All fulfilled and no "on-going fulfillment"

[Donald]

After The Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, no more:

1. Visions (2 Cor. 12:1)

2. Miracles (1 Cor. 12:10-11; 13:8-10)

3. Healings (1 Cor. 12:28-31)

4. Speaking in tongues (Mark 16:17; Acts 2:16-22; 1 Cor. 12:8-10, 30)

5. Power of the holy spirit

6. Inspired by God to write down

7. Angels manifestation

8. Circumcision (Rom. 4:9-13)

9. Sacrifices (Heb. 10:1-18)

10. Temple building

11. Satan, devil, old serpent

12. Beast

13. False Prophet

14. Harlot (apostate Israel)

15. Hades

16. Judgment

17. Resurrection

18. The coming (parousia) of Christ

19. Fire of Gehenna (“Hell”)

20. The “Church” (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers - Eph. 4:11-14)

21. Water baptism (Matt. 3:15; 28:18-20; 1 Cor. 1:14-17)

22. Passover/the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20, 30; 1 Cor. 11:23-26)

23. Evangelism (Matt. 24:14, 34; 28:18-20; Mark 13:10, 31; 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-48)

24. The Jewish Festivals

All Israel (12 tribes) were saved and reunited through their Messiah/Kinsmen/Savior/Mediator of the New Covenant. The harvest already gathered and there is no on-going fulfillment.

[timothy Wallace]

Hello Ben,

Thank you very much for replying....I love God's word and I love to study...I have been at this for a while and one day i looked at John 8:39-48 and started doing a study on Abraham's seed/race etc and everything change for me...I think it was Donald who said in a previous post about getting to the truth..I agree with that statement, but i have to be honest i don't know where this is going to lead me....I am a person who loves to study and research,but my eyes are seeing everything different... I see the Adam,creation,twelve tribes,end times all different...I am still not sure about all non-Israelites not being part of the covenant...Thank you for responding to my questions...I have been kicked out of so many Christian clubs for seeking the truth....This may be difficult but i cant stop now.

Thanks

Timothy Wallace

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Timothy:

    While I do not believe the Bible story (or any other adapted belief) has any appplication in today's society, and regardless geographic influence or ethnic liability, your question has merit and needs to be explored.

    I know biblical context always reflects a God-intercourse with his seed line peoples. This fact cannot be disputed with any degree of success. Should one chose to differ, he must mistranslate the biblical text. Of course, Bible principals, the seed line, descended down through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and into Twelve Tribe's progeny. There is no instance of God beneficence to other than seed line peoples. In this descent to Messianic rule, many non-Israelite rulers and armies were used as instruments of punishment and directors to the ultimate goal; but any other than Israelites were only tools to evolve the seed line cause: which cause was Messianic rule and vengeance at the close to an existentialism wished upon themselves (seed line peoples) and to relief from theological subjection at end of the very last Age, in the 'end time.' This was exactly as Peter expressed it: ". . . the end of all things."  Messiah was to rule only until he had conquered death (spiritual death). Upon which accomplishment he was to give up the kingdom. End to Temple worship, cessation of sacrifice and oblation, expiration of The Law: all these constituted sin or self-determination as it represented unwholesome appetites, or spiritual death. This could only be conquered by removal, or destruction.

   What are my own religious views?  Well, I am neither theist, deist, agnostic, nor atheist. You would think everyone should have some kind of committment, right? I will word this as carefully as I know how. I cannot be a theist, because this God was created especially for a particular ethnic designation. Unceasingly, these people are berated by their God (according to prophets) and their enemies -- because the majority were always unfaithful to their God. As a result of their infidelity, they and their geophysical comportment were called beasts, brothers, husbands, kings, kingdoms, chariots, devils, horses, creatures, Satan, Greeks, Gentiles, Egyptians, Edomites, Moabites, to name a few but always derogatorily; and the list extends to many number designations and including those carefully hidden dispensations in Daniel's coded message to his people. While the spirit of Messiah ruled the tiny, first century world of Heaven and Earth, his kingdom and influence did not extend very far outside of Israel, certainly not to this part of earth; therefore, I cannot be a theist.

    I cannot be a deist because such evades the duty and extent of theism; in the draconian limits imposed by those promoting such universal omnipotence, to be a deist is to be disloyal to any theocratic installation. Deism can be promoted only from an uninformed position.

    I cannot be an agnostic because agnosticism is also rooted in opinion, as are the 3000 different religious denominations now proliferating on countless street corners. Mankind is a sucker for the mysterious and his uncertain survivalist instinct. Notice, the agnostic, and fired-up religionist, must foster their jihad or crusade from superstitious generalities and never on syllogistic reasoning.

    I cannot be termed atheist because, I am impressed by philosophy espoused from the mind of a great thinker, Immanuel Kant: "No man has the intellect to deny another man's god." He was right, you know! You or I can invent as many gods as we can indulge, and no one can see into our mind and determine the efficacy or reality therein. One of my own sayings pretty well sums up the proliferation of all religion exsistentialisms: "God is an anomaly of the mind." I can invent a god, and you cannot deny it's existence. You can chose the biblical god, and no one can say the god is not real to you. It does not prove a superior intellect in either of us, only a conclusion from particular impressions.

    To answer your viewpoint question: I was raised in and attended the Church of Christ for about forty years. I was as steeped in soteriology as you can get -- until, suddenly, one day, I discovered the identity of Four Beasts in Daniel; such resulted in unraveling the puzzling treatment of Ten Horns on the Fourth Beast. From that day forward, the Bible symbols and numbers begin to take on a more sensible purpose.

    Yes, you can be consistently logical of the indoctrination impressed but still yet have a completely false view of Bible symbology and numbers. These hold the secret to a comprehensive viewpoint of the entire biblical intent. Jesus never said to study the New Testament; he said, in Matthew 22:29, to his 12 disciples: "Ye do err not knowing the scriptures, . . ." He spoke not of the New Testament but the Old Testament. That is where you must go if you are to unravel this mystery to your own satisfaction.

Thanks for listening,

Ben Winter

Author of:

THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

[timothy Wallace]

I am replying to the comments by Bennie Winter on Feb 22.....I am wondering what your world view on morality and ethics are? If you are saying that the bible is written to and for the 12 tribes than" Might is right" because than their is no law or God that non-Israelites have to obey.... Are you sure that the gospel was not for non-Israelites? What is your religious views? I am new to this site and your comments jumped out at me so i wanted to ask you.. Is it possible to be logically consistent but have a false view of things?..... A argument or view can have claims that are perfectly consistent with each other, but nevertheless the picture of reality it presents could be wrong.  I am Interested.

Thank you

Timothy Wallace

[Bennie Winter]

Vinnie:

In reply to the following comments by Bennie Winter on February 22, 2010 at 12:41pm           Delete Comment

Hi Fellows: If I might comment: The Bible is a worthy study; if for no other reason than its resistance to interpretation by antiquity's greatest minds. I have spent a life time trying to extract meaning from the Symbols, Numbers, and Parables. Once dedicated to the immortality ambition championed from the pulpit and from fellow adherents, now I am convinced of the absolute futility in such pursuits. In subtle allusions to principals and principles, this legal-historical instrument, as received, denies application or beneficence to all but the seed line peoples descending to twelve tribes' progeny. Only these can be involved in the God-marriage and in last of the Ten Ages clearly alluded in Daniel and Revelation symbology--even into the Jesus quote in Matthew, ". . . this world and the world to come." Gentile, as an excuse for inclusion, is not and inclusive excuse; rather, it is a word signifying twelve tribesmen with exogamous condemnation. Therefore, I challenge anyone to find the least hint of application or salvation for any but tribesmen blood in any biblical reference; notwithstanding, the grace allocation for such activity expired in the Age designated for its expiration. Ideas? Ben

 

 

We read a comment by Vinnie Siroison April 28, 2012 at 4:23am:      

     

Ben,

You said, "Gentile, as an excuse for inclusion, is not and inclusive excuse; rather, it is a word signifying twelve tribesmen with exogamous condemnation."

Can you explain what you mean by this, and what is your full understanding of WHO the Gentiles were in the New Testament??

I'm new to this web-site and trying to understand the view of Fulfilled Theology.

I've been able to get quite a bit of info from Rivers of Eden and he directed me here as well.

 

Ben's answer:

Vinnie:

Thanks for your interest. I find this a facinating study. For almost 2000 years, the biblical 'Gentile' has been misunderstood, misappropriated, and misapplied as an entity existing outside tribal designates. Almost always, the biblical reference is to house of Israel populations or tribe-nations; the few exceptions would be to house of Judah designates. Never does the Bible refer to nonethnic tribesmen as 'gentiles'; 'gentile' always refers to exogamously derived (mixed marriage) members of the Twelve Tribes -- even to calling such participants gentile, or 'Greeks.' Both were derogatory terms intended to shame tribal members (Hebrews) then adhering to Greek customs. As you probably know, the house of Israel was without a covenant for 1005 years, from the time of Solomon unto A.D. 30 (Acts 2:4) and out of 'every Nation (tribe) under heaven (heaven and earth complex),' Israel now on equal footing with Jews: Nations -- Twelve Tribe entities! That was the purpose of Messiah: to bring Israel (Ten Tribes) back into the tribal fold with house of Judah, confirmed at Matthew 15:24, "I am not sent but into the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  These are those gentiles generated from marriage outside tribal sanctions and such progeny as might result from foreign liaison or marriage -- strongly denounced at Nehemiah 13:23-:30. This then is the definition for exogamous. -- condemned for failure to keep the bloodlines pure unto Messiah. They were still considered to be descended from Abraham and liable for salvation or punishment at the 'end time' judgment

   I didn't word the comment too well: 'excuse for inclusion'; truly, I could have been more clear by writing: 'modern use of Gentile as a means to lure prospects into today's falsely promoted salvation expedient.' To be sure, salvation extended only to those who kept the law and were otherwise faithful to Messiah ("   Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." They had a millennium to seek salvation (forty years) -- then, all would be fulfilled. This length of time conforms to the period of 'grace' mentioned in biblical text. 'Grace' does not define 'unmerited favor' but an extension of time for renewal into conformity. While exampled as dedicated Christians, first century adherents had obligation to the law, feast days, and other Temple functions. Modernist dedicatees completely ignore these oft admonished instructions and pretend to be conformists. But we have great difficulty conforming to something never intended for our benefit.

Hope this better explains my former comments. Sorry if I rambled a bit. If I am still not clear, would be happy to try again.

Best Regards

Ben

[Vinnie Sirois]

Ben,

 

You said, "Gentile, as an excuse for inclusion, is not and inclusive excuse; rather, it is a word signifying twelve tribesmen with exogamous condemnation."

Can you explain what you mean by this, and what is your full understanding of WHO the Gentiles were in the New Testament??

I'm new to this web-site and trying to understand the view of Fulfilled Theology.

I've been able to get quite a bit of info from Rivers of Eden and he directed me here as well.

 

[Donald]

Hi Ben,

Do you think there were "the appearing of Jesus Christ with his holy angels" during 66-70 AD in the sky/air as we read some historical records? Please check this thread: http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/historical-records-w....

[Bennie Winter]

Sorry, I made a typographical error in the above. Please substitute principals for principles in the last paragraph's first sentence. If I might add further to Donald's comment, in his last paragraph: In 1 Timothy 4:14, written three years before II Timothy, we read: ". . . until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." Compare this statement with the II Timothy 1:10 advisory: "But is now made made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, . . ."  This, then, is proof positive that Paul lived intoParousia. He died soon after his second letter to Timothy. 'Now made manifest by theappearing' meansParousia was ongoing at his present time in 68 A.D. and therefore not possible for any future date. This also limits the date II Timothy could have been written.

Regards,

Ben

[Bennie Winter]

The Bible, intentionally, was written as an instrument hard to be understood. Even as the assembled parts were somehow selected and included in the whole, some errors occurred in assembly. For instance, the books of Daniel are erroneously collated. Correct order should be 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 8, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12. This erroneous collation adds an extra interpretation burden on exegetes frustrated by a totally symbolic and ordained prohibition from understanding until end times. Revelation should be inserted somewhere about midway in the New Testament assembly. Notwithstanding, the prophets testimony is written in a purposely coded manner as are the parables of Jesus. If any await Parousia, Daniel cannot be understood; however, Daniel has been recently and correctly interpreted. Is this not a profound indication? You and I are nowhere in Daniel's forecast.

We cannot have the hope so relevant to New Testament principles. And they were not going anywhere -- just promised relief from the tyrannically oppressive theology lived in the legal-historical account of their unruly self-determined existentialism.

Ben

 

 

 

 

we

[Donald]

Yes, as a preterist, I see that Paul plainly stated in numerous passages that the "end" of all things pertaining to salvation and the Kingdom of God occurred at the time of the parousia. Here are a few examples:

"For I (Paul) do not want you to be uniformed ... that a partial hardening has happened TO ISRAEL until THE FULL NUMBER OF GENTILES has come in, and thus ALL ISRAEL will be saved ..." (Romans 11:25-26). I think this text shows that Paul understood that all of the Jews (House of Judah) and Gentiles (House of Israel) would be saved at the parousia.

"But each in his own order, Christ the first fruits, after that, those who are Christ's AT HIS PAROUSIA, then comes THE END when he (Jesus) HANDS OVER THE KINGDOM ... for he (Jesus) must reign UNTIL he (Jesus) has put all his enemies under his feet" ... so that God may be ALL IN ALL" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). It seems evident here that there would be an "end" of all resurrection and judgement when the Kingom was completed at the parousia. It is also implied that Christ only needed to "reign" until that time in order to defeat his enemies.

"Now these things happened to them (Israel of old) as an example, and they were written for OUR instruction, UPON WHOM THE ENDS (plural) OF THE AGES (plural) have come" (1 Corinthians 10:11). Here it seems that Paul identified his own generation as the "consummation" of all the ages. The words "ends" and "ages" are both plural which implies a "consummation" of all the ages and not just the end of one age. This suggests that are no further ages in prophecy after the consummation at the parousia.

When I consider these passages at "face value" (just like the time statements) then I see that the parousia was the completion (1 Corinthians 13:10) of God's purpose and Kingdom. When the judgment occurred at the parousia, all of the believers were raised to be with Christ and the unbelievers perished (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

[Bennie Winter]

Hi Fellows:
If I might comment: The Bible is a worthy study; if for no other reason than its resistance to interpretation by antiquity's greatest minds. I have spent a life time trying to extract meaning from the Symbols, Numbers, and Parables. Once dedicated to the immortality ambition championed from the pulpit and from fellow adherents, now I am convinced of the absolute futility in such pursuits. In subtle allusions to principals and principles, this legal-historical instrument, as received, denies application or beneficence to all but the seed line peoples descending to twelve tribes' progeny. Only these can be involved in the God-marriage and in last of the Ten Ages clearly alluded in Daniel and Revelation symbology--even into the Jesus quote in Matthew, ". . . this world and the world to come."
Gentile, as an excuse for inclusion, is not and inclusive excuse; rather, it is a word signifying twelve tribesmen with exogamous condemnation. Therefore, I challenge anyone to find the least hint of application or salvation for any but tribesmen blood in any biblical reference; notwithstanding, the grace allocation for such activity expired in the Age designated for its expiration. Ideas?
Ben