What if Jesus doesn't come back for another 100,000 years?

reply to post by SimonPeter

You have the constitution of a wet dish rag . . .

Not good cult material . . then, you mean?

Again you process a lot of words but you lack reading comprehension . . .

My comment is supported by someone who is pretty expert on all of this, Robert Jewett, who says in his commentary on Romans, that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah is Israel.
So it is the nation, in that case beaten up by Babylon.
Isaiah compares "him" with a sheep to the slaughter and a lamb to the shearers.
That part is what is supported by Jewett, and what follows is my use of that to interpret Revelation.
So in Revelation, John is borrowing Old Testament imagery to describe Christians as a new nation created out of many nations, who are also like the lamb, this time the victims of "tribulation" as their 'Babylon'.

. . . If you don't believe the bible why waste your time on it . . .

Apparently what you consider "believing in the Bible" is saying that everything between the covers of a book that you can pick up at a local book store, that says "Bible" on it, is the word of God, including all the forgeries of the New Testament, and all of the Old Testament.
I believe in what was written in the New Testament during the time when the Apostles were still alive.

You seem to have a problem with Jesus dying for your sins and shedding his own blood for you as a final sacrifice for sin . . .

Well, show me where it says in the Bible that Jesus was a "final sacrifice for sin".
There is nowhere that says that Jesus' blood pays for sin.
If there is, then make sure you jump right on it and correct my wrong opinion!

You have a problem also with the Lords supper and celebrating the Lords Supper . Jesus took bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said " Take , eat this is my body Jesus took the cup and gave it to them saying Drink Ye all of it: For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins. What gives with your Blood of Christ denial thing .

"What gives" is my problem with people promoting a theory of a 'blood for sins' payment scheme.
The NT explains itself, and we know that the blood seals the covenant, which is a way towards salvation, and it is a 'redemption' from the transgressions connected with the old covenant. The redemption is not done by somehow 'paying off' the old covenant, but it is meant in the sense of being set free, a 'deliverance' from being concerned with all the legalistic minutia of a Law that is not capable of making a person 'holy'.

reply to post by jm dewey 60


Matthew 26 verse 28 explains it . Then I repeat my claim that you cannot comprehend what you read . I don't guess that the words of Jesus mean anything . You have rejected every thing about salvation , grace and mercy from the acceptable sacrifice for sin provided by God .

Yes the sacrifice will start again by a non believing Jewish group who do not reverence Jesus .But that may be over your head for now .
You have unorthodox views Mr Dewey, distant from the majority of people . And I feel you are being disingenuous with the wording of your questions and statements .
Instead of relying on other people go to the original text and make your own decisions .

reply to post by SimonPeter

You have rejected every thing about salvation , grace and mercy from the acceptable sacrifice for sin provided by God

No, just the stuff people try to read into it that isn't there.
You have bought into the teachings of a cult to trick Christians into supporting zionists in Palestine.
You get tricked first into believing that Jesus died to have blood to trade for "sin debt".
Once you accept that, it makes it easier to accept the same thing with animals on a Jewish altar.
Then you get all happy about saying "Go Israel!", thinking that somehow God approves of you doing that, while ignoring the reality of what is going on, such as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You sound suspiciously like a Muslim again ! Jesus did die as an acceptable sacrifice for sin . His blood was shed for our sins . The blood was shed during sacrifices of animals and of the sacrifice that from the time of Abraham and his offering of Isaac to God offering his only Son . There needs to be no more sacrifices for sin . There will still be animal sacrifices and it will be stopped at the end before Christ returns .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Jesus did die as an acceptable sacrifice for sin

Did you quote the verse that says that yet? If you did, then I must have missed it, sorry.

The blood was shed during sacrifices of animals and of the sacrifice that from the time of Abraham and his offering of Isaac to God offering his only Son

Do you mean the Passover? That only goes back to moses.

Offerings were generally just things people did to make the gods happy, before the codifying of the Mosaic Law.
Sin offerings in that system would have been originally to make sure that the priests were holy, so that the god would accept the offerings made on behalf of the people.

I don't believe we have very much longer. The world is on the verge of a global meltdown and nuclear war starting in the middle east. Then we will see it happen. Just my opinion of course.

reply to post by jm dewey 60


Have you already lost the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac . That event was I believe the test of man where by God decided to offer his only Son as the acceptable sacrifice . I don't know if anyone else has made that correlation but I have and I wouldn't think the story of Abram would
be significant otherwise .
Hebrews 9 verse 22 ; And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ;and with out shedding of blood is no remission
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these ;but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these .
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands , which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself , now to appear in the presence of God for us ;
25 Not yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself .
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die , but after this the judgment ;
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

That should settle the blood issue and the acceptable sacrifice issue .

reply to post by kijne


The convergence of worldly issues and endtime prophecy will stagger the mind . I am sure the people of WW2 in Europe thought that the world was ending then . But Israel was not a nation and will be until the end of time not just until the Tribulation comes .

reply to post by SimonPeter

Have you already lost the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice Isaac . That event was I believe the test of man where by God decided to offer his only Son as the acceptable sacrifice . I don't know if anyone else has made that correlation but I have and I wouldn't think the story of Abram would
be significant otherwise . . .

I think that your apparent fixation on the term, "acceptable sacrifice" is maybe a bit obsessive and not very productive.
Nobody picked Jesus to be a human sacrifice to a god.
You should pay attention to the posts by pthena about the obligation of offering the first-born.
There is your "correlation" that is right there in the text.

What you should do, to interpret the Old Testament, is to see what the Apostles said about it in the New Testament.
I recommend the purchase of the book,
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, by G. Beale
Go to the index an find the verses in Genesis, to see if the NT makes reference to that text to derive any special meaning from it.

. . . Christ was once offered . . .

Check out how that word "offered" is used in the NT,
biblesuite.com...

reply to post by jmdewey60


We do not see things the same way .It would seem you are about the only one that sees things the way you do well except Muslims .

reply to post by SimonPeter

We do not see things the same way . . .

I see things the way that a lot of people do who educate themselves, by doing things like reading Bible commentaries and reading books that discuss the issues.
You may be looking at things through cult blinders that keeps you from looking at anything that has not gone through your cult's filters.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Bible Commentaries are just another persons opinion. That is all your theories is just another persons opinion adjusted by your opinion .
How the scrolls are interpreted today would be somewhat different that the interpretation one thousand six hundred years ago. What will the interpretation look like in another 1000 years .

You can keep your commentators . You are in effect a commentator and have morphed the past commentaries. Who will read your misguided thoughts in the future ?