types.

H

[Bill the Cat]

so if I am a futurist, does that make me an X9?

[yxboom]

If you believe that the Body of Christ began at the conversion of Paul would make you Acts9.

[Hitch]

It makes you a futurist.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh, this is not eschatology! I guess I am an Acts2

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 01:21 AM Bill the Cat:

so if I am a futurist, does that make me an X9?

Certainly not; I, for one, am a futurist, PreTrib/PreMiller, the lot, but I certainly don't agree with a lot of the Acts 9 stuff, especially after checking out that Bob Hill site that Hitch called "the official X9 site" (Hitch, is that your own opinion only, or do they actually claim that distinction? I ask because I don't see them making that claim, although certainly they are Acts 9 all the way through, and I don't really have a problem with that description of them).

When I say "I don't agree with a lot of the Acts 9 stuff", of course I don't mean that I have any problem with the Biblical chapter Acts 9 itself, only on the "two gospels" theology that Hill and others have invented based on what I consider to be a rather far-fetched reading of that text. I've just now briefly (very briefly!) looked over some of the Q&A on that site, and I can't decide if I'm more amused or appalled. When they claim that God the Father Himself didn't have a clue whether or not Israel would accept Jesus as the Messiah, then I know that they're up a creek without a paddle.

The (that's no God for me) Curtmudgeon

[Darth Xena]

And of course, as I have pointed out in numerous debates with X9 (particularly OV X9) is that God did in fact know that Israel would reject Christ. I have no problem with contingent prophecies, i.e., Jonah, but contingent prophecies have one hallmark, an event is prophesied, but the reaction of the people is not. That is what makes it contingent. The Jews were long ago prophesied to reject their Messiah. That removes it from the realm of contingency under anyone's piont of view, even OV, ironically enough since they too believe in firm prophecy under the rubric that God will cause whatever He purposes to happen (which philosophically to me, is at least as 'bad' as the Calvinism they are seeking to avoid)

I use 'bad' loosely as referring to the objections that nonCalvinists such as myself have to Calvinism.

[FlimFlamboyant]

And of course, as I have pointed out in numerous debates with X9 (particularly OV X9) is that God did in fact know that Israel would reject Christ.

I would just like to say that the supposed denial that God foresaw the sacrifice of Christ is not connected to the mid-Acts position in any way whatsoever. Whether or not OV actually supports this notion is something you'll have to ask them.

The Body of Christ was in the mind of God even before the world began (Eph 1:4). This Body is comprised of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 12:13). Gentiles could not be made members of this Body unless the middle wall of parition were broken down, and this was accomplished by the cross (Eph 2:13,14). What the cross accomplised was planned before the world began, and had been hidden throughout the ages so that the "princes of this world" would crucify Christ (1 Cor 2:7,8).

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF:

I would just like to say that the supposed denial that God foresaw the sacrifice of Christ is not connected to the mid-Acts position in any way whatsoever. Whether or not OV actually supports this notion is something you'll have to ask them.


I didn't say that. I said nothing about the sacrifice of Christ but the rejection (referring to the necessity of plan B or as Enyart would call it, The Plot Twist - and I am not sayikng that sarcastically), which was not a given, at least with the X9ers I have dealt with, which have all been OV.

Are you not OV? If so, of course that might certainly make a difference. I have another question for you (slightly off topic) depending upon how you answer this.

[FlimFlamboyant]

I didn't say that. I said nothing about the sacrifice of Christ but the rejection (referring to the necessity of plan B or as Enyart would call it, The Plot Twist

Well in that case, the idea that God didn't see Israel's rejection coming isn't inherent of the mid-Acts position, either. The notion that this is a "plan B" is something that I don't see any evidence of in scripture. Not in the sense of an "oops, THAT didn't work, better break out plan B!" kind of thing.

Are you not OV? If so, of course that might certainly make a difference. I have another question for you (slightly off topic) depending upon how you answer this.

At the risk of this turning in to an OV thread; no, I'm not OV. That's not to say that I disagree with every aspect of this "theology", and there are places in scripture where OV would seem to be a logical conclusion. On the other hand, there are a mountain of verses which seem to indicate that God does indeed know of everything before it happens. I'm not going to claim to have a satisfactory explanation for this, because I don't. :)

[Darth Xena]

Well you and I are on the same page as far as OV then is concerned. Every other X9 I know does see the "Body" as "Plot Twist" that was not inevitable or necessarily planned, but if you see things differently okay.

But here is my off-topic question.... Jesus promised to "return" and bring the Kingdom within that generation. I say He did. What say you? And if you want to split this into eschatology we can, but I do not think the thread-starter will mind this shift I am taking.

[FlimFlamboyant]

But here is my off-topic question.... Jesus promised to "return" and bring the Kingdom within that generation. I say He did. What say you? And if you want to split this into eschatology we can, but I do not think the thread-starter will mind this shift I am taking.

I say that he didn't promise to return within the generation that he was speaking to, but rather the generation that witnessed the signs mentioned earlier in Matthew 24.

Mat 24:33-34 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. (34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Obviously, we're going to disagree on this, but we can get to that in a bit. But before we do, I have a question for you. Do you believe in a literal 7-year period of tribulation for Israel?

[Darth Xena]

Dear FF:

I would like to pursue this generation bit and actually I will tie into a dispie things, so leaving it here is probably good.

You said,

Do you believe in a literal 7-year period of tribulation for Israel?

The question is loaded, though I am not saying you intentionally loaded it. The way it is phrased is in a futurist assumption. I do believe in a PAST period of Tribulation for Isreal, and not it was not 7 years, but 3 1/2 years. But it is long over, meaning yes, the Great Trib is over.

[Hitch]

Hitch, is that your own opinion only, or do they actually claim that distinction? I ask because I don't see them making that claim, although certainly they are Acts 9 all the way through, and I don't really have a problem with that description of them).


Its my opinion.

There is another version;

http://www.berachah.org/



Thieme is cultish leader along the lines of a Koresh. I dont know of any connection to the Hill group and dont recall Thieme's church listed as an affiliate on Hill's site.

This is a link to an anti Thieme page:

http://www.geocities.com/readjohn832/


I was very pleased you looked for yourself,that is the reason for the links.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

I would like to hear a pre-tribulational explanation of John six. Since the X9s have never directly responded to the original anyway.

Hitch

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 09:24 AM Hitch:

I would like to hear a pre-tribulational explanation of John six. Since the X9s have never directly responded to the original anyway.

I assume you're specifically referring to John 6:40, since no other verse in John 6 seems particularly related to preTrib/non-preTrib questions.

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Well, I'm no seminarian, but two points from where I sit:


Jesus' earthly ministry, although of course it includes salvation information for all of us, was specifically directed to the Jews; He said so Himself on several occasions. I believe that the Church, as a general Jew+Gentile entity, was still being held "a mystery" by God at this time, and only Jesus' teachings directly to his apostles about what would happen afterwards (i.e., sending the Paraclete, etc.) really concern the Church; His teachings to the general public, except the exceptional occasions when He dealt with non-Jews such as the Samaritan woman, were really intended as Jewish teaching.

Now this is not the same as the Acts 9ers' teaching of two separate Gospels, one by Jesus to the Jews and a different "gospel of Paul" to the Gentiles. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, expanded the Church to the Gentiles (as did Peter with Cornelius' household), but that was in direct response to Jesus' own Great Commision to "teach all nations, baptising them", it was not in any way separate from the Gospel of Jesus; the Church as the Body (and future Bride) of Christ began at Pentacost, and includes every individual, Jew or Gentile, who accepts Jesus as Son of God and personal Saviour. It's just that, as He instructed the apostles themselves, they were to go first to the Jew and then the Gentile, and He illustrated that in His earthly ministry by tailoring His teachings (except as already noted) directly to the Jews.

All of that to say: this verse therefore has nothing to do with the preTribulation Rapture, simply because that resurrection is specifically for the Church, and I believe that Jesus was not talking about the Church here at all, but to the Jews who (as a body, not necessarily as individuals) will not accept Him as Messiah until they see Him set foot on Mount Olivet, per Zechariah. Therefore, their resurrection will indeed be in "the last day", not preTribulation.

As a very minor side note, I believe that the phrase "the last day", like the phrase "the day of the Lord", can be shown to be somewhat generically used in the Scriptures to really mean "the end times" or "the last period of the age". Therefore, even if this verse was not specifically Jewish in nature, and was meant to include the Church as well, I would contend that the phrase can be interpretted broadly enough without getting away from the Scriptural usage of it to include not only the final Resurrection of all, but the Rapture as well. Sort of the Rapture being an appetiser or first course to the meal: you can talk about it separately of course, but when you say "the meal" you're including all of it even if it stretches over the course of a whole evening, and there's "entertainment" (so to speak!) between courses.


Just my tuppence-ha'penny, of course. But it is one preTribber's reading of John 6:40.

The (hope this is what you were looking for) Curtmudgeon

[Hitch]

Today @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74764#post74764)
The Curtmudgeon:



I assume you're specifically referring to John 6:40, since no other verse in John 6 seems particularly related to preTrib/non-preTrib questions.



Well, I'm no seminarian, but two points from where I sit:


Jesus' earthly ministry, although of course it includes salvation information for all of us, was specifically directed to the Jews; He said so Himself on several occasions. I believe that the Church, as a general Jew+Gentile entity, was still being held "a mystery" by God at this time, and only Jesus' teachings directly to his apostles about what would happen afterwards (i.e., sending the Paraclete, etc.) really concern the Church; His teachings to the general public, except the exceptional occasions when He dealt with non-Jews such as the Samaritan woman, were really intended as Jewish teaching.

Now this is not the same as the Acts 9ers' teaching of two separate Gospels, one by Jesus to the Jews and a different "gospel of Paul" to the Gentiles. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, expanded the Church to the Gentiles (as did Peter with Cornelius' household), but that was in direct response to Jesus' own Great Commision to "teach all nations, baptising them", it was not in any way separate from the Gospel of Jesus; the Church as the Body (and future Bride) of Christ began at Pentacost, and includes every individual, Jew or Gentile, who accepts Jesus as Son of God and personal Saviour. It's just that, as He instructed the apostles themselves, they were to go first to the Jew and then the Gentile, and He illustrated that in His earthly ministry by tailoring His teachings (except as already noted) directly to the Jews.

All of that to say: this verse therefore has nothing to do with the preTribulation Rapture, simply because that resurrection is specifically for the Church, and I believe that Jesus was not talking about the Church here at all, but to the Jews who (as a body, not necessarily as individuals) will not accept Him as Messiah until they see Him set foot on Mount Olivet, per Zechariah. Therefore, their resurrection will indeed be in "the last day", not preTribulation.
John 6:39
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
(KJV)

Are we not included in 'which he has given me'? Do we not participate in the 'Lord's Supper'?

John 6:54
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
(KJV)








As a very minor side note, I believe that the phrase "the last day", like the phrase "the day of the Lord", can be shown to be somewhat generically used in the Scriptures to really mean "the end times" or "the last period of the age". Therefore, even if this verse was not specifically Jewish in nature, and was meant to include the Church as well, I would contend that the phrase can be interpretted broadly enough without getting away from the Scriptural usage of it to include not only the final Resurrection of all, but the Rapture as well. Sort of the Rapture being an appetiser or first course to the meal: you can talk about it separately of course, but when you say "the meal" you're including all of it even if it stretches over the course of a whole evening, and there's "entertainment" (so to speak!) between courses.
Now from where in John six do you find support for this idea? Where in John's book at all? BTW the term 'last day' only appears once outside of John, Neh 8;18 and the usage is literal. As it is in John 7;37, where it is used again. All the other uses of the term are found in John directly tied to the resurrection.

Just my tuppence-ha'penny, of course. But it is one preTribber's reading of John 6:40.

The (hope this is what you were looking for) Curtmudgeon Since the' rapture' requires prior resurrection its a terrible stretch to find Jesus so concerned with the resurrection and leaving no space for multiples. It just as unlikely that that any Apostle would contradict anything attributted to Christ.

It is by Christ, the spoken Word of the very God and all human efforts must conform. The context of resurrection is set here by Christ and this context affects anything recorded later rather than the otherway around. When Paul writes what he says must carry rather than set the context of anything Christ has said on a given subject.


will not accept Him as Messiah until they see Him set foot on Mount Olivet, per Zechariah. Therefore, their resurrection will indeed be in "the last day", not preTribulation This shows a severe problem with pre-tribulationism. The idea is 180 degrees contrary to Apostolic teaching;


Isa 49:2-8
2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;
3 And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
(KJV)


Which is interpreted by the Apostle;


2 Cor 6:2
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
(KJV)

The warning is clear. Today (now) is the time of Jacob's return and the enlightenment of the Nations. After this is judgement.



Take care

Hitch

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 03:00 PM Hitch:


John 6:39
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
(KJV)

Are we not included in 'which he has given me'? Do we not participate in the 'Lord's Supper'?

John 6:54
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
(KJV)

:doh: Yep, that's what I get for scanning the page too quickly. Several verses I overlooked there. Sorry. :argh:

But nothing there really contradicts what I said earlier: I believe that the context of this speech of Jesus' is that He is speaking to the Jews, not to the Church. His comments here about His flesh being the bread from heaven are in context not of the future Lord's Supper but in direct response to the Jews' statement about their forefathers eating manna in the wilderness. He is, in effect, saying that that "bread from Heaven" was only a symbol of Himself as the True Bread from Heaven, which the Jews must partake of if they would be in the resurrection.

I do believe, as I tried to indicate in my previous response, that a lot or even most of what Jesus taught to the Jewish public during His earthly ministry is also applicable to us as members of His Church, whether we are Jew or Gentile, but by extension and not necessarily direct intention. In this specific passage, I would say that by extension He is also referring generally to those who will "eat His flesh" as Christians, but that that is not the primary meaning He is propounding at that moment--and that by generalising this to include the non-Jewish Church, the generalisation of "the last day" that I alluded to in my second point, above, would also be entailed.

Now from where in John six do you find support for this idea? Where is John's book at all? BTW the term 'last day' only appears once outside of John, Neh 8;18 and the usage is literal. As it is in John 7;37, where it is used in a literal fashion again. All the other uses of the term are found in John directly tied to the resurrection.

I do not believe that the phrase "the last day" can be significantly distinguished, Scripturally, from the phrase "the last days", and therefore your contention that it appears only in John and the one literal case in Nehemiah is not correct; there are occurences of the plural form in Isaiah and Micah (one quoting the other, seemingly), as well as Acts, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James and 2 Peter. Yes, I realise quite well the semantic difference between singular and plural; but I believe that there is no signifying difference as used in Scripture. YMMV.

When Paul writes what he says must carry rather than set the context of anything Christ has said on a given subject.

Many things that Paul writes are extenstions of and expansions upon things that Jesus taught in a more restricted form, because Jesus was directly addressing His Jewish audience of the moment while Paul was writing for the future of the Church. They do not change the meaning of Jesus' message, but can sometimes be in more detail. Jesus can speak of 'the last day' as a monolithic entity because the details are not pertinent to His audience of the moment, whereas Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit who comes from the same Father as sent Jesus, can break it up and discuss it in detail that shows it as something much more complex than a single day.

I am not interpretting Jesus in the light of what Paul wrote, but rather of what Jesus said: "But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs." (Mark 7:27) Was Jesus here saying that the Gospel was never for the Gentiles, or that all Gentiles are dogs? No, of course not, He always knew that the Gentiles would be invited into the Kingdom as well. But His earthly ministry was not to the uncircumsised, although He would make exceptions for great faith as for this woman or the Roman centurion. And so I believe that any of His public teachings should be primarily, not exclusively, interpretted as being addressed to the Jews and in terms that the Jews would understand, including the concept that the resurrection of the just would be at "the last day" regardless of whether that last "day" stretched over time or not.

In John 6, He neither wanted nor intended to get into some philosophical exchange over exactly when the resurrection would occur; that was immaterial to His point. His point was that only the Jews who accepted Him on His terms would see that resurrection which they all understood to be at "the last day"--it would not avail to reject Christ and yet claim that being Abraham's seed or descending from those who had eaten manna in the wilderness with Moses (i.e., those who had received the Law at Sinai) would do. If He had also thrown in, "Oh, and when I say 'last day', I mean a period that will cover some time and will include multiple resurrections until all who shall be raised have been raised," that would have sent the entire crowd spinning off into tangential hell and they would have lost the much more important point of how the resurrection rather than when the resurrection. Just as it would have had He said, "Oh, you do realise that Gentiles will get resurrected, too, don't you?" He didn't need to make that point, because He wanted them to stay focused on the importance of the how.

The ('how' meaning "how you qualify", not the mechanism of resurrection) Curtmudgeon

[Hitch]

In John 6, He neither wanted nor intended to get into some philosophical exchange over exactly when the resurrection would occur; that was immaterial to His point. His point was that only the Jews who accepted Him on His terms would see that resurrection which they all understood to be at "the last day"--

Hmmmm Jesus was quite specific for someone not wanting to say exactly when the resurrection would occur. In fact I cant think of how he could have been more exact in his statement.

And since you base this on the notion that " His point was that only the Jews who accepted Him " a further explanation of John's usage is required:


John 12:48
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
(KJV)


Now we have the evil and the good raised at the last day. And in support we also have our Lord's prior statement regarding resurrection in chapter 5:

John 5:28-29
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.
(KJV)


I have yet to see a defence of multiple resurrections relying on what Jesus has actually said, while a face value understanding supports the Reformed time ending general resurrection very well.

Plural & singular: That opens an interesting can of worms. The same One who says I AM the Resurrection and the Life and the Truth, says the resurrection of the good and evil will be on one specific day. Your interchange is forced and unnatural. Ive been told many times wrt these passages that Christ does NOT say there will not be many resurrections. This argument from silence is weak, niether does he not say there will not be more Virgin Births, or more Saviors born or yet more Kings of Israel. An d cults have exploited this from time to time.

Also if these are the 'last days' and your interpretation is correct wrt J6 you have another serious problem, being a Millennialist.

Take care

Hitch

[Jacob]

Curtmudgeon,

Your last post was very helpful in this dialogue. :thumb:

Jacob

[The Curtmudgeon]

04-21-2003 @ 05:39 PM Hitch:

Also if these are the 'last days' and your interpretation is correct wrt J6 you have another serious problem, being a Millennialist.

I must be wearing my 'stupid' hat again, today, Hitch: you'll have to clue me into what you mean. Because I do believe that these are (a part of) the last days, and obviously I believe my interpretation of John 6 to be correct (or I'd shuck it for something more correct), but I don't see what other serious problem you think I should have as a (pre)Millennialist.

The ( :shrug: ) Curtmudgeon

[Darth Xena]

Well one thing is that the timing and chronology statement of the Bible are devasting to premill... here is one example:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=248

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 09:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76900#post76900)
The Curtmudgeon:



I must be wearing my 'stupid' hat again, today, Hitch: you'll have to clue me into what you mean. Because I do believe that these are (a part of) the last days, and obviously I believe my interpretation of John 6 to be correct (or I'd shuck it for something more correct), but I don't see what other serious problem you think I should have as a (pre)Millennialist.

The ( :shrug: ) Curtmudgeon These are the 'days'when Christ rules from heaven and the Gospel is preached. This is the economy in force for nearly 2,000 years. And hence this is how the set of 'days' is defined.

If these are the last days where does the new economy of the physical presence of Christ on earth fit? Ceratainly those 'days' with the resurrrected Lord walking about with his saints in glorified bodies qualifies as anentirely new economy and set of 'days'. there would be vastly more difference between this alteration and the OT/ NT change over.


Take care

H

[The Curtmudgeon]

Yesterday @ 07:40 PM Hitch:

These are the 'days'when Christ rules from heaven and the Gospel is preached.

The Gospel is certainly preached, but Satan is still the 'prince of this world' and holds immediate sway (by God's allowance) now. Yes, I know you're going to say that Satan is bound now, but I disagree. And I really don't understand how anyone can think that Satan is bound while seeing what goes on in the world today.

This is the economy in force for nearly 2,000 years. And hence this is how the set of 'days' is defined.

If these are the last days where does the new economy of the physical presence of Christ on earth fit? Ceratainly those 'days' with the resurrrected Lord walking about with his saints in glorified bodies qualifies as anentirely new economy and set of 'days'. there would be vastly more difference between this alteration and the OT/ NT change over.

There's today and some (relatively short? we won't know until we know) time continuing of increasing apostacy;
The Rapture occurs and all believing Christians (dead and alive) are taken to Heaven;
Seven years of the Great Tribulation;
Jesus' Second Coming to Earth, ending the Battle of Armageddon, probably including the resurrection of those who believed during the Tribulation and were martyred;
The Millennial Kingdom of Jesus on Earth for a thousand years, reigning over the whole world from Jerusalem (and Satan is bound here for most of the 1000 years);
The final rebellion of Satan and his followers, who with Death and Hell are thrown into the Lake of Fire;
The final resurrection and judgement of all not already resurrected;
The creation of the New Heavens and New Earth for eternity.


That's where the physical presence of Christ on Earth fits. And although for us this covers at least 1007 years of our time, this is all included in the "last days", as after all Peter tells us it's little more than a day in God's sight.

And I disagree that there's more difference between today's world and a world with resurrected saints walking in the physical presence of the resurrected Jesus, than between a world prior to any knowledge of Jesus at all (other than obscure-to-those-at-the-time prophecies) and today's world with the full NT knowledge of Jesus and His ministry. The difference in the one, after all, is merely physical differences between our bodies now and then; the second is a fundamental difference in the knowledge of God's grace of salvation. Or do you believe the physical differences outweigh that?

It's no problem for me seeing where it fits.

The (I thought you knew all that, although you don't accept it) Curtmudgeon

[John Reece]

Amazing...

[Hitch]

The creation of the New Heavens and New Earth for eternity.



That's where the physical presence of Christ on Earth fits. And although for us this covers at least 1007 years of our time, this is all included in the "last days", as after all Peter tells us it's little more than a day in God's sight.



Well Im hardly surprized you re-define last days to meet your needs.



But I always thought eternity would be free of sin and death. Which is certainly not the case wrt the New Heavens and Earth.


And I still havent found where Jesus ever spoke of more than one resurrection.

Still is left the fact that Jesus told us it is to our advantage that he NOT be here in person...

Oh well

Take care

Hitch

[John Reece]

Jesus told us it is to our advantage that he NOT be here on person...

:thumb:

[The Curtmudgeon]

04-24-2003 @ 10:13 PM Hitch:
But I always thought eternity would be free of sin and death. Which is certainly not the case wrt the New Heavens and Earth.

Wow! I knew that preterists didn't read Revelation the way that millennialists do, but I didn't realise that they didn't read it at all!


Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Remember that the chapter divisions were added much later; these are consecutive verses as John wrote them. First, he records that Death (and Hades) are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with all who are not saved by the Blood of the Lamb, then the New Heavens and the New Earth are created, and then he records that God shall remove all sorrow and pain -- N.B. the effects of sin -- therein.

And although this verse isn't immediately consecutive to the above, it concludes the description of the New Jerusalem which John mentions in 21:2:


21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

The New Heavens and New Earth are definitely free from sin and death. If you don't understand that, then you need to re-read Revelation prayerfully.

And I still havent found where Jesus ever spoke of more than one resurrection.

Can you point me to where Jesus ever spoke about the position of women in the church? How about the proper relationship within a marriage? Relationships between saved and unsaved? Administration of the local churches?

If you restrict your Christianity to only the literal words of Jesus in the Gospels, and throw out the Acts, the Epistles and the Revelation, then of course you won't find certain teachings. Or you might stop to think, "Those other books are included in the New Testament for a reason...."

Still is left the fact that Jesus told us it is to our advantage that he NOT be here in person...

Cite? I'm thinking you're probably referring to one of the passages about His sending the Paraclete only after He returned to the Father, and therefore our benefit would be the coming of the Paraclete. That is, it's not His absence that is beneficial to us, but the presence of the Holy Spirit, but He must leave us first in order to send the Spirit.

The (I think I understand preterism less as time goes along) Curtmudgeon

[Hitch]

Remember that the chapter divisions were added much later; these are consecutive verses as John wrote them. First, he records that Death (and Hades) are thrown into the Lake of Fire along with all who are not saved by the Blood of the Lamb, then the New Heavens and the New Earth are created, and then he records that God shall remove all sorrow and pain -- N.B. the effects of sin -- therein.

Preterists also read Isaiah;

Isa 65:17-20
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
(KJV)

The terms are obviously relative. One weeps for a child lost as any age, so the lack of tears is just that a lack not an absolute end. This is not eternity.

The setting of the New Heavens & Earth is earthly and historical.

What is 'New' is the reconcilliation. God once again can allow men(some) to draw near because of the newly created heavens,,, revealed by the removal of the veil. The has no more to do the the physical plant than Jesus' great promise recorded in J 11;26. And is spoken of as the end of the world by the writer of Hebrews,(9;26)
We no longer mourn death as the door way to everlasting torment, thanks to Christ we have a better and more realistic view. We are even commanded to rejoice in persecution and hardship on Christ's behalf. Only because the curse of sin is forever covered.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Can you point me to where Jesus ever spoke about the position of women in the church? How about the proper relationship within a marriage? Relationships between saved and unsaved? Administration of the local churches?

Well Curt you would have a valid point had Jesus not spoken directly to the issue of resurrection.

The problem is that of course he did and never in a manner you can cite in support of your view.


So the real question is;

Can you point me to where Jesus ever spoke about the resurrection?

Yup, and you dont like it for reasons cited above.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Cite? I'm thinking you're probably referring to one of the passages about His sending the Paraclete only after He returned to the Father, and therefore our benefit would be the coming of the Paraclete. That is, it's not His absence that is beneficial to us, but the presence of the Holy Spirit, but He must leave us first in order to send the Spirit.


That is, it's not His absence that is beneficial to us


Interesting the low view of what Christ actually said comes up so often wrt furutism:


John 16:7
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(KJV)

This is plain speech and you dont hesitate to assume an opposite position to our Lord.

And of course he goes on the say that so long as time continues this, through the Holy Spirit ,is how he will be with us. Directly contrasting Millennialism's need for physical presence.

Since this is his own persoanlly stated plan we should realize that this is the best possible situtation for the growth of the Kingdom and the spreading of the Gospel geographicly and culturally. This is in part why Psalm 110 is the most quoted Psalm in the NT. Jesus rules with absolute authority from the Right Hand of Power, and this rule is progressivly wrought on earth through the ministries of the Holy Spirit as the Gospel is proclaimed by the church, the sole heir of the Gospel commision.
The idea of the church effectivly bringing the Gospel to the world is not a plan that has earthly origins. It is not doomed to failure in fact it cannot fail. Jesus came and did all that was neccessary, all that men could not do, in order that he then could grant his church the responsibility of the task to lighten the world. This is not plan B from outer space. This is God's desired and personally implemented way to realize in history what Christ accomplished on our behalf, no less then, conquering the world.

Christ in Heaven

The Holy Spirit ministering on earth


The church spreading the Gospel growing the Kingdom

This is the Plan of the Ages and is in effect until the end of history.

Take care

Hitch

[John Reece]

Hitch:

John 16:7

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(KJV)

This is plain speech and you don’t hesitate to assume an opposite position to our Lord.

And of course he goes on the say that so long as time continues this, through the Holy Spiri, is how he will be with us. Directly contrasting Millennialism's need for physical presence.

Since this is his own personally stated plan we should realize that this is the best possible situation for the growth of the Kingdom and the spreading of the Gospel geographically and culturally. This is in part why Psalm 110 is the most quoted Psalm in the NT. Jesus rules with absolute authority from the Right Hand of Power, and this rule is progressively wrought on earth through the ministries of the Holy Spirit as the Gospel is proclaimed by the church, the sole heir of the Gospel commision.

Take care

Hitch

:thumb: