Its hard not to make these posts too long when you ask for so much detail....but I will try to be as brief as possible on each point....
I suppose you believe in the regenerated Earth. I am not as well studied as I should be in that area.
Yes, because Jesus likened world conditions prior to his coming, to the days of Noah. (Matthew 24:37-39) We are experiencing those conditions now.
In Noah's day the earth itself was not destroyed, but cleansed. There is nothing wrong with the planet...its the ungodly people on it that are the problem. (2 Peter 5:5-6)
As for Hell, is it not described as a place of torment and anguish for the wicked? Verses throughout the New Testament are totally in support of that idea. Jesus spoke of a place called Hell very much. A place of torment and severe punishment for the wicked.
Since the Bible describes the condition of the dead as being unconscious, no one can suffer after physical death. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) They certainly can whilst spiritually dead, however. The Pharisees are an example of this...their 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' was whilst they were alive physically, but dead spiritually.
Jesus sentenced the Pharisees to "gehenna", incorrectly translated as "hell" in many Bibles. Like the "lake of fire" in Revelation, gehenna was a symbol of everlasting death, which is the opposite of everlasting life. Whatever goes into the lake of fire, never comes out. The "second death" carries no hope of resurrection.
Gehenna was the city's garbage dump where the fires were kept burning day and night to consume the refuse. The carcasses of dead animals and the bodies of executed criminals were often cast into gehenna to dispose of their bodies, not considered worthy of a decent burial. To a Jew, not having a tomb with ones name and family lineage inscribed was as good as saying that they would not be remembered by God in the resurrection, which they believed would be back to life on earth. They had no ideas about going to heaven or hell.
I have read the verses you used to support the idea of a regenerated Earth. I agree that saints are considered "joint-heirs' with Christ. I, however, do not see how the verse in Revelation depicts a regenerated Earth. I do see, however, that this verse could be using figurative language to describe that place that is called the New Jerusalem.
If you notice in Revelation 21:2-4, Christ and his co-rulers are bringing their rulership to the earth....to benefit "mankind". There is to be no more pain, suffering or death because the former things have passed away.....so its the situation on earth that changes...it is the system of government influenced by the devil that caused all that suffering....now that system has passed away....not the people. Redeemed ones will be returned to this earth by resurrection. (John 5:28-29) This will reestablish what God purposed at the beginning. Man was meant to live on earth forever. (Isaiah 55:11)
In
Genesis 8:22, the Bible tells us that as long as the Earth is here, we will have day and night.
Revelation 21:23-24 says that the New Jerusalem will not consist of the same patterns we have here on Earth. If that is so, referring back to
Genesis 8, the New Jerusalem is not speaking of a regenerated Earth, but using figurative language to describe the Kingdom of Heaven which Jesus spoke of.
The Kingdom is heavenly....its rulership is over earthly subjects. There is no point in being kings if there is no one to rule....no point in being priests if there are no sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties. "The meek shall inherit the earth", remember? How do they inherit a burned out cinder?
God has promised to destroy the elements Earth and heavens, not regenerate it (
2 Peter 3:10). This promise is very different that the one of Noah. This promise does not address populations, but rather the entirety of the creation. Again, I am not well versed in this area, but I still am not able to see the backing from scripture.
Destroying the elements operating on the earth I believe would be more correct. There is nothing wrong with the planet.
The ESV, Mounce Intelinear and the CEB read....
"the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed."
Holman and Lexham read...
"the earth and the works on it will be disclosed."
NET and NIV say....
"the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare."
Tree of Life...."the earth and everything done on it shall be exposed."
This seems more like God exposing all the rot that has been hidden all this time. People are getting angry because the institutions they put their trust in have betrayed them.
Perhaps its not what you think? God does not need to destroy his earth.....he just needs to cleanse it like he did in Noah's day.
When we are speaking of Bible and Bible teachings, it is pertinent to remain in the Bible. To say that all of these thing have had to happen to establish the time period of the "end times" is also not correct. The apostles considered themselves to be in the "end times" during their ministry. Jesus told the disciples in
Matthew 24 that these "signs" will happen during their lifetime. In the same context, he tells them in verse 14 the the good news of the kingdom is to be preached as well. That is because the kingdom was established during this time period in Acts 2. This prophecy is fulfilled in Acts 2.
There are clearly two fulfillments of this prophesy, some of which did apply to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple, but Jesus clearly indicated that it was to apply to his "parousia" and the "end of the age". (Matthew 24:3) Jesus did not return back then and we have not reached the end of the age quite yet, but it appears to be close.
1.What are your thoughts on the verses I referred to in the previous thread about the kingdom? When referring to these verses, consider the "with power" portion.
Mark 9:1 says the kingdom would "come with power". This clearly is not referring to the transfiguration.
Matthew 16:28..
."Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” Jesus said that they would see Jesus "coming in his Kingdom" and what they witnessed at the transfiguration was a glorified Jesus as he would be seen in his Kingdom.
Later chapters in Mark describes how one is to "enter" into the kingdom. Peter was given power and the keys in Acts 2. In Acts 2, Peter tells the people to be baptized.
Galatians 3:27 tells us that Baptism is what places one in the kingdom. The kingdom is referred to as the church and body within the New Testament(
Matthew 16:18-19;
Ephesians 1:22-23) If you are added to the church, as many were in Acts 2:47, then you are also added to the kingdom. If this is so , then the kingdom could not have been established in 1914, but in Acts 2, when many were added to it. Being in the kingdom = being in the church. Being in the church/kingdom = salvation (Acts 2 :47). Again, what are your thoughts on this?
Are you assuming that those "dead in Christ" went straight to heaven. Paul said they would sleep in death until Jesus returns for them at his coming. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-16) That means that no one went to heaven before Christ was to come again to take them "home".
Jesus said..
."In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also."
2.Why is it that Jesus said throughout his ministry that the "kingdom was at hand"? That phrase "at hand" means imminent, or about to happen.
If something is "at hand", it can also mean close by...within reach. The Kingdom is within the reach of all.
3.Why is is that John said he was in the kingdom in
Revelation 1:9? This would be impossible if the kingdom was established in 1914.
He was taken in vision to "the Lord's day", which is the time we are living in right now. He was shown what would take place in the future. The fall of Jerusalem was around 30 years before he recorded his Revelation.
In Revelation 1:9 John identified himself as a sharer in the Kingdom, not that he was in it already.
The 'end of the age' was to begin with unprecedented warfare.....they called the war of 1914 "the Great War" because in all of human history there had never been a world war. The second world war dwarfed the first. Other features of the sign are seen repeatedly since then....great earthquakes, famine, disease epidemics, increase in crime and violence and people becoming apathetic about human suffering, having no love of neighbor. In this 21st century, there are less and less excuses for human behavior to fall to this appallingly selfish level.
4.You referred to
Matthew 24, I am not sure how this has anything do with the establishment of his kingdom, rather, Jesus says in verse 34 that those specific events will happen during that generation's time. (the temple being destroyed, the fall of Romes) Side note... in the same context, Jesus refers to Hell, verse 51.
Its all in how you understand the "generation" I guess. The generation of the chosen ones would span the last two thousand years because the number of those who were to fill the ranks of the heavenly rulers, were chosen right up to our day. Since God does the choosing and since some can lose their place if they fall into sin, others will need to replace them. (Hebrews 10:26-27)
I do not want us to get off on writing a book, so lets address this specific issue first, then we will proceed to others
Sorry, but it took a book to answer all this.
