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.

[Prabhu Das]

Brother, will you please... also list WHAT WE HAVE OR POSSES NOW?

[RiversOfEden]

 

Hi Ben,

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I think it was the "Jews" who were the "tribal narcissists" during the apostolic era (and not the rest of the Israelites who were considered "gentiles").

 

For example, we know that the Samarians were sons of Jacob (John 4:6, John 4:20) and were circumcised (since the apostles did not preach to any uncircumcised people before Cornelius, Acts 8:14-15; Acts 11:1-3) and yet the Jews considered them to be "foreigners" (Luke 17:11; Luke 17:18) and "had no dealings with them" (John 4:9).

 

We also know that Cornelius was "of another tribe" and yet it was "unlawful" for a "Jewish" Israelite to have any fellowship with him (Acts 10:28) because of the issue of "circumcision" (Acts 15:1).

 

This is why I'm not sure that references to "Babylonians, Persians, Medes, and Romans" necessitates that Daniel's visions had the heathens in mind.   By the time Daniel was given his visions, the Kingdom had already been divided and only some of the Israelites (Southern Kingdom, Judah, Benjamin, Levites) were considered "Israel".  All the other Israelites in captivity would have been known as "foreigners".

 

In Paul's letters, he uses the word "saints" to refer to his uncircumcised "gentiles" converts who were also "descendants" along with the circumcised Jews (Romans 4:16-18) and they all had "Abraham as (their) forefather according to the flesh" (Romans 4:1).   Paul defined "the whole world" of his day as both Jewish and gentiles Israelites who were "accountable to the Law" (Romans 3:19-20).

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Bennie Winter]

Comment by Donaldon March 31, 2012 at 11:12am           

Hi Ben,

Sorry, Don:

I overlooked your enquiry copied and pasted below.

Even though I have read Josephus two or three times, I do not believe people images were seen over Jerusalem during the VENGEANCE wrecked there in Messiah's final Parousia year. Josephus was present though a prisoner of Titus, and he wrote glowing accounts of the great activity conducted. However, the Hebrew writers were habitually addicted to hyperbole; I have no reason to think otherwise of Josephus; nonetheless, let's assign my impression to speculation and try to intercept the biblical scenario involving prophetic exaggeration: Messiah coming on the clouds of heaven. This in itself might give some of us pause; for, indeed, the great army of soldiers, logistical array, suppliers, slaves, and animals would indeed raise clouds of indication, of Messiah coming on the clouds of heaven. Evidence is so scarce as to make it anyone's best guess. I choose to believe it as clouds of smoke, dust, and vapor: the same kind that Jesus disappeared into as he left the approach to Bethany and evidently disappeared in the dust and smoke and took his place in heaven, next to the Father (according to a combination of Mark and Luke closing accounts). Now, you must know where the Father resided! If Messiah ruled from the Inter Sanctum alongside the Father, then, his place in heaven would have to be in the inner-Temple! So, I think the appearance in heaven was evidential of a great ground army doing its Parousia work, and at the same time evidencing angels or evidence of the constant message extoling His coming on the clouds of Heaven. There was a lot of smoke, dust, and vapor surrounding the battle and Temple activity.

Best Regards,

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]

Hello to RiversOfEden:

I will copy your notes and enquiry into this comment space and answer in bold print. We can all learn from an exchange of ideas.

Thanks for your comments.

Ben

Comment by RiversOfEden7 hours ago

Hi Ben,

 

Thanks for the reply and the clarification of your view.

 I took the pseudonym of "RiversOfEden" because I think the key to understanding scripture is to see that "the heavens and earth" that were created for Adam in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) was the same geographic location as the Promised Land where Abraham and his descendants were later given as an inheritance (Genesis 15:18; Joshua 1:4) and became known as the Kingdom of God (because the Israelites were living there).

RiversOfEden:

While much of what you say is true: covenant essence existed only as a pledge to dedication between a jealous God and his wayward wife (seed line peoples). Always, such relations were considered in a marriage capacity: thus, the oft misinterpreted interchange at the well of Sychar. Here, we intercept a parallel between the covenanted peoples in an age format and the diverse relations endured or enjoyed by the Sychar woman -- in the several marriage episodes and the present unmarried and uncovenanted relations paralled in house of Israel status. They too had unsanctiomed relations with their Head of the House, much as demonstrated in the present status of the Jesus-encountered wife (Sychar woman). Over the past Five Ages, Israel (the Sychar Woman was of the house of Israel, as opposed to the house of Judah) had suffered status as un-covenanted, as was the woman used in parable. Israel (ten tribes) was without a covenant since Solomon's death. It would amount to 1005 years of uncovenanted existence, by my reckoning, until restoration by the directive at Matthew 15:24: "I am not sent but into the lost sheep of Israel." Obviously, at this juncture, the house of Israel would soon be restored to covenant status: at the beginning of a New Age, a new covenant.

The "river that flowed out of Eden" was the Jordan River, and there were 4 rivers that came to a head in that same location. The Bible narrativespeaks rather vaguely about these four rivers, but the Four Rivers did not seem to head in the garden, only in Eden. And the garden did not seem to cover the whole of Eden. In fact, a garden, by its very nature, would not seem to cover the whole of any thing. We know one river was Nile, another Euphrates, and we must use a system of relative negativity to determine the other two. Thus, the rivers along with the Mediterranean Sea) were named as the natural borders of the Promised Land and the Kingdom (this Kingdom ruled over the Twelve Kingdoms of the seed line progeny, the Twelve Tribes) of God throughout scripture (1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chronicles 9:26).I cannot visualize 'throughout scripture' in your references. The Ten Tribes were 'unruly, naked, and living among the tombs' for over a millennium. The account of Jesus' encounter in the country of Gadarenes, is no unsolvable mystery at all, as claimed by traditional exegetes.  The anomaly of one man, two men, and Legion, are representative of only one entity, house of Israel  and not excluding house of Judah (Two Men). I write this as an adjunct to undefined links of and to Kingdom subjects.

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

Comment by RiversOfEden6 hours ago

Ben,

 

Here is a thought/question I have about your previous explanation of the "ten ages".

 

Wouldn't it be possible for God to give the Messianic Kingdom to "Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans" in the last days since many of the Israelites (both Jewish and gentiles) had become known as citizens of those countires by the time of Christ (Acts 2:5-11)? RiverOfEden, I would attempt to answer with another question: What would they do with it, if they were even relevant? Since the Four Entities had no covenant and the Babylonians completely destroyed; the Persians had long past ceased to exist! Tribal narcissists never admitted to ever having been subject to slavery. While they spoke a language that had become native to them, they were still children of Israel. Acts 2:7: "Galilaeans -- all speaking a foreign language".  While suffering bondage under the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans, such bondage was apart from Kingdom Status. These entities, as conquering giants, as well as the Messianic Kingdom, did not exist in the time of Christ. Clearly, Daniel 7:27 would limit the Kingdom recipient to Saints -- as defined by those included in the grace incentive, in millennial context, and in the sense of post-Acts 2. I think: 'understanding the nature of Heaven and Earth' will not suffice to furnish understanding for the Bible remainder. Could such Heaven and Earth understanding point to deciperment of Daniel 2:31 body parts? Would Heaven and Earth understanding open Daniel Chapter Eleven to perceptive reading? I think, only a complete understanding of Daniel Chapter Seven will open the Bible to full understanding. Oh! And how about this: Who can give a clear elucidation of the Sadducees' trick question at Matthew 22:28.  Thank you for stirring my own recollections. I'm sorry if this attempt is not entirely coherent. Best Regards,

Ben Winter

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

 

[RiversOfEden]

Ben,

 

Here is a thought/question I have about your previous explanation of the "ten ages".

 

Wouldn't it be possible for God to give the Messianic Kingdom to "Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans" in the last days since many of the Israelites (both Jewish and gentiles) had become known as citizens of those countires by the time of Christ (Acts 2:5-11)?

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[RiversOfEden]

Hi Ben,

 

Thanks for the reply and the clarification of your view.

 

 I took the pseudonym of "RiversOfEden" because I think the key to understanding scripture is to see that "the heavens and earth" that were created for Adam in the beginning (Genesis 1:1) was the same geographic location as the Promised Land where Abraham and his descendants were later given as an inheritance (Genesis 15:18; Joshua 1:4) and became known as the Kingdom of God (because the Israelites were living there).

 

The "river that flowed out of Eden" was the Jordan River, and there were 4 rivers that came to a head in that same location.  Thus, the rivers (along with the Mediterranean Sea) were named as the natural borders of the Promised Land and the Kingdom of God throughout scripture (1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chronicles 9:26).

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Bennie Winter]

Hi RiversOfEden:

Your pen name is intriging! I did spend a great length of time determining the geographic constancy of the Four Rivers given mention in Revelation 2. Clearly, Eden and the garden have different definition. Donald has a map depicting River Of Eden extent, plus exact location of the Garden and the River watering it. But that does not answer your enquiry. Suffice to say: the four rivers do not intersect and are widely dispersed.

Daniel Seven's vision is quick to depict Ten Ages, of which the Four Beasts represent one Age each. These Four Beasts are also called by a different name later in the Chapter (:17 and :23): kings and kingdoms. These were to make war against Messiah in the 'end time' and Messiah was to give the theocratic kingdom to the Saints? It would have been most difficult to give the Messianic Kingdom to Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans. We can know the traditional interpretation (of Daniel Beasts) to be in error: most obviously, the Babylonians, Medo-Persians, Greeks (European Country), and Romans cannot be the Four Beasts to make war against Messiah's kingdom. Such uncertainity must give us pause; therefore, we must infuse intellect with the proper facts to try and solve the discrepancy.

Gabriel, in the mind of Daniel (Daniel was asleep, you know), gave such a cleverly coded character to each Beast as to make them most difficult to identify. Importantly, Daniel Chapter Twelve prohibits any understanding of the vision until Parousia even as were the teachings of Messiah during his ministry (if not understandable, his ministry would have obligation to be continuous into todays religious climate). Therefore, if one can prove Parousia to  be future of current existentialisms, then Daniel is still secret, resistent to interpretation, and theocratic rule (Temple Worship, sacrifice and oblation, and all the ordinances) would still be an obligation for seed line peoples. Notwithstanding, if Parousia should be still future, then my perspective is of little value and should be ignored.  

One should be aware, the Fourth Beast never attained physical stature; it was representative of the First Three Beasts. Basically, the Fourth Beast was the rebellious essence of the Three Great Kingdoms in Tribal history. Shortness of time prevents a detailed study of this topic so wrongly interpreted ever since its publication. Even those on scene did not understand the implications, not even Daniel! Even John shortened the number of Ages (although par with Daniel's discription after three were plucked up) to Eight: not because of an attempt to correct Daniel but as an expedience. 

It is important for each Bible exegete to spend the necessary time to elicit meaning from an instrument so designed as to confuse those intended. Otherwise, one beholding my perspective is most likely to discount the entire idea as hogwash. Yet, Bear Beast actions hold the key? This should cause an evaluation of tradition's Four Beast assigns. From there, we begin to consider new possibilities. You can do it; just remember the requirement of two witnesses.

Hope I have helped,

Ben

Ben Winter

Author of: THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

[RiversOfEden]

Hi Ben,

 

Can you give a brief outline of how you interpret Daniel 7 and the "ten ages"?

 

Thanks,

 

Rivers :)

[e-mail]

[Bennie Winter]

Thanks Vinnie and Tim:

Bible intrepretation is a tricky business. Always, a prejudice or two sways our thinking toward traditional paths. And the wise must overcome emotions and prejudices to the absorbtion of syllogistic conclusions --  remembering those facts and conclusions from witness in the rendering of other studies. Let me hasten to say: a little religion never hurt anyone. In fact, biblical morals are an assist to living in a world becoming increasingly amoral. Kindness and benevolence are a true asset in any existentialism. Having said that, I would be quick to denounce established religions as a farce and imposition. Never, can one prove the efficacy of modern soteriology. It cannot be done except one lie to himself with false interpretation and impose a misleading time line.

Therefore, to explain the modern dilemma, I would report on a lifetime of study, building on syllogistic determinations: if a conclusion cannot agree or compliment a former conclusion then it must be discarded as unworthy the legal-historical framework. Write down those life-changing determinations and attempt to prove them correct or in error. This is the only way to arrive at the truth. Modern preachments are a hindrance not a help.

One thing I would caution everyone: be sure you understand the entire book of Daniel; it holds the key to all Bible understanding, expecially Daniel Seven. Daniel did not know his own mindful dreams. Jesus withheld knowledge from the thousands following him about on the countryside, speaking to them in parables. At the same time, Jesus berated his Disciples, later to become Apostles, because they could not understand the numbers he justaposed concerning the Tribes and Ages. And who can connect the woman's affairs record, established at the well of Sychar, with the vaguely outlined Ten Ages dreamed by Daniel? Even Daniel did not know!

I say all that to say: If those on the scene could not understand, How can modern exegetes hope to understand except  by a lucky discovery or some other fortunate extraction. To understand the Bible requires a lifetime of study --  but no guarantee of correct understanding. But it is fun and rewarding. Remember what I said about Daniel Seven. One cannot understand the Bible unless he can decipher Daniel'a symbol and number array. And if one is uncertain about the Four Kings yet to rise up in Persia (Dan. 11:2 [not 'from' Persia but 'in' Persia]), How can he determine identity for the Four Beasts inviting John to "Come and see." in Revelation?

The Bible is a wonderfully and marvelously secreted assembly.

Anyway, I love to debate the issues and indulge in the required studies.

Best Regards,

Ben

[Vinnie Sirois]

Hi Ben,

I also appreciate your detailed reply to Tim. You made some comments that were well thought out.

 

You said, "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."

This is true because men will always use their specific religions to feed their angry and unstable emotions, rather than thinking logically or outside of their religious box.

And this is the problem with religions that are trying to force themselves as dominant viewpoints, such as Islam and Judaism (and somewhat Christianity) - religions that are vying for 1st place through deception and violent force. And think about it - all 3 of these religions have their basis on Old Testament Judaism (along with the modern day cults - JW's; Mormons; SDA; Christadelphians; etc..).

 

Think of all of the sects just within Christianity, that are constantly fighting and debating about doctrinal issues -

If you don't speak in tongues then you're not right with God.  If you're immersed instead of sprinkled in Baptism you're not right with God.  If you don't support Israel as God's chosen people, then you're not a true christian.

 

I myself was deemed a heretic from a church counsel for being a Preterist - a church that I preached and taught at for 13 years.

 

None of this in-fighting or finger pointing would ever take place if sensible "Christians" would take a look at the Historical Relevance of God's specific redemptive plan for a specific people in a specific period of time.