What's the point of the 1000 yr reign?

[mfblume]

Daniel12,

I wish you would quit the hostility and demeaning. It does not speak well for your doctrine.

But let me say this, and I will get to the rest of your post later since I am busy this afternoon, that many WANT to read about preterism and asked me in their PM's to continue, and many have come to view it as truth as a result.

[mfblume]

Daniel12, do not forget that there is no viewpoint that is outright carnal foolishness. People have more brains than that. And repeatedly demeaning preterism as you do, should cease. If you did have truth, hardly any preterist would listen to you since you are violating Paul's admonition to not strive but be gentle in case you are able to get someone to deliver themselves from error. However, I personally see that false prophets tend to have bad fruit, too (Matt 7).

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Bro. Blume
Look at what you said, You quoted me (out of context IMO) and said:
"Funny that the bible says differently."
You cited Heb 12:22-23 and Gal 4:26, and then you said,
"I am in the Heavenly Jerusalem now, and I enjoy Acts 2:38. Paul said if any man preach any other gospel, let him be accursed."

Now please, what am I supposed to make of this, when you obviously made no attempt at all to even find out what context I may have had in mind. Your very first attempt was not to ask me for clarification, but to go straight for the jugular and imply -while in the context of addressing me- that I should be accursed. You then have the audacity to tell me I misunderstood you?? Please!! I fully understand the limitations of these forums, nor do I know your sense of humor, but I don't think I missed anything when I read that post.

Godsdrummer writes

Daniel 12 excuse me but I have to step in here I have been reading the whole thread and I see exactly what Mike is stating. You are on the defensive as I see it against preterism. Just as you say PP has too many problems I say futerism has more.

My point remains: Acts 2:38 is exclusively for the church age. In the age to come, when the Messiah is ruling from the city of Jerusalem and the devils are bound, then a totally different "spiritual climate" (if you will) will be in place. Thus it seems reasonable to believe that a different set of requirements for salvation will be in place at that time too. That's what I was trying to explain to TJJJ.

Godsdrummer writes

There is only one gospel of salvation when "God bankrupt heaven" as my pastor used to say to die on calvary to bring to world salvation why would God change the way we are saved. Here is a thought t think about, the whole plan of God was to bring mankind back into relationship with him. Not to send the world to hell or judgment. Man kind have distorted the plan of God and hence forth we have all these false doctrines running around the world. The is a reason time changes from BC to AD everything leads to that time. God has given us the way to come back into the relationship mankind had with God in the garden plain and simple, so you can continue looking for physical fulfillments to prophecy that has aready come to pass, or be part to the furthering of the kingdom of God today and make this a better world. Now to your questions:
I don't know. I do know we're in the spiritual realm right now -provided we have the Spirit of Christ in us, but I was referring to the New Jerusalem described in Rev 21.And how do you know this? Did you even read what that angel was preaching? Here, take a look at this in the NET:

14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, and he had an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth – to every nation, tribe, language, and people.
14:7 He declared in a loud voice: “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has arrived, and worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water!”

The gospel message that angel was proclaiming is highlighted in blue Bro. Blume. Judgment has come. Now how was this fulfilled in AD 70? Please tell us...if you can.It may or may not be, I don't know. But I was referring to the one in Rev 21 (which if it doesn't exist, then we perceive it by faith).I believe I did that, but if nothing ill was meant, then let's move on.

Sincerely, Daniel12

14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, and he had an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth – to every nation, tribe, language, and people.
14:7 He declared in a loud voiceFear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has arrived, and worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water!”
How did this happen in 70ad? The greatest sin was commited by the people of Israel when they crucified the Lord of Heaven. No other sin will ever and has ever been commited by man than to put the God of heaven on the cross. Hence the judgement of God was to destroy the city of Jerusalem and all those that crucified Jesus. This is past history so now we are to worship the one who made heaven and earth the sea and the springs of water. That is today, that is what the kingdom of God is to do worship God.

Godsdrummer/laromans12

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Concerning the angel in Rev 14:If you do a little research you'll find that in the first century "gospel" was applied to any message concerning Jesus and his teachings. In our time "gospel" has come to mean exclusively the four gospels.

"GOSPEL" means the good news, and this case it is of the Kingdom. Period. In our time it is not limited to the four gospels as you claim. And even if applied to the four Gospels, those books contain the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Everyone today knows GOSPEL refers to the message of salvation by the cross. Who does not recognize the Gospel as what we must preach today?

Here is something that should be profound to you. GOSPEL meant the same in Gal 1:8 as it did in Rev 14:6. to say anything else is to twist and wrestle the word of God to one's own destruction. And that is all we need to know. Paul said any other Gospel than what he preached, even if by an angel from heaven which directly associates the note with Rev 14, makes the preacher accursed.

This is a place where the historical-grammatical approach is helpful. As I pointed out,

Historical-grammatical approach is a farce. Dispensationalism proposes it uses the historical-grammatical approach, and H.A. Ironside said no one ever stated the OT prophets overlooked the church until Darby's writings. That shows that Dispensationalists believe for 1600 years the church did not properly understand Old Testament association with the Church in its writings. So what is so historical about Dispensationalism? Yet they claim that approach.

Then the grammatical aspect is a farce as well. There is no grammatical indication whatsoever whether or not Jesus meant his actual body was the bread of communion or that it represented His body. But we know it was representative. Grammar cannot tell us that, though. So there is no historical-grammatical approach. It cannot be consistently used in the bible! In some cases, yes!

the eternal gospel in Rev 14 -the news humanity has been crying out for since the fall- is that judgment has arrived.

The everlasting Gospel is salvation by grace. This occurred indeed since the beginning. GRACE allowed Adam to sacrifice. Grace allowed Noah to be spared. GRACE brought Abram out of the Chaldees. GRACE mad a covenant with Israel. Grace grace grace. But it progressed through the covenants until the great New Testament covenant of Grace, manifesting grace more than any before. And there is no improvement upon grace in the future that can occur. Hence, no more covenants.

Heb 8:7 distinctly says the only reason for more covenants is when the present one is faulty. There will be no further covenants nor further gospels.

Concerning my understanding that Acts 2 will be the salvation message in the age to come:And I claim you're reading into Paul's words, because he never taught or implied there were no other ages to come. See e.g. Eph 2:7.

I never said there would be no further AGES. I said there would be no further age with a different gospel or covenant. Do not build a strawman here.

Concerning the New Jerusalem:No it didn't, nor is the church ever called the NJ. That expression appears twice in REV, see 3:12 and 21:2. The author of Heb could have been indicating that even if we don't have the city of Jerusalem to come to, we still have a heavenly, or yes, spiritual one to come to. I don't see any reference calling the church either the heavenly Jerusalem, nor the New Jerusalem.

Regardless of what anyone says, Heb 12:22 plainly states that WE HAVE COME to the heavenly Jerusalem. Your grammatical approach must be destroyed in this verse if you claim it is not saying we already came to heavenly Jerusalem.

Verse 23 says AND TO THE CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN. So as much as we have come to the church, the context reads we have also come to the Heavenly Jerusalem. If we have not come to the heavenly Jerusalem, then we have not come to the church:

Hebrews 12:22-23 KJV But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, (23) To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Hebrews 12:22-23 ESV But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, (23) and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,

If that contradicts one's theology, then so be it. Let theology change, but not the Word.

BTW, check how many times the name Jerusalem even appears in REV, exactly three. (Besides the two I just gave, see 21:10.) This harks back to questions I've put to preterists many times, which not only go unanswered, but preterists never even acknowledge I've asked them.

Perhaps if you showed a better attitude with preterists and you may get more responses. But when you call them "unbelieving preterists" and that our belief "turns the promises of God into carnal foolishness", you won't get much response. We know you will only think of more negative epithets to hurl at us.

1.) If REV is concerned with the AD 70 siege, then why isn't it ever mentioned explicitly in REV? It's not even one of the cities in the greetings...does that make any sense at all?

It's so simple I am amazed you repeat this question. If this was written before AD70, then no one would know that the Lord would do this on that exact date. Jesus never said what date He would judge Jerusalem. He just said it was during that generation. We claim not knowing the day nor hour means that God did not want to reveal the date to anyone, let alone John. They only knew the season of it being in their lifetimes.

continued...

[mfblume]

2.) There are numerous references to the temple in REV, but none of them concern the destruction of the earthly temple. Why is this?

Rev 11 clearly refers to the temple destruction, which was obviously part of the Jerusalem destruction. You claim it is a heavenly temple. How is it that history distinctly reveals that Jerusalem was besieged for 3.5 years and this matches perfectly with the fact that Jesus said the stones would be thrown down in that generation's time period, and AD70 occurred in their lifetimes, and also that Rev 11 says the gentiles shall tread it down for 3.5 years? The exact same time! And Furthermore, how you can ignore this is purely due to self-blinding, but Jesus distinctly used the same terms as Rev 11 in speaking of the temple destruction in Luke 21! No one is as blind as someone who does not want to see. You do not want to see preterism. So your unreasonable bias blinds you to things anyone should easily see.

Luke 21:24 KJV And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 KJV But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

To continue:We could do a study on Isa 62 alone, but if one reads the chapter it should be clear the city of Jerusalem is being referenced there, and many of the promises there will be fulfilled in the age to come, the Messianic Age.

You assume that into the text. Meanwhile, the text itself does not say this will occur after the church age. You force everything into your predetermined mindset and as these verses pass through your perceptual grid (a grid not supplied by scripture, but by whomever taught you) you re-translate everything until you think it clear;ly says things it does not say at all.

Zion is referenced in Isa 62, and Heb 12: 22 says we have already come to Zion as much as we have come the church of the firstborn. Coincidence, is it, that every holy PLACE mentioned in the OT is referred to as the church in Heb 12?

Gentiles seeing righteousness and coming to light of Israel is mentioned in many chapters of Isaiah, and directly spoken to Israel. However, Acts 13:47 directly applied all of that to the church as though God directed the CHURCH to be that light.

Isaiah 62:2 KJV And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

Isaiah 49:3 KJV And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Isaiah 49:6 KJV 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.

Acts 13:47 KJV For so hath the Lord commanded us [THE CHURCH!!!], saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

The context shows us they (the people of Jerusalem) will never be abandoned when their deliverer comes. (Amen.) There's no indication throughout Isa 62 that this is anything other than the city Jerusalem.

Isaiah is full and jam-packed with references the apostles took to mean the church, whereas they were contextually written as speaking to Israel. How could the Apostles take Isaiah 49:6 that was distinctly spoken to Israel and apply it to the church in Acts 14:47?

And I don't agree with your understanding of the heavenly Jerusalem, nor the NJ. The heavenly one is the spiritual realm we're in now, and the NJ descends from heaven, Here's Rev 21:2 NET:

And you do not understand not want to see that revelation's city is perfectly symbolic of all that is said of the church, right down to the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while the NJ has twelve foundations of the apostles' names.

Architectural language:

Ephesians 2:20 KJV And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Revelation 21:14 KJV And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

To ignore that is to defy logic and blind oneself from anything other than what one already believes. Once again, D, you fulfill my motto: "Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."

21:2 And I saw the holy city – the new Jerusalem – descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband.

(I put "like" in orange to show a metaphor is intended.)

A metaphor? Can't be. Not in Revelation! Not in the city reference! LIKE is not necessarily indication of a metaphor, you know. The book says the CITY WAS THE BRIDE.

Revelation 21:9 KJV And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Revelation 21:10 KJV And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

He says He will show him THE BRIDE, not something LIKE a bride. And he showed him the city. The CITY is the BRIDE.

There is indeed a metaphor here, but not as your predetermined concept claims. The entire city is a metaphor for the church. A most holy place in Greek. This most holy place is a cube, just like the most holy place of the temple in 1 Kings 6:20. We are a temple, literally most holy place, according to 1 Cor 3:16.

We are the bride. John actually saw a CITY that he was told WAS THE BRIDE. Not just like a bride.

If you claim the CITY in Rev 21 is actually going to physically appear one day just as John saw it, HOW DID HE SEE IT ADORNED LIKE A BRIDE? Did he see a bridal gown on it, according to the Hebrew cultural way a bride dressed? If so, then you obviously do not believe the actual city to come will be dressed in a bridal gown. If the city is actual, why would he see a CITY that is physically going to come just as John saw it, and then see bridal gowns on a CITY (!) that actually WILL NOT be seen when the city comes? What is metaphor and what is not? What did he mean by it being adorned like a bride? What did he see to make him say that? Your view obviously lacks.

Don't try to find in this text of scripture what you already believe here, but try to see what the text is trying to tell you to believe.

yours turns the promises of God into carnal foolishness

If you can drop the epithets and remain civil, we can discuss more and respond to all you ask. If not, consider this my last post to you. I cut others off for lack of being civil, and I will do the same with you if you do not change.

God bless.

[Daniel12]

Bro. Blume
I honestly don't know what to make of you, your teachings...and the fact that anyone would bother PM-ing you. But I see that even here your pernicions partial preterism has infected someone above too.

You've already quoted me out of context once here, and now you ignore another post of mine. I see you now want to make the issue what "gospel" means. Why don't you start with the Wiki page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
The very first line reads: In Christianity, a gospel (from Old English, gōd spell "good news") is to be generally one of the first four books of the New Testament that describe the birth, life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

Then read in the etymology section where it says: In the New Testament, evangelion meant the proclamation of God's saving activity in Jesus of Nazareth, or the agape message proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth. Note that evangelion is the word for gospel in the Greek. Now check what I wrote in post # 30: "gospel" was applied to any message concerning Jesus and his teachings. My point was "gospel" has a more restricted meaning in the 21st century than it did in the 1st. Did anyone else miss what I said there?

Now what is the apparent contradiction you think you've found in my posts? You now say this:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is something that should be profound to you. GOSPEL meant the same in Gal 1:8 as it did in Rev 14:6. to say anything else is to twist and wrestle the word of God to one's own destruction. And that is all we need to know. Paul said any other Gospel than what he preached, even if by an angel from heaven which directly associates the note with Rev 14, makes the preacher accursed.

And this is strictly your opinion. So what are you now telling us, the angel in Rev 14 is to be accursed?? I don't understand what you're saying here at all. But I see you once again resort to long posts to try and obfuscate matters

Why do you even bring the dispensationalists into this, when I've said many times, I am NOT a dispensationalist? Why do you even mention this?

You now claim this:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said there would be no further AGES. I said there would be no further age with a different gospel or covenant. Do not build a strawman here.

And here's what you said in post #

Originally Posted by mfblume

And I claim that is entirely wrong. There will never again be any further requirements for salvation or redemption, whether or not the church age ends. When Paul spoke of no other Gospel being acceptable, I propose he was saying there will be no additional age with any other gospel. Your view requires you to add to what Paul said and claim Paul only meant no other gospel for THIS AGE. But he said no other gospel, period.

And what should we conclude from this, when you've just said there's no other Gospel? I honestly don't understand what you're telling us. What I've said is that there will be other ages, namely the Messianic Age to come, and that the salvation requirements will most likely be different. Because if the Lord's on the earth and the devils are bound, it would be confusion to have the outpouring of the HG too, unless of course we're trinitarians, then it would probably make sense. But we're not tritheists, so it doesn't IMO. But if you're proposing that there are other ages, with the same gospel, then it's still not clear to me what you believe...but what else is new. Because in ALL of our discussions, I'm the one who's always wrong, I'm the one with tinted glasses, I'm the one who needs to keep studying, I'm the one who's close-minded, etc., etc,...right?

No, the church is not the heavenly Jerusalem, nor the new Jerusalem of Rev. I see once again you insist on lifting metaphors/similes out of context in order to make the scriptures say something different from the natural reading. And I doubt I'm going to respond to you here either, if others want to, be my guest.

Daniel12

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

Bro. Blume
I honestly don't know what to make of you, your teachings...and the fact that anyone would bother PM-ing you. But I see that even here your pernicions partial preterism has infected someone above too.

You never quit the trash talk. Unbelievable.

And this is strictly your opinion. So what are you now telling us, the angel in Rev 14 is to be accursed?? I don't understand what you're saying here at all.

I am saying the angel in Rev 14 is not preaching anything other than what Paul preached according to Gal 1, since we know the angel was not accursed. So what did Paul preach? What is so hard about getting that from my points?

And what should we conclude from this, when you've just said there's no other Gospel? I honestly don't understand what you're telling us.

I am amazed that you do not get my points. If there is another age, then there cannot be another gospel in it, since Paul delineated that quite clearly, is my point.

What I've said is that there will be other ages, namely the Messianic Age to come, and that the salvation requirements will most likely be different.

And this makes your doctrine patently false.

Because in ALL of our discussions, I'm the one who's always wrong, I'm the one with tinted glasses, I'm the one who needs to keep studying, I'm the one who's close-minded, etc., etc,...right?

You told me you were closed minded to even considering preterism. So how on the Lord's good earth can you claim you are not to be accused of being closed minded? I've had enough of this. You refuse to be civil after several requests to you, and you ignore that and persist. I should not have even written this response. Forgive me, folks.

You ignored my points about the BRIDE aspect of the NJ, and accuse me of ignoring your points. And you really feel justified?

I will pray for you, seriously. Take care.

Folks, you will know a false or true prophet by the fruit of the Spirit that lacks or not, respectively.

[Daniel12]

Blume
Before I continue here, I'd really like an honest answer to this question: Are you going to continue inserting yourself into every discussion concerning prophecy I try to join in with in this forum? Do you really think yours is the one-and-only possible view, and that you're the undisputed expert on the Revelation? I've seen numerous threads where futurists were discussing, and you absolutely insist on showing up and pushing your stupid, insulting, demeaning, perverse, carnal foolishness of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation in every discussion. Do you ever just simply hold your peace and let others speak??

Originally Posted by mfblume

Folks, you will know a false or true prophet by the fruit of the Spirit that lacks or not, respectively.

In this thread you've already insinuated I should be accursed -like the devils preaching another gospel- and now you're suggesting I'm a false prophet...when I haven't even given an interpretation yet??

In any case, I didn't make the time to give a complete response to you post, which I doubt I will here either. But at least look at Rev 19:6-7. That's where the church is compared to a bride and the wedding supper has come.

In Rev 21 the NJ is compared to a bride being joined to the Lord, but it is not the church. Look at the physical description that follows in vv 12-21. This is not the church being described in any sense at all. Further, I guess I'll have to post all of Isa 62 as well.

BTW, I am NOT changing my views of preterism, (i.e,, any form of teaching that the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation are past, because I certainly understand the word preterit means past): Preterism is as much carnal foolishness as most of the futurist teaching I've read and listened to as well.

As far as I'm concerned, the vast majority of teaching on Revelation and the Olivet Discourse can go straight into the fire. That's where it belongs IMHO.

But if you insist on showing up in every thread I try to post on, and taking control of them, I will bring this to the admin's attention, if they're not already apprised of this. It's becoming rather annoying the way you show up, make insinuations, dodge the questions and points, flood the thread with long, off-topic posts, and try to shut down anyone with a futurist viewpoint on the Revelation. Good grief!!

Here's my solemn promise right now: I will NEVER AGAIN post on any thread started by you, or any thread where the preterists are sitting and yea-ing and amen-ing your teachings. That's finished. I fully intend to discuss preterism with the futurists, but I'm through having any direct discussions with you concerning your CARNAL FOOLISHNESS.

Now please answer my question above before I continue any discussion on Arphaxad's thread.


Thank you, Daniel12

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel12

In this thread you've already insinuated I should be accursed -like the devils preaching another gospel

I already told you I said the angel of Rev 14 would be a devil if it preached something other than the gospel Paul preached, implying it is not a devil and it preached the same Gospel Paul preached. What I said had nothing to do with implying you being a devil or accursed. So please stop repeating this. Thank-you! Anything I may have said that you took to be insinuations about you were not intended so by me whatsoever. I am sorry you felt they were.

[Daniel12]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I already told you I said the angel of Rev 14 would be a devil if it preached something other than the gospel Paul preached, implying it is not a devil and it preached the same Gospel Paul preached. What I said had nothing to do with implying you being a devil or accursed. So please stop repeating this. Thank-you! Anything I may have said that you took to be insinuations about you were not intended so by me whatsoever. I am sorry you felt they were.

At this point I'll let the readers decide for themselves what you said, and what you meant.

But you didn't answer my question: Are you going to continue inserting yourself and your beliefs into every prophecy discussion futurists try to engage in here, more specifically, the ones I try to join in with in AFF? I think I made it clear I'm no longer responding to your threads. Now unlike most of the fine folks here, I am not going to be polite or indiscrete with my opinions of preterism. Honestly, I think I've been very clear and direct about this (as transparent as possible in fact). IMO, IF preterism were in fact truth, it should be so clear, convincing and overwhelmingly obvious that the majority of Christianity would endorse it. But the fact remains that the vast majority of Christians -not just OP's- do not accept it as truth. Further, most OP's (probably 95%+ I suspect) are futurists, not preterists. So why do you insist on being argumentative and pushing this teaching into nearly every prophecy discussion here, even when people tell you they don't care for it, or believe it? Can you please answer my question above?
__________________________________________________ _________________
I wanted to make mention of a couple other things here too. One is that I'm not an expert on the history of either preterism, or the history of the various approaches to the Revelation either. I've been looking at Wiki sites (and others) and I think I'm mistaken about preterism originating in the 4th century. It seems (and here again, I'm not the expert) that the earliest non-futurist approach to the Rev was historicism, not preterism. Further, it appears that a Jesuit of the counter-reformation sect wrote the first systematic preterist teaching during the late 16th century. In any case, preterism is of RCC origin and is not something the early church ever taught or believed. So why should we?
__________________________________________________ _________________
Now, I wanted to address the thread topic directly: What's the point of the thousand year reign? The first and most direct response that came to me was...to fulfill prophecy. But which prophecies, and why? Addressing the specific prophecies would be a lengthy response, so I'll wait to see how much interest there is first.

Recently I was studying some sites where Jewish writers were addressing the subject of the Messianic Age. Since they seem to know the OT pretty well (they quote the Hebrew directly, plus they only have a few thousand years worth of teaching on the matter, so I suppose they might be on to something), I actually learned a good deal reading their sites. One of the things I found though, was that people of the Jewish faith cite a lot of these teachings (what we would call Messianic Age teachings) for reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah. They also point out that since there's no explicit teachings that the Messiah would make two appearances, everything pertaining to the Messiah should have been accomplished in one visit. If you believe the apostle's teachings, then I'm sure you see the problem. We believe by faith that since the gift of the Lord's Spirit has been fulfilled, then all the other Messianic prophecies will be too in their own time. Thus an element of faith is always necessary, even when discussing prophecy. We never get away from the necessity of faith, until we commune with the Lord directly, which will happen in the age to come.

I'll try to follow up on this, time permitting, Daniel12