So, what are people living beyond the first-century, beyond the "time of the end" beyond the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, left with today? If all of the Bible is fulfilled completely, with no "ongoing" reality, what is left for believers today, and why should a person even believe? Is there life beyond physical death? Does one exist eternally with God in some sense of the word?

Yes...I'd like to see the answers to Larry's questions as well.

What happens after death for those of us today?
Should we even bother reading the bible, praying, going to church, helping others, paying tithes, etc...

Hello Larry and Patrick,

To answer your questions, if my view is correct (there’s a small chance I may be wrong), we will died like everyone else which it called annihilationism. Only chosen people (Hebrews) were saved and went into heaven during the parousia of Christ in the first century. I understand a lot of people are hoping to live forever after they died but it seems to me it is not God’s will for non-covenanted people.

I am just being honest what I’ve learned and seen from the Bible. I grew up in Christian (Baptist/Reformed) family and they are wonderful to me. I went to John MacArhtur’s Master’s College and taught Deaf Sunday School at his church for a few years. I already know “in and out” Church traditions (“Trinity”, “Dispensationalism/various futurist views”, “Hell”, “Preaching the Gospel” etc.). I’ve studied other views like JW, Mormon, Christian Identity, Christadelphian, SDA, Calvinism, Arminiansm, etc. and they have some truths and errors. That’s why God hasn’t manifested Himself for about 2,000 years and look at the Church history have gone wrong. Where is the “Holy Spirit” when you need ‘em?

I’m just enjoying to read the Bible and to figure it out which is the truth or not. I love to debate with the Christians in different views, especially in the forums. So, if my view is correct, I rather to know the truth, whether I like it or not than being a fool. However, in back of my mind I am hoping that there is life after death but I can’t guarantee it. This doesn’t mean that I can go on “sinning” and do something evil. I just happen to live in Judeo-Christian society in USA all of my life.

Does that answer your questions?

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

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).

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

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

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....

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.

 

Vinnie:

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Hi Ben,

 

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

 

Thanks,

 

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

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

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 :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

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 :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

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