ECT Help needed. Best Rebuttals to Jews For Judaism

[Jerry Shugart]

Hey, it would be fun for you and I to have a personal message discussion about this. I see this as already having being fulfilled just after the tribulation of 70 AD because of the symbolic nature of the language.

When you use the word " tribulation" are you referring to the " great tribulation" spoken of at Matthew 24:21?

 

[7djengo7]

Do you think this throne is the same physical throne that King David sat on? If so, where is this throne? Does it still exist? Is it hidden away in somebody's attic somewhere? Or is it merely a literary symbol that means kingship?

What do you think?

So, you think that the phrase "the throne of David" is a literary symbol that stands for kingship? For whose kingship? It's interesting how, in your view, a Bible phrase of some specificity ("the throne of David", "a thousand years") ends up becoming merely a symbol for something vague, and much less specific than the phrase, itself, appears, prima facie, to be--or of virtually zero specificity: "kingship of nobody in particular, over nobody in particular, at no time in particular", and "a period of n years". What (if anything) do you imagine you get out of such useless "information" as that?

 

[7djengo7]

Notice that the reference to the thousand year reign does not say anything about earth.

Notice that, according to your view, the reference to the thousand year reign does not even say anything about the thousand year reign.

 

[Freedm]

Are you going to also tell me that Act 1 is also not literal? Was it also a figurative "Mount of Olives"?

The part where Jesus stands upon the mount of olives and it splits in two? Yes, I believe that is figurative language.

Acts 1 says that a cloud received Jesus out of their sight. There is no reason to take that figuratively. It also says that He will return "in like manner as you have seen Him go". Also no reason to take that figuratively.

True, not everything is figurative. I believe that he literally and physically rose up from the ground and disappeared through the clouds. Then again, it's possible that I'm wrong, and that this is also figurative. Either way, we have to consider that anything could be figurative, as that was the norm in writing during that time. Writing was not about presenting accurate facts or retelling history as much as it was about conveying imagery primarily to make a point, and when God is described as having thunder at his feet the imagery is obvious, and the point is that he was angry. Being enrobed in clouds to convey power and authority is less obvious but becomes more so as you see the patterns in scripture.

 

[Freedm]

Notice that, according to your view, the reference to the thousand year reign does not even say anything about the thousand year reign.

Are you referring to my position that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years? If so, does that nullify my point about there being no reference to earth during the thousand years? Or does my point still stand?

 

[Freedm]

So, you think that the phrase "the throne of David" is a literary symbol that stands for kingship? For whose kingship? It's interesting how, in your view, a Bible phrase of some specificity ("the throne of David", "a thousand years") ends up becoming merely a symbol for something vague, and much less specific than the phrase, itself, appears, prima facie, to be--or of virtually zero specificity: "kingship of nobody in particular, over nobody in particular, at no time in particular", and "a period of n years". What (if anything) do you imagine you get out of such useless "information" as that?

I believe "the throne of David" absolutely refers to kingship over Israel. Not sure why that's so hard for people to grasp. I had a conversation on this thread earlier with someone about what they believe "the throne of David" really is, and when we got down to the nitty gritty, even he agreed that it was not a physical chair, but amounted to simply kingship.

What about you? Do you believe the throne of David is a physical chair? And if so does it have to be the exact same physical chair that David said on, even though it has since long been lost and destroyed? I'm sure you don't believe that. So what is it then, if not kingship? Are we really disagreeing here? Or are we arguing about semantics?

 

[Freedm]

It's interesting how, in your view, a Bible phrase of some specificity ("the throne of David", "a thousand years") ends up becoming merely a symbol for something vague, and much less specific than the phrase, itself, appears, prima facie, to be--or of virtually zero specificity: "kingship of nobody in particular, over nobody in particular, at no time in particular", and "a period of n years". What (if anything) do you imagine you get out of such useless "information" as that?

I never said kingship of nobody in particular. I said kingship over Israel and that is very particular. I also said he is the king over Israel right now, and that too is very specific, but as for the time that his kingship ends, nobody knows, only the father. Is that hard for you to accept?

 

[Freedm]

Would you say no one can have all power and authority and not be POTUS? Would you say that Jesus is POTUS? Would you say that Jesus currently reigns, as POTUS, from Washington, D.C.? Would you say that in, say, A.D. 1100, Jesus was reigning, as POTUS, from Washington, D.C.? How could Jesus, in A.D. 1100, have had all power and authority and not have been, in that day, POTUS, reigning from Washington, D.C.?

I find it puzzling and absurd that you would compare the reign of Jesus to that of POTUS. Two completely different kingdoms and two completely different positions of authority. What point are you trying to make here?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Please explain that.

Could you tell me why anyone should believe that the land the LORD gave to Jacob is land that will be on the new earth and it is not land which is on the present earth:

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwell...My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez.37:25-28).​

 

[Freedm]

The Hebrew word 'owlam is translated "everlasting" and that word does not always refer to endless time. When that word is used as referring to the future, as at Jeremiah 32:40, then the meaning of that word is "defined by the nature of the thing itself": "It more often refers to 'future time,' in such a manner, that what is called 'terminus ad quem,' it is always defined by the nature of the thing itself" (Geseniu's Lexicon).

The context in which the word 'owlam is found determines the length of the "age" to which it refers. For instance, consider the following verse:

"And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever ('owlam)" (Ex.21:5-6).​

Here it is said that if a servant desires to stay with his master for the rest of his life then "he shall serve him for ever." By the context we can understand that the servant will not serve his master for eternity or for an endless amount of time but instead for the remainder of his life.

In order to illustrate this principle let us look at what is said in regard to the land that God gave to Jacob:

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwell...My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore (`owlam)" (Ez.37:25-28).

It is not possible that the Lord will shall be in the midst of them throughout eternity since the land which God gave Jacob is going to be destroyed at some time in the future:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved...Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Pet.3:10-11, 13).​

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest" (Heb.1:10-11).​

Of course that will not happen until after the Millennium is over and that kingdom is delivered up to the Father in the eternal state:

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor.15:24).​

Now that I have answered you please tell me why anyone should believe that the land the LORD gave to Jacob is land that will be on the new earth and it is not land which is on the present earth:

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwell...My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez.37:25-28).​

Good point and good answer.

However, the wording of verses 26 and 27 mirrors the verses we see in Revelation 21 which describes believers living on the new heaven and new earth.

Ezekiel 26:27
Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Revelation 21:3
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.

The two preceding verses in Revelation 21 (verses 1 and 2) make it clear that this is a reference to the new heaven and new earth.

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.




Also, Ezekiel 37 begins with a description of the resurrection which is to take place immediately prior to our inheriting of the new earth.

 

[Right Divider]

The part where Jesus stands upon the mount of olives and it splits in two? Yes, I believe that is figurative language.

• That's not Acts 1
• That's not figurative.
• You see everything as figurative.

True, not everything is figurative. I believe that he literally and physically rose up from the ground and disappeared through the clouds.

Literal clouds? If so and since in His return He "shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven", why isn't His return also literal clouds?

Then again, it's possible that I'm wrong, and that this is also figurative. Either way, we have to consider that anything could be figurative, as that was the norm in writing during that time.

And there is your problem. No, it was not "the norm".

We don't simply broad-brush the scripture that way. There must be a valid reason to understand that something is figurative. Otherwise, as you've shown, just about everything is "figurative".

Writing was not about presenting accurate facts or retelling history as much as it was about conveying imagery primarily to make a point, and when God is described as having thunder at his feet the imagery is obvious, and the point is that he was angry. Being enrobed in clouds to convey power and authority is less obvious but becomes more so as you see the patterns in scripture.

What a mess you make.

 

[Freedm]

Could you tell me why anyone should believe that the land the LORD gave to Jacob is land that will be on the new earth and it is not land which is on the present earth:

"And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwell...My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" (Ez.37:25-28).​

I believe I partially answered that in my previous post. The wording there is mirrored in Revelation 21. Do you agree that Revelation 21 refers to the believers inheriting the new earth? Is the new earth not considered "land"?

And don't forget that the promises God made to Abraham were made to Abraham and his seed, as in Jesus. And if the promises were made to Jesus, and Jesus lives in us, then by extension those promises were made to us. Do you believe that?

Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

If you don't believe that the land was promised to Christ, then how do you explain this verse?

 

[Right Divider]

I believe "the throne of David" absolutely refers to kingship over Israel. Not sure why that's so hard for people to grasp. I had a conversation on this thread earlier with someone about what they believe "the throne of David" really is, and when we got down to the nitty gritty, even he agreed that it was not a physical chair, but amounted to simply kingship.

What about you? Do you believe the throne of David is a physical chair? And if so does it have to be the exact same physical chair that David said on, even though it has since long been lost and destroyed? I'm sure you don't believe that. So what is it then, if not kingship? Are we really disagreeing here? Or are we arguing about semantics?

Yes, the throne of His father David is a physical chair AND the kingship of Israel in the land of Israel. Particularly, in Jerusalem.

 

[Freedm]

You see everything as figurative.

You say that right after I told you that I believe Jesus literally and physically ascended up from the earth and out of sight through the clouds.

And there is your problem. No, it was not "the norm".

Yes, it was the norm.

We don't simply broad-brush the scripture that way. There must be a valid reason to understand that something is figurative. Otherwise, as you've shown, just about everything is "figurative".

I didn't say we should "broad brush scripture that way". Of course there are reasons for understanding things as being figurative, but I'm starting to get the impression that you're afraid of literary symbolism. Why does it scare you so much that you're willing to vilify a brother in Christ for seeing symbolism where you don't see it?

Isn't it possible that you're missing something?

 

[Right Divider]

You say that right after I told you that I believe Jesus literally and physically ascended up from the earth and out of sight through the clouds.

Okay fine... you see ALMOST everything as figurative.

Once again: Since in His return He "shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven", why isn't His return also literal clouds?

Yes, it was the norm.

No, it wasn't.

I didn't say we should "broad brush scripture that way". Of course there are reasons for understanding things as being figurative, but I'm starting to get the impression that you're afraid of literary symbolism.

You're wrong again.

Why does it scare you so much that you're willing to vilify a brother in Christ for seeing symbolism where you don't see it?

Never once have I "vilified" you. Do you have a persecution complex?

Isn't it possible that you're missing something?

Possible, but not likely in this case.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It still doesn't say Jesus will reign on the earth during the thousand years.

Who is Jesus going to rule?

Revelation 19:15 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.​

 

[Freedm]

Yes, the throne of His father David is a physical chair AND the kingship of Israel in the land of Israel. Particularly, in Jerusalem.

Oh. A physical chair you say? Do you mean the same exact chair that King David sat on? Do you know where this chair is? Is it in a museum somewhere?

 

[Right Divider]

Oh. A physical chair you say? Do you mean the same exact chair that King David sat on? Do you know where this chair is? Is it in a museum somewhere?

You are DEAF. I ALREADY told you that is does NOT have to be the EXACT SAME PHYSICAL chair that king David sat upon.

Your "talking points" are not proving anything... except that you cannot have an intelligent discussion with another human being.

 

[genuineoriginal]

First of all, you can't disprove what I showed you by simply claiming that the wrath of God precedes the thousand years, unless you've first proven that the wrath of God precedes a thousand years. And even then you would have to reconcile the scripture I showed you to explain how the seventh trumpet does not coincide with the judging of the dead or God's eternal reign, as it states. Good luck.

Jesus returns to earth to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

Revelation 19:11-15 11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.​

Jesus rules until He puts all enemies under His feet and the last enemy is death.

1 Corinthians 15:25-26 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.​

Death is not destroyed until after the thousand years.

Revelation 20:5,14 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.​

So, what part of Jesus rules the nations on earth with a rod of iron for a thousand years are you still confused about?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So knowing that Jesus currently has all authority and power, you must then also believe that he's currently sitting on the throne of David. Correct?

He is not yet sitting on the throne of David, but He will sit on that throne during the 1,000 year reign of Christ.