Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[WayneNSO]

When the New Jerusalem comes down from Heaven, it will replace the earth, even if it sits in its place.

The reason we know that 2 Peter 3:10 isn't talking about a symbolic destruction of the earth is because it actually says that the elements themselves will be burned up. Not so in the case of Noah.

The Millennial Kingdom will be the LAST "age to come" on the earth before it is completely destroyed because sin lived on it. God, in all His glory, isn't capable of living on an earth that once contained sin when He chooses to live with man forever.

--

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:36

Some people read John 18 verse 36, where Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:" and they assume that Jesus is saying His Kingdom is only in heaven. That we will live in some ethereal place above the clouds. But, Jesus was saying that His earthly Kingdom was not of that age, which was the Roman world empire, the forth empire of Daniels vision, that still exists today in a different form. Daniel 7 verse 22, tells of a time when judgment is given to the saints of the most high, "and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Daniel 7:22

Isaiah 9 verse 6 prophesis of the birth of Jesus and says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:" thats the new heaven and Earth.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

And in Psalms 37 verse 11 we read "the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalms 37:11

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

The 'devastated earth' theory arises from a statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3 verse 10, who wrote:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

So is Peter going against the rest of scripture? or is something else meant?

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:6

II Peter 3 verse 6, tells us that the first heavens and earth ended in judgment by water. The 'world that then was' is describing the perverted political system in the days of Noah that passed away.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:7

The passing of the present heaven and earth is referring to the end of the social order which is the earth, and the end of the political or government order, which is the heavens, which will all be wiped out and come under the judgement of God, to make way for a new heaven and new earth, which is the Kingdom of God on this earth.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:1

Going back to 2 Peter 3 verse 10, and looking at the word elements, which seems to be the cause of the confusion, we see that the translation comes from the Greek word "stoicheion" which means something orderly in arrangement, in Hebrews 5 verse 12 this same word is translated "principles" which makes the meaning clearer in my opinion. The accepted 'rules' or 'principles' will pass away.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoicheion) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

 

[OMC]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:36

Some people read John 18 verse 36, where Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:" and they assume that Jesus is saying His Kingdom is only in heaven. That we will live in some ethereal place above the clouds. But, Jesus was saying that His earthly Kingdom was not of that age, which was the Roman world empire, the forth empire of Daniels vision, that still exists today in a different form. Daniel 7 verse 22, tells of a time when judgment is given to the saints of the most high, "and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Daniel 7:22

Isaiah 9 verse 6 prophesis of the birth of Jesus and says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:" thats the new heaven and Earth.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

And in Psalms 37 verse 11 we read "the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalms 37:11

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

The 'devastated earth' theory arises from a statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3 verse 10, who wrote:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

So is Peter going against the rest of scripture? or is something else meant?

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:6

II Peter 3 verse 6, tells us that the first heavens and earth ended in judgment by water. The 'world that then was' is describing the perverted political system in the days of Noah that passed away.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:7

The passing of the present heaven and earth is referring to the end of the social order which is the earth, and the end of the political or government order, which is the heavens, which will all be wiped out and come under the judgement of God, to make way for a new heaven and new earth, which is the Kingdom of God on this earth.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:1

Going back to 2 Peter 3 verse 10, and looking at the word elements, which seems to be the cause of the confusion, we see that the translation comes from the Greek word "stoicheion" which means something orderly in arrangement, in Hebrews 5 verse 12 this same word is translated "principles" which makes the meaning clearer in my opinion. The accepted 'rules' or 'principles' will pass away.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoicheion) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

I think you've presented a coherent interpretation, but I would hesitate to say that Peter's language in 2 Peter 3 can only refer to political and social systems.
The strength of your position is that Scripture does sometimes use "heavens and earth" figuratively for covenantal, political, and societal orders.
Isaiah contains examples where cosmic language is used to describe the downfall of nations and kingdoms.
So there is biblical precedent for that kind of symbolism.
However, my concern is that 2 Peter 3 repeatedly grounds its argument in the literal creation and the literal flood:
"By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" (v. 5).
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (v. 6).
Peter's comparison seems to be between two great divine interventions affecting the created order: first by water, later by fire.
If the flood involved the literal world inhabited by mankind, then many readers naturally conclude that the fire language likewise involves more than merely political structures.
Concerning στοιχεῖα (stoicheia), you're correct that the word can mean "elements," "rudiments," or "basic principles," depending on context.
Paul uses it in Galatians and Colossians for elementary principles.
Hebrews 5:12 uses it of basic teachings.
So the word itself does not automatically prove a material, atomic destruction of the universe.
The question is whether Peter is using the word in that metaphorical sense here.
Reasonable interpreters disagree on that point.
I think the strongest part of your argument is not the word stoicheia itself, but the broader biblical expectation that the saints inherit the earth (Ps. 37:11; Matt. 5:5), that God's kingdom comes to earth (Dan. 7:22), and that Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven rather than believers permanently escaping from earth.
So I would say this: your interpretation demonstrates that 2 Peter 3 does not necessarily require the utter annihilation of the planet. What remains to be shown is whether Peter intended only the passing of the present world order or whether he was describing a cosmic renewal that includes, but is not limited to, the overthrow of human governments and institutions.
That is where the real debate lies.

 

[Churchgoer]

We have already diligently inquired of @Beekeeper @HeIsHere @Churchgoer as to the TRIGGER that ushers in the Second Coming.
And we have discussed the primary PURPOSE of the Second Coming of Christ in power and great glory (hint: to rescue and deliver His wife the Nation Israel).

So ask yourself: What excuse remains to them?

Mat 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Mat 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mat 24:31
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The excuse is to follow Jesus only.
"Thou shall not have any gods before me".

Excuse me, I have no interest to bow to golden calf.

Good bye

 

[Revelation1v8]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:36

Some people read John 18 verse 36, where Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:" and they assume that Jesus is saying His Kingdom is only in heaven. That we will live in some ethereal place above the clouds. But, Jesus was saying that His earthly Kingdom was not of that age, which was the Roman world empire, the forth empire of Daniels vision, that still exists today in a different form. Daniel 7 verse 22, tells of a time when judgment is given to the saints of the most high, "and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Daniel 7:22

Isaiah 9 verse 6 prophesis of the birth of Jesus and says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:" thats the new heaven and Earth.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

And in Psalms 37 verse 11 we read "the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalms 37:11

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

The 'devastated earth' theory arises from a statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3 verse 10, who wrote:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

So is Peter going against the rest of scripture? or is something else meant?

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:6

II Peter 3 verse 6, tells us that the first heavens and earth ended in judgment by water. The 'world that then was' is describing the perverted political system in the days of Noah that passed away.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:7

The passing of the present heaven and earth is referring to the end of the social order which is the earth, and the end of the political or government order, which is the heavens, which will all be wiped out and come under the judgement of God, to make way for a new heaven and new earth, which is the Kingdom of God on this earth.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:1

Going back to 2 Peter 3 verse 10, and looking at the word elements, which seems to be the cause of the confusion, we see that the translation comes from the Greek word "stoicheion" which means something orderly in arrangement, in Hebrews 5 verse 12 this same word is translated "principles" which makes the meaning clearer in my opinion. The accepted 'rules' or 'principles' will pass away.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoicheion) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

Here's the problem with understanding scripture. Not everything listed in a single verse or a chapter all means the same thing or even happens in the same time period. If you were watching the discussion between Beekeeper and I much earlier, you would see how we pointed out that events and time periods can intermingle with each other throughout. That's what makes it difficult to understand at times. Let's use one of the verses you picked above and I'll show you what I mean:

2 Peter 3:7

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Again, that verse above is telling you that the heavens and earth are kept in store for NOW, but are reserved for judgement with fire later. It won't be destroyed until after the next "age to come" has passed, which is the Millennial Kingdom period.

You just have to know how to read it based on how the rest of the Bible explains it.

--

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

The excuse is to follow Jesus only.
"Thou shall not have any gods before me".

Excuse me, I have no interest to bow to golden calf.

Good bye

It sounds like you've already bowed to the golden calf when you refused to listen to every word of God like Jesus told you to in Matthew 4:4.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:36

Now, based on what I just showed you about 2 Peter 3:7, let's see what John 18:36 really means.

Jesus is telling everyone that if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight for me.

When Jesus returns to earth, He will bring every one of His saints with Him to fight alongside Him and FOR HIM.

So, Jesus said, "but NOW is my kingdom not from hence". Why? Because that wasn't the time for the Millennial Kingdom from which Jesus will rule over the nations from Jerusalem.

THEN it transitions into the permanent kingdom of Heaven, which is NOT of this world after the Millennial Kingdom is over.

--

 

[WayneNSO]

I think you've presented a coherent interpretation, but I would hesitate to say that Peter's language in 2 Peter 3 can only refer to political and social systems.
The strength of your position is that Scripture does sometimes use "heavens and earth" figuratively for covenantal, political, and societal orders.
Isaiah contains examples where cosmic language is used to describe the downfall of nations and kingdoms.
So there is biblical precedent for that kind of symbolism.
However, my concern is that 2 Peter 3 repeatedly grounds its argument in the literal creation and the literal flood:
"By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" (v. 5).
"Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (v. 6).
Peter's comparison seems to be between two great divine interventions affecting the created order: first by water, later by fire.
If the flood involved the literal world inhabited by mankind, then many readers naturally conclude that the fire language likewise involves more than merely political structures.
Concerning στοιχεῖα (stoicheia), you're correct that the word can mean "elements," "rudiments," or "basic principles," depending on context.
Paul uses it in Galatians and Colossians for elementary principles.
Hebrews 5:12 uses it of basic teachings.
So the word itself does not automatically prove a material, atomic destruction of the universe.
The question is whether Peter is using the word in that metaphorical sense here.
Reasonable interpreters disagree on that point.
I think the strongest part of your argument is not the word stoicheia itself, but the broader biblical expectation that the saints inherit the earth (Ps. 37:11; Matt. 5:5), that God's kingdom comes to earth (Dan. 7:22), and that Revelation 21 depicts the New Jerusalem descending out of heaven rather than believers permanently escaping from earth.
So I would say this: your interpretation demonstrates that 2 Peter 3 does not necessarily require the utter annihilation of the planet. What remains to be shown is whether Peter intended only the passing of the present world order or whether he was describing a cosmic renewal that includes, but is not limited to, the overthrow of human governments and institutions.
That is where the real debate lies.

Apart from the melting away of Governments and powers we have this: If the whole world had a third world war, which is very likely, the destruction we can cause these days might look like the whole world is on fire and would justify the description in Peter, because that is what is would probably look like. But as far as the planet itself being destroyed, that goes against scripture.

 

[WayneNSO]

Here's the problem with understanding scripture. Not everything listed in a single verse or a chapter all means the same thing or even happens in the same time period. If you were watching the discussion between Beekeeper and I much earlier, you would see how we pointed out that events and time periods can intermingle with each other throughout. That's what makes it difficult to understand at times. Let's use one of the verses you picked above and I'll show you what I mean:

2 Peter 3:7

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Again, that verse above is telling you that the heavens and earth are kept in store for NOW, but are reserved for judgement with fire later. It won't be destroyed until after the next "age to come" has passed, which is the Millennial Kingdom period.

You just have to know how to read it based on how the rest of the Bible explains it.

--

--

Scripture does not contradict itself - if our understanding of certain passages contradict other passages, it is our understanding that is at fault

 

[OMC]

Apart from the melting away of Governments and powers we have this: If the whole world had a third world war, which is very likely, the destruction we can cause these days might look like the whole world is on fire and would justify the description in Peter, because that is what is would probably look like. But as far as the planet itself being destroyed, that goes against scripture.

I think you're on firmer ground when you argue from Scripture than when you speculate about a future world war.

Scripture certainly presents a future judgment that will overthrow the present world order, and I agree that passages such as Psalm 37, Matthew 5:5, Daniel 7:22, and Revelation 21 point toward God's people inheriting the earth rather than escaping it forever.
Those texts make it difficult to argue that the final goal is a permanently abandoned planet.

However, I would be cautious about identifying Peter's fire with modern nuclear warfare.
Peter doesn't mention human warfare, nations destroying themselves, or military conflict.
He presents the event as a direct act of divine judgment associated with "the day of the Lord."
Once we start attaching contemporary scenarios to prophetic texts, we can easily move beyond what the text itself says.

That said, I do think you've identified a legitimate problem for the "planet annihilation" view.
If Scripture repeatedly speaks of the meek inheriting the earth, the saints possessing the kingdom, and the New Jerusalem coming down to earth, then any interpretation of 2 Peter 3 should account for those passages as well.
Peter may be describing a world-shaking purification and transformation rather than the absolute destruction of the planet itself.

 

[WayneNSO]

I think you're on firmer ground when you argue from Scripture than when you speculate about a future world war.

Scripture certainly presents a future judgment that will overthrow the present world order, and I agree that passages such as Psalm 37, Matthew 5:5, Daniel 7:22, and Revelation 21 point toward God's people inheriting the earth rather than escaping it forever.
Those texts make it difficult to argue that the final goal is a permanently abandoned planet.

However, I would be cautious about identifying Peter's fire with modern nuclear warfare.
Peter doesn't mention human warfare, nations destroying themselves, or military conflict.
He presents the event as a direct act of divine judgment associated with "the day of the Lord."
Once we start attaching contemporary scenarios to prophetic texts, we can easily move beyond what the text itself says.

That said, I do think you've identified a legitimate problem for the "planet annihilation" view.
If Scripture repeatedly speaks of the meek inheriting the earth, the saints possessing the kingdom, and the New Jerusalem coming down to earth, then any interpretation of 2 Peter 3 should account for those passages as well.
Peter may be describing a world-shaking purification and transformation rather than the absolute destruction of the planet itself.

You are right - I should stick to scripture and not speculate on the fly

 

[Revelation1v8]

Scripture does not contradict itself - if our understanding of certain passages contradict other passages, it is our understanding that is at fault

True. That's why you have to pick apart every chapter and verse like I showed you above to see how it can be viewed to fit all of the scriptures as a whole.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:36

Some people read John 18 verse 36, where Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:" and they assume that Jesus is saying His Kingdom is only in heaven. That we will live in some ethereal place above the clouds. But, Jesus was saying that His earthly Kingdom was not of that age, which was the Roman world empire, the forth empire of Daniels vision, that still exists today in a different form. Daniel 7 verse 22, tells of a time when judgment is given to the saints of the most high, "and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
Daniel 7:22

Isaiah 9 verse 6 prophesis of the birth of Jesus and says: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder:" thats the new heaven and Earth.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isaiah 9:6

And in Psalms 37 verse 11 we read "the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."

But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalms 37:11

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

The 'devastated earth' theory arises from a statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3 verse 10, who wrote:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

So is Peter going against the rest of scripture? or is something else meant?

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2 Peter 3:6

II Peter 3 verse 6, tells us that the first heavens and earth ended in judgment by water. The 'world that then was' is describing the perverted political system in the days of Noah that passed away.

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:7

The passing of the present heaven and earth is referring to the end of the social order which is the earth, and the end of the political or government order, which is the heavens, which will all be wiped out and come under the judgement of God, to make way for a new heaven and new earth, which is the Kingdom of God on this earth.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Revelation 21:1

Going back to 2 Peter 3 verse 10, and looking at the word elements, which seems to be the cause of the confusion, we see that the translation comes from the Greek word "stoicheion" which means something orderly in arrangement, in Hebrews 5 verse 12 this same word is translated "principles" which makes the meaning clearer in my opinion. The accepted 'rules' or 'principles' will pass away.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles (stoicheion) of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:12

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:10

So again, when the verses say that they will inherit the earth, it's talking about the Millennial Kingdom period, which is also "the age to come".

Only after everyone is judged in Revelation 20, and the new heaven and earth appear in Revelation 21 does it show us the permanent Kingdom of Heaven, otherwise known as the "permanent state", which is NOT of this world like John 18:36 shows.

--

 

[WayneNSO]

So again, when the verses say that they will inherit the earth, it's talking about the Millennial Kingdom period, which is also "the age to come".

Only after everyone is judged in Revelation 20, and the new heaven and earth appear in Revelation 21 does it show us the permanent Kingdom of Heaven, otherwise known as the "permanent state", which is NOT of this world like John 18:36 shows.

--

Again John 18:36 is saying this order the Roman World is not my world, it is talking about the constitution, the principality's and powers of that age. You are making it say what you want it to say.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Again John 18:36 is saying this order the Roman World is not my world, it is talking about the constitution, the principality's and powers of that age. You are making it say what you want it to say.

Jesus said MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, because the world isn't where Jesus originated from. He was in Heaven and in the beginning with God, because He IS GOD. That is where He returned after His resurrection and that is what He pulls down from Heaven to create the New Jerusalem.

--

 

[HeIsHere]

The promised Messiah who you don't even believe when He said He was returning to earth?! The majority of the discussion in this thread is what happens AFTER Jesus returns. You can't even get through scripture enough to make it that far!

--

Just follow the time stamps and use audience relevance and maybe, just maybe, you will escape your indoctrination.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Just follow the time stamps and use audience relevance and maybe just maybe you will escape your indoctrination.

Audience relevance shows that your views are irrelevant because you've been indoctrinated.

What seems to be a common pattern among some of you is that you don't understand scripture and what God has said because you don't understand HOW Jesus is God.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

--

@HeIsHere, laugh all you want with your emojis, but it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't understand it. That's why you never address this statement and it's also why you can't use scripture to back up your views. You never understood them to begin with, because you don't understand how Jesus is God.

--

 

[cv5]

--

@HeIsHere, laugh all you want with your emojis, but it's becoming more and more apparent that you don't understand it. That's why you never address this statement and it's also why you can't use scripture to back up your views. You never understood them to begin with, because you don't understand how Jesus is God.

--

Come on man. These people are not serious.
They cannot (and do not) care to produce ANY compelling arguments nor do they have any intention to use Scripture for its intended purpose.

Mat 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

 

[Psalm1]

And there is me who believes in the second coming of Christ but that the Kingdom will be on earth - that no one is going to be taken to an other worldly place called Heaven

Rev 14 has the 144,000 in heaven, and a few sentences later, the main harvest Jews are taken alive, to heaven....during the trib

 

[Revelation1v8]

Come on man. These people are not serious.
They cannot (and do not) care to produce ANY compelling arguments nor do they have any intention to use Scripture for its intended purpose.

Mat 15:8
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

They are the blind leading the blind, but I've had enough of these types of conversations over many years to see that the stumbling block usually comes into focus when you realize that some Christians truly don't understand how Jesus is God, which truly can inhibit their ability to read and understand the scriptures. People go silent when I bring it up.

--