Non believers are just as "good"

Actually though, to get back onto the thread subject, it is a red herring of a notion whether believers or non or un-'believers' are more or less 'immoral' than each other. We are judged by God according to our morality and that applies to both believers and un or non-believers equally. God is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34. God's grace is extended to both believers and non-believers alike. God's grace is extended to sinners, while they were yet still sinners, non-believers still are sinners and so are believers still sinners. Rom. 5:8, Gal.1:4, Eph.1:7, Eph.2:5 The only difference is that believers admit it and many non or un-believers don't. Believers are grateful and non-believers and especially un-believers are not. Those non-bellivers that do may have repented of the sins they are convicted of by the Holy Spirit, and have amended their ways, which (though they might not know it) has put them in the 'believers' category without knowing it (because they are unwitting recipients) of God's Grace. (None of us know how much we don't know, which is great deal of not knowing). Most people don't know that God exists, let alone that God loves them enough to die for them. For some it all seems just too good to be true. For others it seems unfair that those who make no effort should reap the same rewards from God's unmerited Grace, but they're just sour grapes and they'll get pruned out eventually.
.

 

You can choose to be judged by God according to your own morality if that's what you wish, Tiffy, but I will be judged by God according to His grace and according to the righteousness which He bestows upon me despite my own morality.

Unbelievers likewise, when faced with God's judgment, will attempt to stand on their own morality and be judged as to whether their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds. But the Bible says that if a man has sinned in the least, smallest way, he is guilty of violating the entire law. There is no "balance scale" in God's judgment; one is either black as sin on his own, or robed in snow white by grace through faith in God. There will be no 57 shades of grey before God's holy gaze.

Those who have never heard the Gospel but have believed in the Creator from what they have seen in nature might very well have righteousness accounted to them. I can't be sure; only God knows. But that uncertainty impels the diligent Christian to spread the Good News about Jesus the Savior, as He commanded us to do. It should not propel the Christian into an unnecessary and unscriptural 'big tent' theology (which we have discussed at considerable length in other threads, so no need to tread the same ground again here).

 

When Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in 70 A.D., and they remained rubble for subsequent decades (and centuries) thereafter, Christians tried to come up with an interpretation that took into account the perceived "impossibility" that the great temple could ever be rebuilt. That's why some 'theologians' came up with this half-baked nonsense about the referred-to temple being one in heaven.

The 'man of sin,' according to the nonsense version, will not literally, actually sit in the temple and allege to be God; he will only strive, wish, or think to do so, for no mortal man can literally sit in a temple that's in heaven (obviously). But that is not what the Bible says, so the above interpretation must be false.
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Notice verse 4 which says "he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." It doesn't say he will aspire to sit there, or will imagine himself sitting there... it says he will sit there. This can only happen in a physical, earthly temple!

The 'theologians' of past ages contrived an explanation for the absence of Jerusalem. The only way Jerusalem or its temple could be rebuilt was if the nation of Israel were reestablished... and everyone knew that this was impossible! But then, God made it possible. The nation of Israel, like the 'valley of dry bones' prophesied about in Ezekiel 37, is knitted together and alive once more. No nation has ever passed from existence for nearly two millenia and subsequently been reborn, until God restored His beloved people Israel to their homeland!

So now we have a situation in which the old-line thinking about 2 Thess. 2:4 hasn't yet caught up with the power of God. The 'trad' theology on this issue is stuck in the mire of past doubt and unbelief. Even though Israel has been reconstituted out of nothing by God's mighty hand, for some unfathomable reason these so-called 'theologians' cannot imagine that God can also cause the temple to be rebuilt. Why? Doubt and unbelief!!!

But, sshhhhh. Don't tell the Israelis, or they might get discouraged. Even though they've remade all the sacred utensils for the temple, they've rediscovered and made a quantity of the special incense and the unique color dyes needed for the temple, even though they've found the red heifers needed for temple worship, even though they've done almost everything but break ground.... golly, we'd better not tell them that the 'theologians' say it's impossible for 2 Thess. 2:4 to refer to a physical temple on earth, or they might just toss the entire project and give up. Oh, and I have a very nice bridge for sale, cheap....

As for the verses cited concerning the Lord's "soon" return (for which the KJV uses "quickly" btw), it seems plain to anyone who understands the nature of God (the One who created the construct of time for our benefit) that He is not subject to time constraints, nor is His perception of time anything like ours. To God, all is one single undivided eternity. To Him, "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," 2 Peter 3:8. For all we know, the Greek words which we translate "soon" or "quickly" may have simply been the best word available in a vocabulary that couldn't fully encompass the concept conveyed to the writer, John.
Strong's Concordance has the following definition for ταχύ:
"Neuter singular of G5036 (as adverb); shortly, i.e. Without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily -- lightly, quickly."

Jesus said that He would return at a time when least expected. 1 Thess. 5:2 says He will come like a thief in night, which implies a sudden, unexpected return. John Gill's commentary on the Rev. 22:7 phrase, Behold, I come quickly, points out that the Ethiopic Bible version of his day contained the added words, "as a thief":
"...though it will not be sooner than the time appointed, yet will be as soon as that time is come, and sooner than is generally expected by men. The Ethiopic version adds, "as a thief", as in Rev_16:15 and because the second coming of Christ is an affair of the utmost moment..."

To sum up this last point regarding the "soon" verses (and similar) relied upon, because this is subject to the actual intended meaning of the Greek words used, one cannot be dogmatic about it and use the desired meaning to support a faulty interpretation of prophecy. (Did I say 'faulty interpretation'? More like a wholesale slaughter of it!) The major events laid out in Revelation are still in the future. Revelation is not a mere allegory, as the RCC teaches! There will be an earthly temple which the 'man of sin' will enter to proclaim himself as God. Jesus will physically return to earth, specifically to the region of Israel and to the Mount of Olives. Satan will literally be bound for a thousand years, during which time Jesus will reign on earth from Jerusalem. After that time, Satan will be unbound and allowed to deceive any who will choose to believe and follow him, and they will lose the literal, physical battle of Armageddon. And then God will dispose of the old universe and create a new, perfect one without spot or sin.

Let's not forget the RCC's primary motivation for 'spiritualizing' and 'allegorizing' the Book of Revelation: they don't want us to recognize the part which describes their power-hungry system as the great whore! Rev. 17 & 18.

 

I'm taking about the judgment, not justification. We will all stand at the judgment, 1 Pet.4:17, 1 John 4:17, some will be justified by the faith they proved they had by their desire to obediently keep Christ's commands even unwittingly, (that does not imply they were always successful in resisting sin unto blood, most probably didn't, but nevertheless wanted to in spirit and that will count with God). Rom.7:24-25. Heb.12:3-6.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. Matt.5:21-26.

This was spoken also to His Disciples, not just to a randum bunch of unbelievers. Matt.5:1-2.

 

I'm gonna have to express some strong disagreements here.

Why would an earthly temple be built again? Christ tore down the Temple because it is no longer necessary. The Old Covenant died and was replaced by the New.

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

For he finds fault with them when he says:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:6-13)​

It isn't that it would be impossible for a third temple to be constructed in the modern state of Israel. It would just be of no prophetic significance. The Jewish people are no longer God's people. The unbelieving branches were broken off and the believing branches (Gentiles) were grafted in (Romans 11).

The issue with your interpretation of a literal third temple is that the timeline for these events has already passed. You cannot ignore the recipients of Paul's letter. He isn't writing to an audience thousands of years later. He is writing to real Thessalonians:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)​

Does Paul tell them that the day of the Lord isn't even going to happen for thousands of years? No. He continues by saying:

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. (2 Thessalonians 2:5-6)​

Why would Paul keep telling the Thessalonians about something that will not occur for thousands of years? Why does Paul say that the man of sin is being restrained "now"? Would the man of sin not have to already be in existence for him to be restrained? The chapter concludes with Paul telling the Thessalonians to "stand fast." Why? These things are approaching.

A physical nation of Israel is of no significance to God. The Israel of God is the Church. The Jewish people were done away with as God's chosen people. God's chosen people are now the elect in the Church (of which many are ethnically Jewish). What does Jesus say in the Gospel of Matthew?

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Matthew 3:7-10)​

Again, see Paul's discussion in Romans 11. Regarding Ezekiel 37, it has nothing to do with the current state of Israel. The prophecy was fulfilled in a limited sense in Ezra and Nehemiah. The fuller fulfillment is in the spiritual resurrection of God's people by means of the New Covenant. And, yes, this general resurrection was to happen in the first century. It is made clear by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:34). It is also made clear elsewhere:

For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

And I confess this to thee, that, according to the way that they call a sect, so serve I the God of the fathers, believing all things that in the law and the prophets have been written, having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; and in this I do exercise myself, to have a conscience void of offence toward God and men always. (Acts 24:14-16; YLT)

Being, therefore, offspring of God, we ought not to think the Godhead to be like to gold, or silver, or stone, graving of art and device of man; the times, indeed, therefore, of the ignorance God having overlooked, doth now command all men everywhere to reform, because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom He did ordain, having given assurance to all, having raised him out of the dead.' (Acts 17:29-31; YLT)​

Other passages could be provided, but I don't think they are necessary. And if you are curious about my use of Young's Literal Translation for some of those passages, I will point you to here and here.

It isn't that the modern state of Israel cannot rebuild a temple. They certainly could (though I do not know how the priesthood could function). Again, it would have no significance to God. The Jews are not his people. The timeline for these prophecies is already past. You cannot ignore the clear imminency of these prophecies in exchange for some fantastical future fulfillment that no one could possibly have had in mind during the times of the Apostles.

Surely I don't need to tell you how little sense this explanation makes. What is God's purpose in revealing these prophecies? Jesus tells us:

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come.” (Mark 13:32-33)​

Why is Jesus telling them to be on guard for that day if it isn't coming for thousands of years? Why does he tell them he will return before "this generation" passes away (Matthew 24:34)? In other words, what sense would it make for God to use imminent language if it actually expresses no meaning to the humans he is revealing it to? God certainly could have revealed that that day would be far off into the future. He didn't.

Regarding 2 Peter 3:8, I encourage you to carefully consider what is being expressed. If it is meant literally, could someone not argue the opposite meaning of you? Could it not be said that 1,000 years for God is as a day for us? It certainly could be because God isn't constrained by time! I think it is more appropriate to read Peter as expressing something actually meaningful. Let's look at the full context:

This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:1-7)​

Peter appears to be speaking of himself and his contemporaries being in the last days. He is reminding them that the scoffers they are encountering were prophecied.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8-10)​

Again, note who Peter is speaking to. He is speaking about "you," the readers of his letter. This isn't speaking about us.

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:11-13)​

Peter is still speaking to his contemporaries. What sort of people ought "you" to be, waiting for the coming of the day of God. "We" are waiting according to his promise. Peter isn't speaking to us. We were not the recipients of his letter. So what is the significance of the remark about 1,000 years? It is representative of completeness or fullness.

I don't disagree with any of that. You mention 1 Thessalonians 5:2. Let's look at it together:

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 1who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-11)​

The Thessalonians are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a "thief in the night." So what does Paul say? "You" are not in darkness. The day will not surprise "you" as a thief. Why? Because they are awake and sober. Paul tells them to continue in encouraging one another and building one another up because the Lord will return as a thief in the night within their lifetimes. Otherwise, none of this makes any sense.

The imminent language cannot be more clear. What could John or any of the other NT writers have possibly said to make it any more clear? Jesus says he will return within the lifetime of his disciples. The NT writers communicate this over and over again, encouraging the churches to remain steadfast. Revelation is written to seven real and literal churches in Asia and he tells them that these things will happen soon. If you want to reject all of that and read Biblical prophecy into the news, so be it. But that has proven time and again to be "wholesale slaughter." This list is just short and sweet. One couldn't even reasonably compose an exhaustive list of people proclaiming to see the signs of the end of the world.

I am curious as to how you would interpret this passage:

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9:24-28; AKJV)​

Are we saved? It would seem Christ's redemptive work isn't complete until he appears a second time (Luke 21:28).

Utter nonsense.

 

There is a middle ground here that you both seem to be ignoring. Man has always preferred alternative means of reaching God rather than the Way God has provided. The tower of Babel figuratively represented man's aspirations to 'reach the heavens' but in fact was a ziggurat used to make astrological observations, and predict future events so that man could have fuller control of his destiny and dispense with obedience to God. (astronomy was inseparably pure astrology back then). God frustrated their efforts by sowing division among them, and probably still does.

It is not unlikely that the obsession of some Jewish sects to physically rebuild a temple and reinstate a defunct sacrificial system of 'self' justification through brutally killing things, rather than availing themselves of the justification already provided them through the atonement of their anaccepted Messiah Jesus Christ The Righteous, (who died, once, finally, and for ALL), it merely would symbolise the perennial tendency of the whole of mankind to ignore God's provision through Grace and substitute their own preferred methods through ritual.

There is nothing therefore stopping some Jews from rebuilding a temple, apart from the fact that there is already a mosque built on its predecessor's remains. Should it ever be rebuilt it would not only be a catastrophic cause of contention, 1 Pet.2:7-8, it could also be a significant 'sign' of the times under these circumstances. 2 Thes.2:3-4.

You may be overstepping the mark or over egging the omelette here. The Jewish people have not been abandoned by God. God would not break a Covenant that God has sworn would be Eternal. The New Covenant is a continuation of the Old but the terms of the New make the terms of the Old increasingly obsolete and redundant. It is 'fading away', replaced by a better one, not obliterated or abolished. Gen.9:16, Gen.17:7-19, Isa.61:8-9, Jer.32:40, Heb.13:20.

There could yet be "a physical, earthly temple", but it would not be "God's temple" because God has never dwelt in a temple made with hands. Chron.6:18-19, Acts.17:24.

Anyone pretending to be God by sitting in a temple made with hands though would be thinking themselves to be God sitting in His Temple, surely. The way the text is constructed could possibly bear that meaning.

We have to consider the possibility that St Paul did not have a perfect vision of future events when he wrote to the Thessalonians, neither did he perhaps envision the possibility that we would be reading what he wrote to them nearly 2000 years later and still awaiting the consummation of the new age.

I think you may be over egging the omelette again. The Jewish people were 'chosen' for a particular purpose. That purpose has now been fulfilled. The Messiah has come, saved the world, set His plan of redemption in progress and the 'gates of hell will not stand against it's progress'. HOWEVER the 'The Jews are not the 'Nation of Israel'. The Jews and some Levites, (Cohens) returned from Babylon to Palestine, but the other 10 tribes of Israel dispersed among the rest of the world's populations. They are still fulfilling God's purpose in using them as 'Salt of the Earth' as long as they do not lose their savour. They are the "other sheep" John 10:16, of which Christ is "The one shepherd with one fold". Most of them are members of the invisible church on earth or in heaven. The visible Nation of Israel is both a political and religious entity and God still has plans for them in world events.

Peter never foresaw the possibility that WE would still be reading his letter nearly 2000 years later, (addressed to US by God who inspired it and included it in scripture for US). Neither did it occur to him that WE would now understand that eventually the earth and most of our Solar System will be "set on fire, dissolve and be subsumed and consumed by the sun", when our sun eventually expands and bloats beyond Earth's and even Venus's orbit, as Sol's supply of hydrogen is depleted towards the end of its life. Meanwhile we are still awaiting an earth in which righteousness dwells and we are told that The Kingdom of God grows "Like a mustard seed", and "Imperceptibly", Mark 9:1, Luke 17:21, John 3:3-5. As long as the human race and earth exists, God's Kingdom will increase somewhere on earth, or elsewhere perhaps after earth has long since ceased to exist.
.

 

They have been abandoned by God as an ethnic group. Ethnic Jews can still be saved, to be sure. They will just have to be saved in the same way the Gentiles are: through faith in Christ. God did not break His covenant with the descendants of Abraham. However, the descendants of Abraham did break the covenant with God. Let's look at the covenant itself:

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.” (Genesis 18:15-21)

And behold, the Lord stood above it and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.” (Genesis 28:13)

And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. (Exodus 23:31)

See, I have set the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them. (Deuteronomy 1:8)​

Was this promise fulfilled? Yes (Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14-15). But was the preservation of the land unconditional?

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. (Genesis 17:7-9)

When you father children and children's children, and have grown old in the land, if you act corruptly by making a carved image in the form of anything, and by doing what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, so as to provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed. (Deuteronomy 4:25-26)

My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. (Ezekiel 37:24-25)​

See also the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience in Deuteronomy 28. We see the following in Genesis 22, which was after the covenant has been established: "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice" (v. 17-18). It seems pretty clear that the condition of obedience was a part of the deal.

You can describe the Old Covenant as "fading away," I have no problem with that so long as you recognize that it is gone. Paul writes: "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). The Old Covenant is gone.

The ten lost tribes theory is totally bogus. It is how you get groups such as the Black Hebrew Israelites, British Israelism, Christian Identity, etc. I am certainly not losing sleep over it, but I just don't see the Scriptural evidence for there being ten lost tribes. The "other sheep" mentioned by Jesus are not in reference to lost Jews. It is in reference to the world in a broad sense. The physical nation of Israel is only significant to John Hagee and his ilk.

So you think Peter is referring to our sun exploding? An event that isn't slated to happen for another 7 billion years or so? Peter is writing for us, but he is certainly not writing to us. In the words of Matt Chandler, "the Bible's not about you." Peter was writing to a real audience and his words had real significance for them. They are useful for us, obviously. But they were not written to us. We are reading someone else's mail.

 

The material benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant were not the most important aspect of it. The Spiritual aspects of that Covenant are the most crucial aspects and they continue today. We meet them in The New Covenant and the same promises applied under the Old Covenat as under the New. The conditions also remain the same, repentance a life of obedience to God, and faith in The Messiah, which is Jesus Christ. Jews who meet the original conditions, like Abraham did, are still Covenanted to God and He to them, individually. The Jews, as a Nation are still Covenanted to God as far as their destiny in world affairs is concerned. What that will eventually mean for them and the world remains to be discovered.

Meanwhile, you are quite right in that the old covenant has been replaced by a New and Better Covenant which applies to Jews, Gentiles men, women and children of both sexes of believers, and it does not require the letting of blood in the setting of its sign and seal, baptism, all of which is what makes it a better Covenant.
.

 

I don't think Peter had the slightest incling that the sun would ever expand to consume the Earth and possibly Venus as well in its dying phase, but he had the notion to write it down, so he just did, because he 'believed' that would be how God would wind up the world. And he may well have been right in his 'belief'.

I was only pointing out that unwittingly he may turn out to have been right in his predictions concerning the fate of our Solar System. The Bible is quite often like that. Its human authors had only partial knowledge and their prophesy was imperfect in some cases and more perfect than they were aware of in others. (They sometimes had some funny ideas at times too which they committed to papyrus to our modern amusement - Matt.6:22-23).

As you rightly point out, their readership consisted of discrete groups of people who were alive at the time, otherwise there would have been no point in putting pen to papyrus. It does not stop there though, because their words were also inspired by an Almighty and Eternal God and preserved in scripture for future generations, of which we are one, and the meaning of their text to US may not be entirely the same as their original meaning to their original readership because of our differences in understanding between then and now, whenever 'now' happens to be, for each generation.

Nevertheless I agree that is important for us to fully understand what their original meaning must have been and how it would have been originally understood by those who were reading what was written. That has to always be taken as the primary truth being intended by the author.
.

 

I should clarify that I take no issue with those who hold to a double-fulfillment or an ambiguous hope for the return of our Lord. It is for this reason that I am not offended by the Creeds or Articles. I just don't see where Scripture necessitates such things.

 

Quite simply, because God still loves the Jewish people, so He will allow them to do it in their stubbornness against acknowledging Christ; and because He said it would be built again. You may as well say, "Why would God bring the Jews back to their homeland and give rebirth to the nation of Israel?" Of course you and I know that temple sacrifice is of no avail, but that is beside the point. It's prophesied. That's reason enough to believe that it will happen.

The Romans tore down the temple. Read history!

Beside the point.

Oh, really??? Paul wrote that the day of Christ shall not come until such-and-such happens. You're saying that all these events have happened? Including the big event Paul wrote of: the day of Christ has come? Are you a Jehovah's Witness? On the other hand, if we can agree that Christ has not yet returned, then not all of the events have passed... and any of the events which Paul said would precede Jesus' return could still happen. There's still time.

You may as well ask why Jesus didn't return 19 Centuries ago.

How can you be so certain? Do you know everything in the mind of God? A physical nation of Israel is of prophetic significance, at the very least. But really, a plain reading of Scripture is enough to know that God cares about the the people of Israel and intends that Jerusalem, capital of nation Israel, be His capital from whence He will rule and reign. Only a twisted interpretation of Scripture can see it otherwise.

Classic "replacement theology." Sorry, I don't buy it. That is the sort of thinking that led to much of the anti-Semitism we see throughout the last two millenia of history, in the medieval RCC and elsewhere.

I'll leave you and Tiffy to duke it out.

 

God loves the Jewish people who love His Son. An unbelieving Jew is no different than an unbelieving Gentile. What did God do to the unbelieving branches?

Could God not have used the Romans to accomplish his decree? Has he not used other peoples to accomplish his decree in the past (Ezra 5:12)?

It isn't. The Old Covenant passed away when the Lord returned and destroyed the Temple: no more temple sacrifices.

Yes. Just as Paul said they would happen, i.e., in the first century:

Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Romans 13:11-12)

The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. (Romans 16:20)

This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come. (1 Corinthians 1:11)

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18)

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)​

This list could go on for quite some time. Can you read those and honestly tell me that Paul didn't think Jesus was returning in the first century? You could say he was misguided or had incorrect expectations. That is really the only option you have if you reject a first-century Parousia.

We have OT prophecies that point to Jesus. He fulfilled all of those prophecies (Luke 21:22).

A physical nation of Israel is of no more prophetic significance than the Principality of Sealand. A plain reading of Scripture tells us that God's people are the Church, the elect. His people are the Body of Christ. Unbelieving Jews are not God's people. Christians are the citizens of the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22). The physical city of Jerusalem in Israel is of the same level of prophetic significance as Jerusalem, NY. Bearing the name of God's city doesn't make it God's city.

It is not so much that the Church replaced Israel. The same Israel is in existence. It is just that the unbelieving branches have been removed and the believing Gentiles have been grafted in. God does not have two peoples, as you suggest.

 

You are "boasting against the branches." Read this passage:
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Rom 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Rom 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

We are counseled to not be 'highminded' against the natural children of Israel, for God has made sure promises and a binding covenant to them in days past, and in some manner He intends to keep His covenant. We may not understand precisely how He will (or even can?) do it, but we see a hint: they are "blinded in part" until all the Gentiles who will be saved have come to Christ, and then... somehow, some way... "all Israel shall be saved." Do not think that we, who have been grafted in as 'spiritual Israel,' have entered in as a replacement or to the exclusion or natural Israel, for that is not what this passage says. In fact, it counsels against that error: "be not highminded," "God is able to graff them in again," "for this is my covenant unto them" (the covenant made to Abraham and to Jacob, to the patriarchs who came long before the First Advent).

Yes, I "reject a first-century Parousia" no matter what Paul mistakenly thought or anticipated. You believe that the Second Advent already occurred in the First Century A.D.? That tells us everything we need to know. This is heresy!

 

There is something wrong headed about a belief that the parousia has already taken place. Are we participating in the general resurrection yet?
There is something wrong headed about a belief that a 'Rapture' will catch away the church to avoid tribulation, before the parousia. We are told that in the world that tribulation is exactly what we can expect, by various degrees, but that Christ has already overcome the world. John 16:33.
.

 

As you say, Christians won't be taken out before the tribulation. Indeed, the 'catching away' of living believers can be expected to occur mere moments (or at the outside, perhaps a handful of days) prior to Christ's visible return to earth. But of course we cannot deny that the believers who live on earth will be "caught up" (the latin translation leads to the English word 'rapture'):
1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Verse 17 in Latin: Deinde nos, qui vivimus, qui relinquimur, simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Christo in aëra, et sic semper cum Domino erimus.
Thus, the use of the phrase "rapture of the church" is not totally 'out in left field' theologically.

 

We shouldn't be highminded at all. We are saved by grace through faith and "not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:9). Now, let's examine Romans 11.

Paul defined Israel two chapters earlier:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Romans 9:6-8)​

We are all one in Christ. "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29). So let's take the definition of Israel that Paul has already provided in his letter to the Romans into consideration as we read chapter 11. Verses 1-6 tell us about a remnant of ethnic Israelites chosen by grace (v. 5). One such example is Paul himself. Verses 7-10 tell us that the remnant have obtained while the rest were hardened. Verses 11-16 show us that it is through ethnic Israel's trespass that salvation has come to the Gentiles. In turn, the grafting in of the Gentiles will provoke jealousy among ethnic Israel and bring them to God through Christ. Verses 17-24 speak of the unbelieving branches being broken off and the believing Gentiles being grafted in. We should not be arrogant toward the branches because "it is not you who support the root, but the root [Christ] that supports you" (v. 18). Can unbelieving Israelites be grafted back in? Of course! The condition is "if they do not continue in their unbelief" (v. 23). Verse 25 is reaffirming what was said in verses 7-10.

I don't think we will have much disagreement about what has been said so far about chapter 11. Paul has been speaking about three groups of people thus far: (1) ethnic Israel, (2) Gentiles, and (3) the olive tree (spiritual Israel). The illustration of the breaking of unbelieving branches (ethnic) and the grafting of believing branches (Gentile) is spoken of by Jesus: "And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). The sheep not of the fold are the Gentiles. They listen and become a part of the flock (Israel) with the one shepherd (Christ). Verses 26-27 speak about "all Israel" being saved. Paul has spoken about two Israels within the book of Romans and within chapter 11: ethnic and spiritual. Which is being referred to in this verse? It isn't referring to ethnic Israel because, as Paul stated in Romans 9, "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God" (v. 8). Rather, it is referring to spiritual Israel (i.e., the olive tree). Consider Romans 4:13-17:

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.​

I'm not sure how this could be more clear. Paul isn't referring to a future event in Romans 11:26-27. The Deliverer has already come from Zion. He has already taken away Israel's sins (Hebrews 9:26).

You can find two good readings on this subject here and here.

I'm sorry, but I respect the words of Jesus and Paul more than yours. Jesus said he would return in the first century. Paul and the other NT writers expressed that in their writings. If you can't trust them on this, then why trust them on anything else?

Regarding your charge of heresy, I would expect you to not use it so loosely. I am not a heretic for believing the words of Jesus and the NT writers. I am not a heretic for not dividing God's people.

 

I'm sorry too, because so far I only have your word that "Jesus said he would return in the first century." I likewise respect Jesus' words more than yours, so why don't you quote Jesus on this? Where did Jesus say, "I will return before the end of this century," or any such thing?

If (for the sake of argument) Jesus did return in the 1st Century, why are there no witnesses to His return? Why didn't anyone see Him come back in the clouds? Are you saying there will be a 3rd Advent sometime in the future, or are you saying that Jesus is reigning invisibly on earth today (as the JWs claim)?

 

I didn't quote him because I have done so multiple times already. Some of the more obvious ones:

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mark 9:1)

But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:27)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Matthew 24:34)

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matthew 26:64)

And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62)

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (Mark 13:30)

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place. (Luke 21:32)​

No witnesses? We are witnesses. Is the Temple still standing? What did Jesus say? "Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live" (John 14:9). It is said that Jesus would return in the same manner as he left:

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up [epairo], and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11)​

How should we interpret this? Well, I think it is critical that we understand what the Greek term epairo ("lifted up") means. It can mean to be exalted or lifted up in a metaphorical sense. This seems like the obvious meaning considering that Jesus is being "lifted up" into heaven. Of course, heaven is a metaphysical place. It isn't literally up or down or in any other direction. Jesus is being glorified and exalted as he enters into heaven in a cloud of glory. This understanding is confirmed in passages such as 1 Timothy 3:16 where he is said to have been "taken up in glory." Just as he left in glory, he will return in glory. He did precisely that in 70 AD when he brought an end to the Old Covenant, destroyed the Temple, and fulfilled all of the prophecies just as he said he would.

Now, it is important to recognize that interpreting prophecy correctly relies heavily on getting the timeline right. We can go all day long discussing how to interpret various apocalyptic passages, but it will be useless if we never agree on when they are supposed to happen. I tell you this: interpreting prophecy within a first-century context is absolutely possible. There are plenty of avenues to take. I believe the constraint of the imminent language has to play a role.

Regarding JWs, their eschatology is all over the map. I think they believe Jesus came in 1914 invisibly to make the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society his earthly kingdom. Of course, this is utterly ridiculous. Jesus came when he said he would in the first century and his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

 

All these statements say the, kingdom of God, son of man etc will happen shortly. Where does the Bible say it did happen? And if the Bible doesn't actually say it did happen due to it maybe being outside the writers period, when do you think it happened? A rough year or so.

Off course tstor you realise the statements from your last post are used by certain people to suggest the Bible is not true or God given.

 

Yes. Many unbelievers take the imminent passages and use them to undermine the authority of the faith. Jesus taught he was coming again within the lifetime of those around him. As a result, that teaching persisted through the NT writers. As someone who accepts the Bible as inerrant and wholly true, I cannot ignore such things. I believe C.S. Lewis commented on this very issue.