This may be a little unusual but because I was afraid I had derailed the OP in "does the binding of Satan mean the elimination of sin" thread I started this one. I copied several post over here and deleted my long post in the other thread. Sorry folksl, I should have dont this to start with.

I started with John146's post



QD
No that isnt what I meant. Let me try and put it this way. If I buy and old house and remodel it, it is the same house but improved, even to the point of being new in appearance and functionality. Where as if I build a new house, I have a completly new home.
So in Isaiah, the earth will not be New as is given in Rev. The New in Revelation isnt going to be an ongoing process, I dont believe that and I guess I didnt come across very clear. I am on a roll with being unclear lately.
But in Isaiah,the earth in comparison to what we are living on now, the earth will be much better. It will be under the rule of Christ and all will be much much better.


John146
How could it be "much better' when people would still have their sinful fleshly natures? How exactly do you see Jesus keeping mankind's sinful fleshly natures in check in the supposed future millenium? I have one more question that I have asked other premillenialists and it gets unanswered every time. Maybe you will be the first to answer it. Can you tell me how there could be no crying (Isaiah 65:19) on the new earth that is described in Isaiah 65:17-25 if there is also death? Would people not cry over someone's death anymore? I'm assuming that you read Isaiah 65:20 literally and conclude that there would be death on the new earth that is described in Isaiah 65.




QD
I am not saying Christ isnt ruling now from heaven, He of course is always King. I just mean that He will rule like??? I'm thinking of how to put it. His physical presence will be here like the president say. He will rule and be on the throne of David. He will of course still be the same resurrected Savior, but His presence will be evident to the physical world. He is already in His rightful place as the Son of God and our Lord, King and Savior, during the Millenium, He will also take His rightfull place as heir to the throne of David in Jerusalem.


John146
Jesus is already sitting on the throne of David. Jesus has been sitting on the throne of David since His resurrection and subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father. Please read the following:

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. - Acts 2:29-36

Jesus is the King on David's throne. This passage says that God swore an oath to David that someone in his lineage would one day sit on his (David's) throne. And that, of course, is Christ. Notice what the next verse tells us: that he (David) seeing this before (because he was a prophet) spake of the resurrection of Christ. So, Peter here is explaining that the resurrection of Christ and His subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father was equivalent to Christ sitting on David's throne.

(1 of 3 / on Davids throne)
Hi john146,
This got longer than I intended, as usual, so I appologize. But one thing just naturally leads to another. I tried to backup with scripture the following: the no more tears; Christ will reign upon Davids throne, and he will do it during the time of the millenium; God is not finished with His purpose for Israel; the remnant and the nation of ethnic Israel; that theses prophecies are not fulfilled in the Church, people wont be “perfect”

NO MORE TEARS? PERFECT PEOPLE?



john146
How could it be "much better' when people would still have their sinful fleshly natures? How exactly do you see Jesus keeping mankind's sinful fleshly natures in check in the supposed future millenium?

People during the millenium will still have the choice to rebel or be disobedient. They also just flat out wont be perfect. And this question takes us to the ever debated sacrifices in the millenium that Ezekiel seems to be teaching, and that throws you and I as believers in the finished work of Christ into complete shock. In studying I have found this said of the Holy Spirit and believers.

Romans 15:16…that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

first lets look at atone #3722 “ kaphar”: to cover over, sin, by legal rites
Christ atoned for our sins, we are covered by Christ, God does not see our sins, He sees His Sons atonement of us. This applies to all, who have in faith, believed God. Christ atoning for our sins is from the beginning to the end and from the depths to the heights, that He might fill all things.
Ephesians 4:10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens that He might fill all things
then at sanctify #6942 “qadash”: to consecrated, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy be separate.
Romans says very clearly, our offering, the things we do in service, by faith for our God, are “sanctified” by the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit, our imperfect offerings are sanctified.

The possibility that the sacrifices spoken of in Ezekiel, that throw us all for a loop as believers are for the sanctification of the offerings to God. At this point in my post this may seem unreasonalbe to you, but there is support in scripture that, 1) as far as the ministry of the Holy Spirit, His ministry changed, somehow, at Pentecost, and (2) God has not yet completed His purpose with the nation of Israel.



I have one more question that I have asked other premillenialists and it gets unanswered every time. Maybe you will be the first to answer it. Can you tell me how there could be no crying (Isaiah 65:19) on the new earth that is described in Isaiah 65:17-25 if there is also death?

Jeremiah 31 11- 14 (redeemed Israel living “satified” with the goodness of God)
-16 “ Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears 17 “There is hope in your future…your children shall come back from the land of the enemy 20…For the child shall die one hungred years old”…

This is not saying no more tears, it is saying Jerusalem will no longer be a place of weeping, “the voice of weeping” and is speaking of the promises they did not realize yet because of their rebellion and rejection of their promised Messiah. They are in a time of punishment but the time of great blessing is to be just as God has purposed. God has promised their latter glory will be greater than their former Ezekiel 36:10-12

Israel realizes the prophecies reguarding no more exile in gentile nations, and no more being persecuted, they have realized the promise of their inheritance reguarding their land and them possesing their land. And the “no more tears” is not related to the glorious eternity the faithful will enjoy, but “no more tears” is in relation to their past exile and persecution, both of which are a thing of the past, forever.

The thought I am trying to convey is that, this of Isaiah is not speaking of the same event, like the newly remodeled house I used in an earlier post, when you are done, you better have taken some photos because it is so difficult to remember the old, even though it is the remodeled old. In Rev, there is no remodeled old, the old is torn down and gone, and an entire new house is there.


Would people not cry over someone's death anymore? I'm assuming that you read Isaiah 65:20 literally and conclude that there would be death on the new earth that is described in Isaiah 65.


As far as death goes itself, I don’t think no more tears is used in that context, but the contexted being that Israel will no longer be a nation of weeping. Also, in v 20 it says “ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days…
The millenial will be a great time like we have never experienced on the earth, a time of blessing under the rule of Christ Himself as King in Jerusalem on the throne of David. (please see further on down in my post)

(part 2 of 3 / on Davids throne)

CHRIST ON THE THRONE OF DAVID IN THE MILLENIAL REIGN



john146
Jesus is already sitting on the throne of David. Jesus has been sitting on the throne of David since His resurrection and subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father. Please read the following:


29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. - Acts 2:29-36


Jesus is the King on David's throne. This passage says that God swore an oath to David that someone in his lineage would one day sit on his (David's) throne. And that, of course, is Christ. Notice what the next verse tells us: that he (David) seeing this before (because he was a prophet) spake of the resurrection of Christ. So, Peter here is explaining that the resurrection of Christ and His subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father was equivalent to Christ sitting on David's throne.

The tabernacle of David is not at the right hand of God in heaven, and that is where Christ is at present.

Isaiah 16:5 In mercy the throne will be extablished; and One (Christ) will sit on it in truth, in the *tabernacle of David, Judging and seeking justice and hastening righteousness

The word tabernacle here caught my attention, we know Christ will not be in Davids body so I did some looking into the word “tabernacle” to see what I would find, and hopefully learn.
Easton’s Dictionary listed these things
-a portable shrine, the human body, sacred tent

so I eliminated David’s body, I am not even going there, I don’t think you would either
0168 ‘ohel- tent is what is in the literal Bible that I have says and
the Hebrew Lexicon has
1) nomad’s tent, and thus symbolic of wilderness life, transience
2)dwelling, home, habitation
3)the sacred tent of Jehovah (the tabernacle)

Some further backup from Jeremiah 30 that God fully intends to restore ethnic Israel and therefore Christ sitting on the throne of David as Israel expected Him to do and overlooking the work of His First Advent

We can gain these thing from Jeremiah 30
1) These things are being spoken to Israel and Jacob (and they are the one in the same) These things are being spoken to the nation of Israel and the nations of the Geniles
v God is speaking to the country that mistreated Israel, not the individual people of the country. As individuals you and I as Christians we don’t want Israel treated unfairly much less masacared, so it is difficult for us to comprehend, but as a whole, the leaders, which means the country, God says he will v11”make a full end”. (also to the Gentile nations v 16 “all those who devour you will be devoured)Since God is speaking to “nations” not individuals, He is doing the same thing with Israel, he isnt speaking to individual Jews, He is speaking in reguards to the nation. Just as He is speaking to the leaders of the Gentile nations as a whole, He is speaking to Jewish leaders as a whole, He is speaking to the nation(s) as a whold. Just like individuals were saved of the Jews, but the leaders of the Israel nation rejected Christ. It isnt the individual spoken to in this verse it is the nation(s)The citizens of the nation or nations, are of course, effected by this;, and will as individuals be partakers the consequences of this prophecy to the nations.

2) it is the time of *Jacobs trouble and he (Israel) shall be delivered, in the end God will have mercy on Israel as a nation. v20” their congregation shall be established before Me;”
v the remnant- just the fact that He is speaking to the “nation” requires that a remnant of faithful to God are preserved Jer 31:7 “O LORD, save Your People, The remnant of Israel!” and v10 makes it clear this also is to the nation of Israel “He who scattered Israel will gather him” and that the nation of Israel will be redeemed( which would include the citizens of the ethnic nation of Israel) v11 “ For the LORD has redeemed Jacob” Jeremiah 31: 10 is very clear about this being Israel, not applying to the Church “He who scattered Israel will gather him”

3)They(Jacob) will serve the LORD their God, and David their King-who will be raised up for them
v In context “them” is the nation of Israel-Jacob. Because this “David” is raised up “for them” it indicates David and not Christ, Christ was their promised Messiah and He was raised up for them. He was raised up to redeem ,them, Gentiles, all of life, and for salvation for all men. Within the context of salvation Christ was not raised up for just them.

4) When Jacob returns v10 “he will have rest and quiet” v11 “all of nations where I have scattered you”
v God has never scattered the Church, it is clear this was not prophecy for the Church nor is it fulfilled
by the Church
v Israel has yet to return and live in peace and quiet, obedience is a requirement for them to possess
the land under these circumstances and for them to posses the full amount of land they inherited.

5) God will not make a complete end of them v 11

6) They are suffering some severe punishment v 11- 15

Then this prophecy say a mouthfull to us anyway “In the latter days you will consider it”

Jeremiah 30:8 “in that day, ‘ declares the LORD Almighty, I will break the yoke off their necks and will tear off their bonds; no longer will foreigners enslave them 9 Instead, they will serve the LORD their God and David their King whom I will raise up for them.
And reading on through Jeremiah, we find that, not only were the Jews first offered salvation, they are suffering punishment for their ancestors rejection of their promised Messiah.
Ezekiel 34:23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them I the LORD have spoken. 25. “’ I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.

This could be Christ, but the language seems to indicate David himself, not his heir, or Son of David, and at that point Christ will not be a prince among them but Christ is King.

(3 of 3 / on Davids throne)
CURRENT HISTORY WE CAN SEE AND THEREFORE KNOW THE FUTURE IS ALSO AS CERTAIN

This isnt necessarily about Christ being on Davids throne but to me it is confirmation that God has not forgotten His ethnic Israel. It does support Him having people there in physical bodies
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him: 2 “Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. 3 And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples;

we can turn on the news to see the above is happening before our eyes, the fate of the “nations” in the following verses is just a certain.

all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. 4 In that day,” says the LORD, “I will strike every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness; I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. 5 And the governors of Judah shall say in their heart, ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem are my strength in the LORD of hosts, their God.’ 6 In that day I will make the governors of Judah like a firepan in the woodpile, and like a fiery torch in the sheaves; they shall devour all the surrounding peoples on the right hand and on the left, but Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place—Jerusalem.

and also just as certain, God will accomplish the rest, He will save His remnant and then with them, the nation of ethnic Israel will “look on Me whom they pierced”
7 “The LORD will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall not become greater than that of Judah. 8 In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the LORD before them. 9 It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced.




WHAT REMNANT & WHERE WOULD IT COME FROM
this isnt really about the millenium but I believe it does show that God still has a purpose involving ethnic Israel, He will preserve a remnant that will survive to live in the millenial reign.

Revelation 7:2 Then I saw another angel ascending form the east, having the seal of the living God…3…till we have sealed the servants of our God

Since we as believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13;4:30), plus angels are “sealing”, the 144 thousand, whatever that means, to the 144 thousand the fact remains that the angels did not seal us with the Holy Spirit, He was sent from the Father. (Acts 2:33)It seems to mean that these of Israel will be the ones who will possess the land of their (Israels) inheritance. These of the 144 thousand of the tribes of Israel (Rev 7)will be the ones who are also protected (Rev 12). They will at that time be obedient (excepting Christ) and therefore the condition for possessing the land will be met. They will have turned their hearts back to their God through Christ.

AND WHY WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING GOD WOULD DO ??
I would not attempt as to guess why, so in searching scripture, this is what I found for a reason why God would restore Israel, and see His purpose for them to fulfillment, and that there is no way the Church has realized the promieses given to Israel.

The nations mock Israel, the ethnic nation of Israel, and that is who this is spoken to:

Ezekiel 22 “Therefore, say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “ I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name’s sake, which you have profaned among the nations wherever you went. 23 …I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations,…and the nations shall know that I am the LORD…when I am hallowed in your before their eyes.”

This is not spoken to the Body of Christ, not that we have any room for bragging as “christians” have certainly been guilty of shaming their precious Savior. I know I have with my disobedience over the time of my years.

FYI:)
This is john146 in response, I also copied it, but deleted none of his post in the other thread

john146
The Spirit of grace and supplication was already poured out on the inhabitants of Jeruslaem at Pentecost. That whole passage has to do with the first coming of Christ and the days immediately following. The fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10 is found here:

34But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
35And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
36For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced. - John 19:34-37

Can you give me your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36? You didn't make any specific comments on it. If you disagree with my interpretation that Christ sitting on David's throne had to do with His resurrection and ascension to the throne then what do you think it is saying?

when satan is binded there is no more sin in the new earth untill the 1000 years is up and the evil one returns. When Christ walked this earth he opened the seven seals and over came satan. my guess is the samething will happen to the people in the new earth you start to comprhend the seven seals and when the 1000 years is up the evil one returns. The people in the new earth have to over come satan or not fall away from God usally God sends a prophet to deal with satan.

Quiet dove wow you wrote a book its gonna take along time to go over this topic:note:

Okay, QD, so please tell us your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36.

when satan is binded there is no more sin in the new earth untill the 1000 years is up and the evil one returns. When Christ walked this earth he opened the seven seals and over came satan. my guess is the samething will happen to the people in the new earth you start to comprhend the seven seals and when the 1000 years is up the evil one returns. The people in the new earth have to over come satan or not fall away from God usally God sends a prophet to deal with satan.

there is more than a few problems with this view. first it makes satan the cause of all sin. but scripture tells us it is our own corrupt nature and wicked hearts that is the source of our sin. even in the begining eve was deceived but adam was not. he sinned knowingly and willfully. also the scriptures do not present a sinless milllennium, those nations that do not obey God and come to zion to worship will be cursed for the sin of disobedience.

sorry Tolapc - I am working on not doing that. I know I would prefer to read a shorter post myself


And I havnt forgotten John146 I am working on it now

Okay, QD, so please tell us your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36.

The first posts thoroughly explain those passages in the verfy same context that I have told you and other preterists before. Again, your refusal to accept certain evidence as evidence is not the lack of evidfence, but the lack of understanding on your part.

Again, the short version. Peter is telling Israel that the one whom David foretold about not staying in the grave, but being resurrected, in order to rule on his throne, is what QD and myslef have told you. Again, it's is frustrating that a conversation can not occur while one clings to their doctrines so severely without even considering the weight of the evidence that is presented.

For those who want to use the "glass houses" saying, consider this. For every piece of evidence that was presented to debunk Post-trib Premillennialism, I have used many scriptures, even some of your own, to refute your theories. So, save yourselves the trouble of saying that I need to practice what I preach, bcause I have.

when satan is binded there is no more sin in the new earth untill the 1000 years is up and the evil one returns. When Christ walked this earth he opened the seven seals and over came satan. my guess is the samething will happen to the people in the new earth you start to comprhend the seven seals and when the 1000 years is up the evil one returns. The people in the new earth have to over come satan or not fall away from God usally God sends a prophet to deal with satan.

Quiet dove wow you wrote a book its gonna take along time to go over this topic:note:

In a roundaboutway, I have to disagree. Here is why.

Isaiah 65 gives a description of what will happen during Christ's reign on this earth. In that passage, the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be at peace, the one thing it has not been since 63 AD. Those who die at age 100 would be considered cursed. Death, according to Isaiah 65:20, is present in the Millennium. If death is present, then sin is present as well, since the wages of sin is death.

The seven seals? While Christ was on earth? Where is the evidence for this, and let me tell you, speculation is not going to cut it in answering this question. Jesus was long since gone back to the Father by the time even the seven seals were even first talked about. So, there is no roundabout way of saying that the modified seven seals doctrine is still just as false as the original seven seals doctrine.

QD,

Do you believe that David's throne is a physical throne? I've never been able to find one Scripture describing a physical throne of David.

God promised David that his son Solomon would sit on the throne of David:

1 Kings 5:5 And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name.

But Solomon built his own throne to sit upon and reign from:

1 Kings 7:7 Then he made a porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment: and it was covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other.

1 Kings 10:18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold.

1 Kings 10:19 The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays.

Shirley

john146
Okay, QD, so please tell us your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36.


When was Davids throne at the right hand of God? Acts makes a point to say that David never acsended to heaven

Do you believe that David's throne is a physical throne? I've never been able to find one Scripture describing a physical throne of David.



2 Samuel 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.

It is clear that the throne of David was established over Israel and over Judah,

1 Kings 2:12 Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David;…

when satan is binded there is no more sin in the new earth untill the 1000 years is up and the evil one returns.

When Satan is bound (in the pit) there is no more physical sin in the Millennium, or political sin or religious sin, however there is still going to be sin. After all, after the 1000 years, satan is released and many follow him. That means that they must be sinful. They will be destroyed. They are full of sin, obviously.


When Christ walked this earth he opened the seven seals and over came satan.

Christ never even gave John the visions about the 7 seals until way after Christ's Crucifixion. A seal is UNDERSTANDING the events. It is not the action.


my guess is the samething will happen to the people in the new earth you start to comprhend the seven seals and when the 1000 years is up the evil one returns.

OK, do you think that we are in the Millennium now? Is this the 1000 years? Your quote is confusing to me.


The people in the new earth have to over come satan or not fall away from God usally God sends a prophet to deal with satan.


Christ will be on the the earth in The Millennium days. His election are the prophets. The dead in Christ are the prophets. They will already be here walking the earth throughout the whole Millennium.
The New Earth does not exist until After the Millennium, when the Father returns with New Jerusalem. In the New Earth, no one will ever have to overcome Satan, for he will not exist. Satan is to be destroyed before the New Earth comes to be.

In a roundaboutway, I have to disagree. Here is why.

Isaiah 65 gives a description of what will happen during Christ's reign on this earth. In that passage, the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be at peace, the one thing it has not been since 63 AD. Those who die at age 100 would be considered cursed. Death, according to Isaiah 65:20, is present in the Millennium. If death is present, then sin is present as well, since the wages of sin is death.

Although I to disagree with toolapc, I must disagree with your view.
In the Millennium there is NO flesh at all. There is no death until the Judgement at the end of the 1000 years. That won't be flesh, but spirit. See 1Cor15.

The figure of speech used is meant to describe no 'age' at all. It is probably one of the worst translations from the manuscripts that we have in the English bible.

No flesh means, no flesh death. Death is defeated at the 7th trump. Now, those alive at the 7th trump will be changed to spirit, good, bad and indifferent. No ages. a baby is the same age as a man of 100. All of us are spiritual beings, still liable to die the second death, the death of the soul. That is, if we do not overcome either now or in the Millennium.

So, dangerous animals will play with non dangerous animals. Carnivores and herbivores together, because it is not flesh anymore. Baby's can play with lions. It is spiritual, albeit physical, but not flesh and blood. There can be no contradiction to God's Word.

Quote:

John146
"Jesus is already sitting on the throne of David. Jesus has been sitting on the throne of David since His resurrection and subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father. Please read the following:

29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. - Acts 2:29-36

Jesus is the King on David's throne. This passage says that God swore an oath to David that someone in his lineage would one day sit on his (David's) throne. And that, of course, is Christ. Notice what the next verse tells us: that he (David) seeing this before (because he was a prophet) spake of the resurrection of Christ. So, Peter here is explaining that the resurrection of Christ and His subsequent ascension to the right hand of the Father was equivalent to Christ sitting on David's throne."

My answer John146, is that David's throne is not in heaven, it was on the earth. It is true that "throne" can be more than something literal to sit in, it can also be a symbol of authority.
Obviously, the throne on which Jesus as Messiah will sit, here on the earth will be literal.

David certainly prophesied that Messiah Jesus would be raised from the dead to sit on his throne, but, to me, that can only be fulfilled when Jesus, Son of Man, returns in power and great glory to sit on his throne.


Look at Matt. 19:28 "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' " NIV.NOTICE: Jesus said "when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne" something will happen. Namely, his 12 apostles will sit on thrones (in the renewed Jerusalem) to act as judges. This certainly didn't happen in heaven.

2. Let us read further in Acts: Peter preaching in the Sactuary (Temple) says in 3:19-21:
"Repent then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that the times of
refreshing may come from the Lord, and that He may send the Christ, who has been
appointed for you---even Jesus. He must remain in heaven until the time comes for
God to restore everthing as he promised long ago, through his holy prophets."

NOTICE: Peter here speaks of the time when God will restore all things, as he promised long ago. IMO, Jesus, in Matt. 19:28 is referring to the same thing when he speaks of 'the renewal of all things.' Which, to me will occur at the beginning of the millennium, when Jerusalem and all the earth, after having been devasted during the great tribulation, will be renewed--restored.

Bick

I thought I might jump in here. This thread has a few similar posts to that of 'sacrifices in the mill. temple'.

The new Jerusalem, the Bride that descends from heaven has no actual Temple. Rev.21:22

However, it does have a Throne. Rev.22:1-3 This would be the same Throne that our Lord Jesus Christ is sitting on right now.

Is the Throne in heaven the same Throne that David set on? No.

David was the first King of (Israel) appointed by God and not by man. It is for those two reasons that David was the earthly representation of the King of Kings.

I might add that God dearly loved David, which puts me in mind of "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" the Father speaking of Jesus.

I hope this helps out..

seeker_truth

im talking about the time when Jesus returns and now all of man kind is resurrected with a new Christ like Body. The died that rise first these people will rest in the new earth with a Christ like Body satan is no more and mankind can no longer sin because he has a christ like body.

the seven seals repersents your Christ like body that you will receive when Jesus returns. The people that are in the new earth these people will satrt to comprhend the seven spirits of GOD aka the seven seals.my view is that the only way mankind can sin in the new earth is when the thousand years is up. mankind has a christ like body and the evil one returns to temp all that rest in the new earth to test them. basically all the people in the new earth have got to over come the tempest like when Jesus went into the desert to open the seven seals or to over come the evil one. this is the only time when man kind can blashphmey against the holy spirit if they betray God and follow satan then they have commited the only sin that will not be forgiven. This happen in the new earth when mankind has a Christ like Body i dont have time write and i hope no one misreads this post because no one got my last post. in the new earth you get a spirtual body aka the seven seals the seven seals repersents your Christ like Body mankind cannot sin during this time of peace because we are all Christ like. Sin can only return in the new earth when the 1000 years is up please post the scriptures that show men sinning in the new earth:confused

im talking about the time when Jesus returns and now all of man kind is resurrected with a new Christ like Body. The died that rise first these people will rest in the new earth with a Christ like Body satan is no more and mankind can no longer sin because he has a christ like body.

the seven seals repersents your Christ like body that you will receive when Jesus returns. The people that are in the new earth these people will satrt to comprhend the seven spirits of GOD aka the seven seals.my view is that the only way mankind can sin in the new earth is when the thousand years is up. mankind has a christ like body and the evil one returns to temp all that rest in the new earth to test them. basically all the people in the new earth have got to over come the tempest like when Jesus went into the desert to open the seven seals or to over come the evil one. this is the only time when man kind can blashphmey against the holy spirit if they betray God and follow satan then they have commited the only sin that will not be forgiven. This happen in the new earth when mankind has a Christ like Body i dont have time write and i hope no one misreads this post because no one got my last post. in the new earth you get a spirtual body aka the seven seals the seven seals repersents your Christ like Body mankind cannot sin during this time of peace because we are all Christ like. Sin can only return in the new earth when the 1000 years is up please post the scriptures that show men sinning in the new earth:confused

Toolapc, I have talked and read the matrial on the seven seals doctrine, by the creator of the seven seals doctrine, which I had the pleasure of meeting in a chat room a long time ago. What you are saying is not the seven seals doctrine, but rather some mix of symbolism and the seven seals. Here's what the original creator of the seven seals doctrine explained to me.

The entire book of Revelation has to happen within the confines of the seven seals.

THe first four seals are representatives of the uprising of the beast, the things which the beast causes, including mass violence against all mankind, with the Great tribulation happening on the fourth seal is bvroken.

I totally reject the seven seals doctrine based solely on the wording of the book of Revelation. The wording makes the fulfillment of the book inpossible to happen within the confines of the seven seals.

I would suggest, toolapc, that you would read the Book of Revelation, without trying to figure it out. God will reveal it to those who truly wqant to learn what He wants you to know concerning that book. God's Spirit will lead to all truth, and He will destroy all of this confusion that is prevalent in today's Christianity.

I believe that there will be some minor sin in the world, but I don't believe that it will be extremely out of control.
But mostly I think this is Jesus' time to reign, and that we will finally have a fair and just system of governing, and there will be no one without land or home during this time. I would also contend that there will no longer be false religions, or a denial of God. I think the time will be a period of the world bowing the knee to Christ and Him only.
I say this because in one of the prophetic books, there is a mention of "if a person doesn't live to be 100 years old, they will be consider just a baby" and I think that is says they will also be considered accursed.

I still am not too sure about this though, but these are my thoughts on this scripture...

Isa 65:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Isa&chapter=65&verse=20&version=kjv#20)¶There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner [being] an hundred years old shall be accursed.

There is probably much more detail in the OT passages that even though I have read them I have not seen yet. I am thinking you are post trib? is that right. I know you probably told me before but I am sorry I dont remember. Sometimes I think I am already on my way up to meet Jesus as my head is in the clouds so much of the time:spin:

Toolapc, I have talked and read the matrial on the seven seals doctrine, by the creator of the seven seals doctrine, which I had the pleasure of meeting in a chat room a long time ago. What you are saying is not the seven seals doctrine, but rather some mix of symbolism and the seven seals. Here's what the original creator of the seven seals doctrine explained to me.

The entire book of Revelation has to happen within the confines of the seven seals.

THe first four seals are representatives of the uprising of the beast, the things which the beast causes, including mass violence against all mankind, with the Great tribulation happening on the fourth seal is bvroken.

I totally reject the seven seals doctrine based solely on the wording of the book of Revelation. The wording makes the fulfillment of the book inpossible to happen within the confines of the seven seals.

I would suggest, toolapc, that you would read the Book of Revelation, without trying to figure it out. God will reveal it to those who truly wqant to learn what He wants you to know concerning that book. God's Spirit will lead to all truth, and He will destroy all of this confusion that is prevalent in today's Christianity.

the creator of the seven seals doctrine?? whos is this and what doctrine are you talkin about :note: i dont really no about mans teachings cuz most of the time they have little to no truth.



rev just goes over the son of man opening the seven seals in heaven and the angels poor there wrath.


The seven seals in the bible repersents your Spritual body or the seven spirits of GOD the inccoruptible body. The last prophet of man kind opens the seven seals in heaven and when he does so the angels poor there judgement. take a look at the human body there are seven locations the seven seals that are truned off. When Jesus returns these seven seals are turned on and this is a called your spirtual body now you can see the kingdom of GOD because you can now start to comprehend the seven spirits of GOD aka the seven seals there is actually 8 spirits of GOD the 8th is darkness.

The first posts thoroughly explain those passages in the verfy same context that I have told you and other preterists before.

Once again, I'm not a preterist. Should I call you a dispensationalist since you agree with a few of their beliefs?



Again, your refusal to accept certain evidence as evidence is not the lack of evidfence, but the lack of understanding on your part.

Whatever you say. :rolleyes:



Again, it's is frustrating that a conversation can not occur while one clings to their doctrines so severely without even considering the weight of the evidence that is presented.

I agree



For those who want to use the "glass houses" saying, consider this. For every piece of evidence that was presented to debunk Post-trib Premillennialism, I have used many scriptures, even some of your own, to refute your theories. So, save yourselves the trouble of saying that I need to practice what I preach, bcause I have.

You haven't refuted anything.

When was Davids throne at the right hand of God? Acts makes a point to say that David never acsended to heaven

He didn't have a physical throne in heaven, of course, but he had a spiritual throne. It wasn't something to be seen, it spiritually represented his kingdom. In Acts 2:31, Peter says of David, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ...". What had David spoken of that was eqivalent to the resurrection of Christ? The answer is found in verse 30.

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

So, what it's saying in verse 31 is, "David, seeing before that One in his lineage would be raised to sit on his throne, spake of the resurrection of Christ.". The resurrection of Christ is being made equivalent to Christ sitting on David's throne.

Eric

john146
He didn't have a physical throne in heaven, of course, but he had a spiritual throne. It wasn't something to be seen, it spiritually represented his kingdom. In Acts 2:31, Peter says of David, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ


David didnt have a physical or spiritual throne in heaven. He saw the One that would be his heir to the throne. But the only way to see this is to acknowlege what scripture says about it

The disciples believed He would restore Israel and He did not correct them , he only said it wasnt for them to know when.
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7. And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob,
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has comitted them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are His judgments and His way past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”

I have been curiously following this thread,and I dont understand how anyboby can read acts2 and say Jesus is on Davids throne. Jesus is God ,and existed before David.Why put so much weight on etablishing the point of Davids throne? David was the forerunner of Jesus. Jesus sits on his own throne.There are a lot of types and shadows in the bible ,but they can get overworked if a person looks too deeply into them. Davids life POINTS to Jesus.Jesus didnt follow the lineage of AAron ,but of David and I think this is the main point. Jesus could NOT have come through levitical priesthood.
D.susuki

David didnt have a physical or spiritual throne in heaven. He saw the One that would be his heir to the throne. But the only way to see this is to acknowlege what scripture says about it

The disciples believed He would restore Israel and He did not correct them , he only said it wasnt for them to know when.
Acts 1:6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7. And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob,
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has comitted them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are His judgments and His way past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”

I see no mention of David's throne in those passages. Can you please give me your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36, or at least Acts 2:29-31? Please be as specific as possible. Until you do this we're not going to get anywhere in this discussion.

I see no mention of David's throne in those passages. Can you please give me your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36, or at least Acts 2:29-31? Please be as specific as possible. Until you do this we're not going to get anywhere in this discussion.

See, this is what I am talking about.


Quote:
For those who want to use the "glass houses" saying, consider this. For every piece of evidence that was presented to debunk Post-trib Premillennialism, I have used many scriptures, even some of your own, to refute your theories. So, save yourselves the trouble of saying that I need to practice what I preach, bcause I have.

You haven't refuted anything.

Again, it shows blindness to say that with even the evidence that I have shown in other threads, one of which talked directly about the Davidic Kingdom, which is what I call the time from Christ's return until the end of this earth, and you say that I refuted nothing. Again, I suggest that you, sir, would go back to the several threads that we have argued at length to gain an understanding of what QD as well as myself have written in previous threads concerning Acts 2. She even introduced the fact that right before Christ ascended to heaven, when the Disciples asked when He was going to sit on David's throne, Christ's answer was, "It is not for you to know when the Father is going to give His authority." It doesn't sound like "as soon as I ascend" to me. It says to me that the disciples aqre not to be concerned about the "when" of Christ's restoration of Israel and HIs sitting on David's throne. And that is in the first chapter, during the disciples' last conversation with Christ while He was on earth.

One more question. If you are not a preterist, then where does your doctrine depart from the typical amil? Because unlike you, I have shown my departure from dispensationalism, clearly.

See, this is what I am talking about.

What are you talking about? What is wrong with my wanting to see her clear interpretation of those verses? So far, she has only been vague about that passage.





Again, it shows blindness to say that with even the evidence that I have shown in other threads, one of which talked directly about the Davidic Kingdom, which is what I call the time from Christ's return until the end of this earth, and you say that I refuted nothing. Again, I suggest that you, sir, would go back to the several threads that we have argued at length to gain an understanding of what QD as well as myself have written in previous threads concerning Acts 2. She even introduced the fact that right before Christ ascended to heaven, when the Disciples asked when He was going to sit on David's throne, Christ's answer was, "It is not for you to know when the Father is going to give His authority." It doesn't sound like "as soon as I ascend" to me. It says to me that the disciples aqre not to be concerned about the "when" of Christ's restoration of Israel and HIs sitting on David's throne. And that is in the first chapter, during the disciples' last conversation with Christ while He was on earth.

One more question. If you are not a preterist, then where does your doctrine depart from the typical amil? Because unlike you, I have shown my departure from dispensationalism, clearly.

I have shown my beliefs over and over again. You seem to have no interest in trying to understand where I'm coming from. You've made that clear. You have repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of other's beliefs because you don't care to take the effort to try to understand them.

Try to remember what I'm about to tell you so that you don't misrepresent my beliefs in the future. My belief would fall into the amillenial idealist category. I don't put a huge emphasis on 70 AD as preterists do. I see some prophecy fulfilled at that time, but not as much as they see. For example, they see Revelation as being totally (full preterists) or mostly (partial preterists) fulfilled and I don't see that. I believe the book of Revelation is a series of parallel visions that each document the time between Christ's first coming and His second. For example, we can see the second coming of Christ and the events surrounding it in Revelation 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20. I see the beast as something that was, is not, and yet is. The beast has been around a long time. But preterists say the beast and the mark of the beast had something to do with the time around 70 AD while futurists like yourself think the beast is only a future entity. I agree with the preterist interpretation of passages like Luke 21:20-24, but disagree with others, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:29-31 and Luke 21:25-28 as having already been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Eric

What are you talking about? What is wrong with my wanting to see her clear interpretation of those verses? So far, she has only been vague about that passage.



I have shown my beliefs over and over again. You seem to have no interest in trying to understand where I'm coming from. You've made that clear. You have repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of other's beliefs because you don't care to take the effort to try to understand them.

Try to remember what I'm about to tell you so that you don't misrepresent my beliefs in the future. My belief would fall into the amillenial idealist category. I don't put a huge emphasis on 70 AD as preterists do. I see some prophecy fulfilled at that time, but not as much as they see. For example, they see Revelation as being totally (full preterists) or mostly (partial preterists) fulfilled and I don't see that. I believe the book of Revelation is a series of parallel visions that each document the time between Christ's first coming and His second. For example, we can see the second coming of Christ and the events surrounding it in Revelation 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20. I see the beast as something that was, is not, and yet is. The beast has been around a long time. But preterists say the beast and the mark of the beast had something to do with the time around 70 AD while futurists like yourself think the beast is only a future entity. I agree with the preterist interpretation of passages like Luke 21:20-24, but disagree with others, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:29-31 and Luke 21:25-28 as having already been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Eric

Before this post, Eric, I have not read anything from you that comes even remotely close to what you have just described. Like yourself, I agree with some portions of Luke 21 being fulfilled in 70AD, and unlike you, I totally reject the notion that Matthew 24 is partially fulfilled in 70AD, while other parts are yet to be fulfilled. I believe that all of Matthew 24, with exception for verse 2, is either currently being fulfilled today, or are about ready to be fulfilled. And on top of that, it would seem that we would be in agreement with the return of the Lord being shown in Revelation, however, you have consistantly argued that Revelation 20:1-3 has been fulfilled, which is exactly what I am arguing against in this very thread.

Before this post, Eric, I have not read anything from you that comes even remotely close to what you have just described.

That must be because you thought of me as a preterist and therefore you were not seeing what I was really saying. I have never spoken in such a way that would contradict the explanation I just gave you of what I believe.



Like yourself, I agree with some portions of Luke 21 being fulfilled in 70AD, and unlike you, I totally reject the notion that Matthew 24 is partially fulfilled in 70AD, while other parts are yet to be fulfilled. I believe that all of Matthew 24, with exception for verse 2, is either currently being fulfilled today, or are about ready to be fulfilled.

What you have yet to explain is the inclusion of the question "when shall all these things be" in Matthew 24. That question had to do with the destruction of the temple. If He didn't answer that question in Matthew 24, why would it be included there? I understand that we disagree on the "before all these" in Luke 21 and the "then" in Matthew 24, so I don't care to get into that here.



And on top of that, it would seem that we would be in agreement with the return of the Lord being shown in Revelation, however, you have consistantly argued that Revelation 20:1-3 has been fulfilled, which is exactly what I am arguing against in this very thread.

Yes, we both see the second coming of Christ in Revelation and we disagree on what the binding of Satan means. I think we've made that abundantly clear. But let's discuss it civilly. You seem to get quite riled up and angry in these discussions. I just enjoy being able to discuss these things because many Christians stay as far away from books like Daniel and Revelation as they can, which I think is sad.

Hi John146, I thought I responded to Acts but I must have deleted the wrong thing in my stuff because I cant find it. The other one (Romans) is in response to another post.

the one on Acts
I think the first important thing is the setting and context for Peter’s sermon. This conversation was directed toward “devout”Jews and these Jews fully expected their promised Messiah to restore the kingdom to Israel.

With those promises (scripture below-Jeremiah) and the promises of the Christ and Him ruling on Davids throne, then the One claiming to be the Christ dieing on the cross, the Jews who were very aware of being the chosen people of God and the "holier than thou" attitude,and that they had strayed so far in rebellion (they were not aware of that part), no doubt there was some confusion here. The part of the prophesies of the Christ dieing on a cross had gone right by them due to their rebellous hearts.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth. And Jeremiah 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them. This in Jeremiah is not speaking of Davids heir to the throne, but David, whom God will raise up in resurrection, just like He will raise us up in resurrection.

Peter quoted the prophesies (Psalms) as evidence that Christ was their promised Messiah, and within that context Peter explains that David was not talking about David and Jesus was the Christ, that much we both would agree to I think. Within this context, and with Acts 1:6, it is clear that some of the main confusion was the expectancy of the Jews, that their promised Messiah would sit as rightfull Heir upon the throne of David and rule Israel, and along with His reign, the Jews would see the promises of protection, safety, properity and so on that they were all focused on. It was the disciples who ask in Acts 1:6 “ Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and as I stated earlier, Jesus did not correct them other than to say “ It is not for you to know the times or seaons which the Father has put in His own autority”.

All of that relates to setting for Peter’s sermon and the mind set of the Jews. Not only did Peter have to show from their prophesies that Jesus was the Christ, he had to show why the kingdom was not restored to Israel. The fact that Christ is at the right hand of God and no kingdom was restored to Israel is a problem for these Jews. They fully expect their Messiah to sit on Davids throne as their prophets fortold that He will.

David was/is presently dead,(or for the sake of this conversaion, he aint on the earth, mortal or immortal.) And the prophesies were exlplained that David was not speaking about/to David. But that prophecy doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it expains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spirituall the throne of David.

The reason I quoted the verses from Romans is they make clear, that God has full intentions of doing all He has said reguarding the restoration and salvation of Israel, that doesn’t mean anyone Jewish is saved based on their blood, it means that in the future, in the tribulation, all the Jews that survive the tribulation will have been saved, (through Christ) they will recognize their Messiah as the One they pierced. All those Jews, entering the Millenial reign of Christ will be saved, therefore, all of Israel will be saved at that time because those Jews will constitue the “all”. Doesn’t have anything to do with todays Israel other than if the tribulation were to begin tomarrow, they are the ones alive when it begins and therefore those of Rev 7 would come from the ones alive today.

I am sorry if this is to long, I’m trying to shorten them.

I have been curiously following this thread,and I dont understand how anyboby can read acts2 and say Jesus is on Davids throne. Jesus is God ,and existed before David.Why put so much weight on etablishing the point of Davids throne? David was the forerunner of Jesus. Jesus sits on his own throne.There are a lot of types and shadows in the bible ,but they can get overworked if a person looks too deeply into them. Davids life POINTS to Jesus.Jesus didnt follow the lineage of AAron ,but of David and I think this is the main point. Jesus could NOT have come through levitical priesthood.
D.susuki


Hi DS,

Christ was both Levite and Jew.

He was 1/2 and 1/2.

If you need scripture, just ask!

Ezekiel_37, I'm curious. So I reakon I'm askin:)



Christ was both Levite and Jew.

He was 1/2 and 1/2.

If you need scripture, just ask!


Since the lineage given in Matthew is Judah and Judah was a brother of Levi, I'm confused.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

I'm curious also.

Matt chapter 1 gives the paternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Luke chapter 3 gives the maternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Hi John146, I thought I responded to Acts but I must have deleted the wrong thing in my stuff because I cant find it. The other one (Romans) is in response to another post.

the one on Acts
I think the first important thing is the setting and context for Peter’s sermon. This conversation was directed toward “devout”Jews and these Jews fully expected their promised Messiah to restore the kingdom to Israel.

With those promises (scripture below-Jeremiah) and the promises of the Christ and Him ruling on Davids throne, then the One claiming to be the Christ dieing on the cross, the Jews who were very aware of being the chosen people of God and the "holier than thou" attitude,and that they had strayed so far in rebellion (they were not aware of that part), no doubt there was some confusion here. The part of the prophesies of the Christ dieing on a cross had gone right by them due to their rebellous hearts.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth. And Jeremiah 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them. This in Jeremiah is not speaking of Davids heir to the throne, but David, whom God will raise up in resurrection, just like He will raise us up in resurrection.

Peter quoted the prophesies (Psalms) as evidence that Christ was their promised Messiah, and within that context Peter explains that David was not talking about David and Jesus was the Christ, that much we both would agree to I think. Within this context, and with Acts 1:6, it is clear that some of the main confusion was the expectancy of the Jews, that their promised Messiah would sit as rightfull Heir upon the throne of David and rule Israel, and along with His reign, the Jews would see the promises of protection, safety, properity and so on that they were all focused on. It was the disciples who ask in Acts 1:6 “ Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and as I stated earlier, Jesus did not correct them other than to say “ It is not for you to know the times or seaons which the Father has put in His own autority”.

All of that relates to setting for Peter’s sermon and the mind set of the Jews. Not only did Peter have to show from their prophesies that Jesus was the Christ, he had to show why the kingdom was not restored to Israel. The fact that Christ is at the right hand of God and no kingdom was restored to Israel is a problem for these Jews. They fully expect their Messiah to sit on Davids throne as their prophets fortold that He will.

David was/is presently dead,(or for the sake of this conversaion, he aint on the earth, mortal or immortal.) And the prophesies were exlplained that David was not speaking about/to David. But that prophecy doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it expains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spirituall the throne of David.

The reason I quoted the verses from Romans is they make clear, that God has full intentions of doing all He has said reguarding the restoration and salvation of Israel, that doesn’t mean anyone Jewish is saved based on their blood, it means that in the future, in the tribulation, all the Jews that survive the tribulation will have been saved, (through Christ) they will recognize their Messiah as the One they pierced. All those Jews, entering the Millenial reign of Christ will be saved, therefore, all of Israel will be saved at that time because those Jews will constitue the “all”. Doesn’t have anything to do with todays Israel other than if the tribulation were to begin tomarrow, they are the ones alive when it begins and therefore those of Rev 7 would come from the ones alive today.

I am sorry if this is to long, I’m trying to shorten them.

I'm asking for your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36 or at least verses 29-31 and you're giving me anything but that. I'll have to try a different approach. Maybe I'll just have to ask specific questions on the passage and you can answer them. In Acts 2:30, it says that David knew that God swore an oath to him that someone from his (David's) lineage (Christ) would be raised up to sit on his (David's) throne. Would you agree with that? So, when it says in Acts2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ", what does that mean? In other words, what is the "this" that David saw before and what did David say that was equivalent to him speaking of the resurrection of Christ? I believe the answer to my question can be found in verse 30, but I'm curious as to how you interpret the passage.

I'm curious also.

Matt chapter 1 gives the paternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Luke chapter 3 gives the maternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Hello all,

Mat 1 has to do with Joseph's line, not Christ's for God fathered Jesus, not Joseph. Mat 1 is not the lineage of Christ. It is the line to Jesus' step dad.


So for Christ's lineage we must see Luke 1 and Luke 3.

Luke1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

This is John The baptist's parents. Both Levites, of Aaron's line. A Levite priest had to mary a Levite woman.

the angel speaks to Mary;

Luke1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

This makes Mary and Elisabeth cousins, which means that Mary would have to be a Levite on her mother's side.

Since Mary's parents are where Christ's lineage came through, we can learn that her mother was a Levite (hence the cousins) and her father was of Judah (which I am sure no one disputes) as detailed in Luke 3.

Peace in Christ

john146

In Acts 2:30, it says that David knew that God swore an oath to him that someone from his (David's) lineage (Christ) would be raised up to sit on his (David's) throne. Would you agree with that?


yes, David knew that God swore an oath to him and He would be raised up to sit on Davids throne which isnt at the right hand of God.

That doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it explains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spiritually the throne of David.

The Jews were well aware that David was to have an heir on the throne so why, if this Jesus was that heir, was He not sitting on the throne? That is why in my post I gave the setting of the Jews expecting the heir on the throne. Christ didnt take the throne of David yet and that was an issue for the Jews who awaited that promise.

My post did address it and gave you the reason why I see it the way I do. Christ is at the right hand of God and that is what David saw and prophesied about which backs up why Jesus did not re-establish the kingdm of Israel and Davids throne, yet. I took the setting of Peter’s sermon to back up the reasoning behind my understanding.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is at the right hand of the throne of God, not on David’s throne.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth”. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth.

This is what the Jews back in the NT were looking for, just like many Jews today are looking for this.

Ezekiel 37, Hebrews clearly says
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

So there is discrepancy somewhere, Luke 3 actually gives the geneology of Mary not Joseph.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary (Matt 1:16)
the son of Heli (Luke 3:23) should be taken as Mary, “son” isnt in the original, and would have been better said son-in-law as Matthew 1:16 tells us who the father of Joseph is.
Both parents were descendants of David – Joseph through Solomon (Matt1:7-15) and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31) But Solomons decendents were not to be on the throne, so therefore Joseph would have been disqualified.
So the legitacy of Jesus as heir to Davids throne would have been through Mary. And Joseph would have been the one who was related Levitacally (is that a word?) to Elizabeth

The information I found says that Elizabeth was related to Mary by marriage, but I could not find that information in the Bible and am really to tired at this point to keep looking and may have looked right over it as it is 3am. I am probably looking right over it, reading geneologies being so exciting and all.:)

Your thoughts?

David, do you have any thoughts here?

Great job.

We could list a dozen or more scriptures that show Christ's lieaage through David, and through Judah.

We can list ZERO scripturs that show Christ's lineage through Judah's brother Levi. The only support for this method, is to force cousin, to mean blood-cousin, instead of married-cousin.

One view harmonizes with the pale of all scripture.

one view contradicts the pale of all scripture, in favor of a viewpoint that is speculative.

I wonder if Ezekiel_37 is mormon and/or from some LDS offshoot that accepts the writings of Joseph Smith?

Mormonism is the only group I have ever read of who postulates that Jesus was a Levite.

yes, David knew that God swore an oath to him and He would be raised up to sit on Davids throne which isnt at the right hand of God.

Spiritually speaking, the throne is in heaven. Christ ascended to heaven and sat on the throne. That passage from Acts 2 makes that clear. It seems that you do not want to accept what that passage says. It is no longer David's throne because Christ took His place on the throne and it is now His throne that He sits on at the right hand of the Father. It is also the Father's throne. The Father and the Son sit on the same throne. They do not sit on a literal physical throne. We should not think of God that way. They sit or rule on a spiritual throne in a spiritual place called heaven.



That doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it explains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spiritually the throne of David.

How does it explain why He isn't when it says that He is on the throne? And yes, it indeed was spiritually the throne of David because that is what it clearly says. Now it is Christ's throne as it was always intended to be in the first place.



The Jews were well aware that David was to have an heir on the throne so why, if this Jesus was that heir, was He not sitting on the throne? That is why in my post I gave the setting of the Jews expecting the heir on the throne. Christ didnt take the throne of David yet and that was an issue for the Jews who awaited that promise.

Why are you looking at it just as the Pharisees and the other Jews did? They were expecting Jesus to rule on the earth from David's literal throne but Jesus corrected them by letting them know that His kingdom was not of this world and does not come with observation.



My post did address it and gave you the reason why I see it the way I do. Christ is at the right hand of God and that is what David saw and prophesied about which backs up why Jesus did not re-establish the kingdm of Israel and Davids throne, yet.

What about verse 31 which says, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ"? He was pointing back to seeing Christ on his throne. He was not speaking in terms of Christ sitting on his literal physical throne. He was speaking in terms of Christ succeeding him in power and rule. Christ reigns from His throne in heaven now. All power in heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt 28:18). That is what His inheriting David's throne is all about. He is the prince of the kings of the earth and we reign with Him as kings and priests (Revelation 1:5-6).



Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is at the right hand of the throne of God, not on David’s throne.

There are no physical thrones in heaven. The throne of David, which is now the throne of Christ, is the same as the throne of God. There is only one throne from which the Father and the Son reign together. I think you are trying to think of a spiritual reality in heaven in earthly terms. As if the throne of God is a great big physical throne that God sits on with Jesus at His right hand.



Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth”. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth.

This is what the Jews back in the NT were looking for, just like many Jews today are looking for this.

And those Jews in the NT were mistaken just as the Jews today are mistaken. They didn't want to hear that Christ's kingdom does not come with observation and that it is not of this world. They don't want to hear that because they have their own ideas of what Christ and His kingdom should be like. How can you think that the view of unbelieving Jews would be the truth?

John,
If what you are saying is true, then why did Jesus not simply explain that to the disciples with the quesion they ask in Acts 1:6. He clearly made no attempt to correct such a big error in their understanding of the promises to restore the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Seems like Jesus could have at least made mention of there being some misunderstanding with the throne of David in their minds before He ascended to that throne?

John,
If what you are saying is true, then why did Jesus not simply explain that to the disciples


I guess he could have used words to make his point.

Personally, though, I kinda think that the Acts 1 parting event of "when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" was a way of doing it was just a little bit more dramatic and resplendant.

How else would Peter, just a few verses later, spoke so clearly, and unconfused when he taught that Christ being raised to sit on the throne of David was fulfilled in Christ's Resurrection?

Within one chapter, and a couple dozen verses, Peter was very completely cleared up of the misconcepted idea that the Scribes and Pharisees held regarding the Messiah coming to reign on David's throne(being a mortal, temporal government like of old).

Peter's focus was the kingdom via the resurrection and ascension of Christ on High, reigning in power and glory over all.

Since Luke who wrote the gospel, also penned Acts, he probably got it to....and knew exactly this was the fulfillment of his earlier prophecy concerning the babe coming to fulfill the following, with His death, burial, and resurrection....

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. "

I guess he could have used words to make his point.

Personally, though, I kinda think that the Acts 1 parting event of "when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" was a way of doing it was just a little bit more dramatic and resplendant.

How else would Peter, just a few verses later, spoke so clearly, and unconfused when he taught that Christ being raised to sit on the throne of David was fulfilled in Christ's Resurrection?

Within one chapter, and a couple dozen verses, Peter was very completely cleared up of the misconcepted idea that the Scribes and Pharisees held regarding the Messiah coming to reign on David's throne(being a mortal, temporal government like of old).

Peter's focus was the kingdom via the resurrection and ascension of Christ on High, reigning in power and glory over all.

Since Luke who wrote the gospel, also penned Acts, he probably got it to....and knew exactly this was the fulfillment of his earlier prophecy concerning the babe coming to fulfill the following, with His death, burial, and resurrection....

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. "


Excellent post. And we know that a future millenial kingdom would not qualify as a kingdom that has no end.

Spiritually speaking, the throne is in heaven. Christ ascended to heaven and sat on the throne. That passage from Acts 2 makes that clear. It seems that you do not want to accept what that passage says. It is no longer David's throne because Christ took His place on the throne and it is now His throne that He sits on at the right hand of the Father. It is also the Father's throne. The Father and the Son sit on the same throne. They do not sit on a literal physical throne. We should not think of God that way. They sit or rule on a spiritual throne in a spiritual place called heaven.



It could be His vacation throne. You know, the kind everybody is getting these days. A throne away from throne type of thing. :rofl:

32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

This clearly says "right hand of God" and clearly says He received the promise of the Holy Spirit, where, other than your understanding, does scripture equate the throne of David with the right hand of God? Anywhere in scripture? Maybe it is the same place that says the Church will or is fullfilling all those prophesies about the restoration of Israel? That must be it.

"til I make your enemies your footstool" does not indicate forever, it indicates "until I make your enemies your footstool"

Of course He is ruling, there is no question about that so apparently He is not on a vacation throne. I was under the impression based on scripture He is interceeding for the saints, our High Priest, Mediator, not on vacation.

Great job.

We could list a dozen or more scriptures that show Christ's lineage through David, and through Judah.

We can list ZERO scriptures that show Christ's lineage through Judah's brother Levi. The only support for this method, is to force cousin, to mean blood-cousin, instead of married-cousin.

One view harmonizes with the pale of all scripture.

one view contradicts the pale of all scripture, in favor of a viewpoint that is speculative.

I wonder if Ezekiel_37 is Mormon and/or from some LDS offshoot that accepts the writings of Joseph Smith?

Mormonism is the only group I have ever read of who postulates that Jesus was a Levite.

no I am not Mormon or LDS, and no I do not accept the writings of Joseph Smith, nor have I read them.

and there are others who believe Christ was both a Levite and of Judah. This is the priest line and the king line. He is Our High Priest and the King of Kings. Mary stayed with her cousin 3 months. Christ and John were cousins. There is nothing in the Word to suggest that they were not blood cousins. John was a pure levite, making Christ at least 1/2 levite. No one desputes Mary's fathers lineage.

Peace in Christ

Are we given the information, spelled out for us, where this family tie of marriage between Elizabeth and Mary is. With Hebrews in mind seems there must be an explanation somewhere I just dont know where it is. And that is frustrating me.

Hebrew makes it clear that the tribe Christ is from was not anything to do with giving attendance to the altar.
7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

other than your understanding, does scripture equate the throne of David with the right hand of God? Anywhere in scripture?

Does scripture equate the throne of David with Christ? is Christ at the right hand of God?

in the psalms David speaks of the Lord's faithfullness to keep his covenant with David and He says that His faithfullness ( the promise of the Davidic covenant) he will establish in the heavens.

Psa 89:2 For I have said, "Mercy shall be built up forever; Your faithfulness You shall establish in the very heavens."
Psa 89:3 "I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David:
Psa 89:4 'Your seed I will establish forever, And build up your throne to all generations.' " Selah

Does scripture equate the throne of David with Christ? is Christ at the right hand of God?

in the psalms David speaks of the Lord's faithfullness to keep his covenant with David and He says that His faithfullness ( the promise of the Davidic covenant) he will establish in the heavens.

Psa 89:2 For I have said, "Mercy shall be built up forever; Your faithfulness You shall establish in the very heavens."
Psa 89:3 "I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David:
Psa 89:4 'Your seed I will establish forever, And build up your throne to all generations.' " Selah

And what was that covenant that God made with David? TO have His Son rule on this earth, on David's throne, in Jerusalem. Read Psalm 2 for more information, and also 2 Samuel 7. Is Christ in Jerusalem? If David's throne is in heaven, then why did Jesus say this when the Disciples said... well, let the scripture speak for itself.

Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (v 7) And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (v 8) But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Christ's answer for the restoration of Israel, "It is not for you to know". That simply says what it says, that He is not at that time restoring the Kingdom of David to Israel yet. It is up to the Father as to when, just as it is up to the Father to know when Christ is coming back to earth, and it is not for us to know the day or the hour of His Glorious return. Rather, He told them to focus on the empowerment, the filling of the Holy Spirit, and you, the disciples, will do what? "Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

OBVIOUSLY, the Lord did not intend on restoring David's throne when He went to the Father's right Hand. He went to rule the Kingdom of Heaven, which HE still is ruling today. Israel was destroyed and scattered for about 1900 years. Even while Israel was scattered Jesus was ruling. Not David's throne, which was abolished for a long while, but Heaven and Earth, as He had done in times past. Show me a verse, just one, that says that David's throne is in heaven. I have not sen one, although Benaiah wants psalms 89, which states that God has established His rightwousness in heaven, to say that David's throne is in heaven, it does not.

Show me a verse, just one, that says that David's throne is in heaven.

Sure, there are alot of verses that show this. (Here are 15)

2 Samuel 7:5, 13 "Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

2 Samuel 7:15 "But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."

I Kings 2:45 "And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever."

I Kings 9:5 "Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father"

I Chronicles 17:12 "He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. "

I Chronicles 22:10 "He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever."

Psalms 11:4 "The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven"

Psalms 45:6 "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"

Psalms 89:3 "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah."

Psalms 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven."

Psalms 132:11 "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore."

Isaiah 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever."

Jeremiah 17:25 "Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and this city shall remain for ever."










David's physical throne never was established in earthly Jerusalem for ever.


As the Psalms show above, Heaven is the only place than the true eternal throne of David could exist forever.




Jesse's son David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal son of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly throne of David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal throne of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly kingdom of David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal kingdom of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly city Jerusalem was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal Heavenly city Jerusalem, ruled by Jesus Christ.

Do those verses help you?

Psa 2:1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

Peter says this was fulfilled in Christ.

Act 4:25 "who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the LORD and against His Christ.'
Act 4:27 "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together


Show me a verse, just one, that says that David's throne is in heaven. I have not sen one,

No, you have seen it you just dont understand it.


although Benaiah wants psalms 89, which states that God has established His rightwousness in heaven, to say that David's throne is in heaven, it does not.

Interesting that you feel free to change the wording of scripture from "faithfulness" to "righteousness". psalm 89:2 speaks of God establishing his faithfulness in the heavens and verses 3 and 4 tells us what the subject of this faithfulness is, the covenant with David to establish his throne forever.

A king in a little known african village had a thing about thrones, Every year this king demanded that his subjects build him a fabulous throne, far better than the previous. However, the king was also a sentimental man and just could not part with the thrones he had acquired over the years. Year after year this king would store his throne in the upper room of his grass hut. The room began to fill with thrones and the weight was enormous. Then one day it happened. From the weight of all the thrones the grass hut came crashing down destroying all that the king loved and cherished.

After this the king became aware that it was far better to rule as his father did and his father before did. It was not by physical throne that made this man great in his kingdom but by the dynasty of compassion and righteousness.

The moral of this story is simple: do not store thrones in grass huts.
(taken from the story "Don't throw stones at glass houses")

13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. - Acts 15:13-17

In this passage, James explains that the tabernacle of David would be built at the time God would visit the Gentiles and to take out of them a people for His name. That happened at the first coming of Christ. The tabernacle of David is synonymous with the temple of God, which is the Church. Peter, speaking to Gentiles, said this:

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. - 1 Peter 2:9-10

The Gentile believers who were once not a people are now the people of God. Through Christ, God visited the Gentiles to take out a people for His name. And He grafted them in with the Jewish believers. In the same way that the tabernacle of David refers to the Church, the throne of David refers to the throne of God in heaven from which Christ reigns today and forever.

Eric

no I am not Mormon or LDS, and no I do not accept the writings of Joseph Smith, nor have I read them.

and there are others who believe Christ was both a Levite and of Judah. This is the priest line and the king line. He is Our High Priest and the King of Kings. Mary stayed with her cousin 3 months. Christ and John were cousins. There is nothing in the Word to suggest that they were not blood cousins. John was a pure levite, making Christ at least 1/2 levite. No one desputes Mary's fathers lineage.

Peace in Christ

The following passage from Hebrews should put to rest the opinion that Christ descended from the line of Aaron (Levite).

Heb 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and NOT be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Heb 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Heb 7:20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
Heb 7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

RW

Sure, there are alot of verses that show this. (Here are 15)

2 Samuel 7:5, 13 "Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever."

2 Samuel 7:15 "But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."

I Kings 2:45 "And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever."

I Kings 9:5 "Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father"

I Chronicles 17:12 "He shall build me an house, and I will establish his throne for ever. But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore. "

I Chronicles 22:10 "He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever."

Psalms 11:4 "The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD's throne is in heaven"

Psalms 45:6 "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"

Psalms 89:3 "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah."

Psalms 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven."

Psalms 132:11 "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore."

Isaiah 9:7 "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever."

Jeremiah 17:25 "Then shall there enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and this city shall remain for ever."










David's physical throne never was established in earthly Jerusalem for ever.


As the Psalms show above, Heaven is the only place than the true eternal throne of David could exist forever.



Jesse's son David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal son of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly throne of David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal throne of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly kingdom of David was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal kingdom of David, Jesus Christ.
The Earthly city Jerusalem was the short-term non-eternal type that finds its fulfillment in the eternal Heavenly city Jerusalem, ruled by Jesus Christ.
Do those verses help you?

Where is David's throne David? Where is it according to scripture? Here are some verses for you.

Psalm 2:6
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

Isaiah 65:18
But be ye glad and rejoice for ever [in that] which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

Verse 19
And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.

Verse 25
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust [shall be] the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Zechariah 14:9
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Verse 16-17
And it shall come to pass, [that] every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, [that] whoso will not come up of [all] the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

2 Samuel 20:3

And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women [his] concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood.

And I have many many more examples of David's throne and David's kingdom being in Jerusalem, God's Holy mountain. The point is, was, and has always been, that David never had a throne in Heaven, and moreover, he didn't even enter it until after Christ died on the Cross. Therefore, Jesus's throne, which was in Heaven before He came to the earth, is the very same throne that He returned to at His ascention, and not David's. Why else would the Disciples ask this question in Acts 1?

Acts 1:6
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Who's kingdom are they talking about? Could it possibly be David's Kingdom? Indeed it is exactly what they were talking about, since every Jew at that time was expecting the Messiah to rule the entire world, as Zechariah, David in the psalms, Nathan to David, and every other prophet that mentioned the Davidic Kingdom proclaimed. However, they did not understand that before David's Kingdom can be revived by the Son of God, for in Psalms 2 and 2 Samuel 7 proclaim that only the Son of God is able to revive David's Kingdom, that the Messiah had to die, and pay the penalty for all mankind's sins. Indeed, David knew about this, and Peter highlighted that in Acts 2.

The point is that David's kingdom was never in Heaven. that is God's throne. David never ruled or had a throne in heaven. Like I have said before, He wasn't even admitted into Heaven until after Christ died and did away with Abraham's Bosom, which was the place in the sheol where the blameless dead were stored while awaiting the redemption that Christ brought about. Christ was at the right hand of the Father befoe Creation. He did not have a human body beforehand, but nevertheless, He was there. And look to John 1 for evidence of that. Jesus returned to where he came from, and David was not there before he left, and therefore, David's throne, the place where David ruled, is not in heaven, but rather Jerusalem, which is why Peter and the other disciples asked Him if the time of His ascention was the time of Israel's restoration, to which he replied, it is not for you to know when this will happen. To me, that is rock solid evidence that Jesus did not restore Israel at that time.