Daniel is out of chronological order.

[loveme1]

Here's a link.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...el-out-chronological-order-13.html#post962441

Thank you, i may of missed it in the past.

i believed Rabbie Zwern accepted Yahshua the Messiah.. i don't understand how he can be an example if anything it goes against the idea that they are 'unable' to believe...... He believed.

 

[loveme1]

Ellis, you may sigh or smile but how on earth can you justify writing such things?

You either believe the Messiah:

John 6

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 14

Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Or you reject the Yahshua Messiah and Heavenly Father in favour of the deception.

May He have mercy upon you.

 

[doulos]

Galileo Was Wrong
Galileo Was Wrong < click

In post 387 Therapon said

At the beginning of the 17th century, the astronomer Galileo looked through his telescope and saw that the moon was actually gray and it wasn’t smooth, it had mountains, plains and craters. Galileo was forced to appear before the Pope for his “heresy” where he was informed that the moon was a “type of Christ’s righteousness” therefore, it was lily white and none of what Galileo had seen with his own eyes was true . . . so recant or the church will burn you at the stake! Not being suicidal, Galileo recanted, but as he was leaving the audience, he was heard to mutter under his breath, “but the moon still has craters.”……………

That gray color you see comes from the surface of the Moon which is mostly oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium and aluminum.
Read more: Color of the Moon
This google search shows numerous sites explaining the craters.

Looks like Galileo was right.

But as usual in Zones desperate attempt to disprove anything Therapon says wrong Zone finds an article (brought to you by the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism) which is a different subject then whether the moon is grey and has craters instead of lily white as the church contended and then claims this article proves Galileo wrong despite the fact that even on the subject of geocentrism chosen by Zone "practically every scientist (and 79% of Americans) accept that the Earth and the other planets go around the Sun," So "the idea that “Galileo was wrong” is now 401 years out of date, and very, very easy to disprove" http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/

wikipedia is more accurate than Ellis Skolfield's rubbish

Care for another pitcher of kool aid Zone?

 

[Therapon]

The whole idea that for 1900 years there were parts of the Bible we couldn't understand, well, indirectly that speaks badly of God. God gave us his word and he meant for it to be understood. Saying he couldn't get his point across for 1900 years makes him sound like a terrible communicator.

These kinda of things, like I keep saying are VERY concerning. And when people see theological novelty, they really need to perk their ears up and in most cases dismiss it.

Brother,

Throughout the Christian era, there have been many new openings of God's Word. It isn't that the Bible changed in any way, but our understanding of it sure has. The theology we teach today bears little resemblance to the doctrines of the 14th century. For instance, the church didn’t recognize that “the just shall live by faith” before Martin Luther, there was no Armenian position before the 1600s and no Calvinism either.

Preterism didn’t become widespread until the middle is the 18th century and Dispensational eschatology didn’t enter the American church until John Darby taught it to C.I. Scofield. Whether any of them were correct or not isn’t the issue. In fact, everyone of them thought those with opposing views were raving heretics. <smile>

Now in my own lifetime, the greatest fulfillments of Bible prophecy since the Cross, have taken place in the holy land and those two events have changed everything!

The new nation of Israel was established in 1948 and Jerusalem was freed of Gentile control in 1967. So I now say in the Lord, sovereign God has opened His Word anew through those two events, but it’s like Jesus said, they won’t hear you, even if someone were to rise from the dead.

 

[Therapon]

In post 387 Therapon said


That gray color you see comes from the surface of the Moon which is mostly oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium and aluminum.
Read more: Color of the Moon
This google search shows numerous sites explaining the craters.

Looks like Galileo was right.

But as usual in Zones desperate attempt to disprove anything Therapon says wrong Zone finds an article (brought to you by the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism) which is a different subject then whether the moon is grey and has craters instead of lily white as the church contended and then claims this article proves Galileo wrong despite the fact that even on the subject of geocentrism chosen by Zone "practically every scientist (and 79% of Americans) accept that the Earth and the other planets go around the Sun," So "the idea that “Galileo was wrong” is now 401 years out of date, and very, very easy to disprove" http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/

Care for another pitcher of kool aid Zone?

LOL, I couldn't have cared less about the accuracy of Galileo's discovery, I was using it as a metaphor of conditions in the church today. Nothing has changed much, huh?

 

[doulos]

Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect (G1588) from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other
G1588 ἐκλεκτός eklektos ek-lek-tos'
From G1586; select; by implication favorite: - chosen, elect.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election (GG1589), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
G1589 ἐκλογή eklogē ek-log-ay'
From G1586; (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely): - chosen, election.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The enemies of the gospel that are part of the election are elect just like the elect in Mat24:31 that are called to be with the Lord at the last trump. Therefore the elect that are enemies of the gospel are born again or they would not be granted access to the kingdom of God.

The verse does not say they will be elect after they are born again, the verse does say that they are elect while being an enemy of the gospel.

Can any one explain how one that is part of the election (born again believer) can be an enemy of the gospel? Surely out of those that say Therapon is in error someone should be able to provide a Scripturally sound explanation (don’t just throw out verses without your interpretation) how this can happen.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If you want to ignore the fact that the Jews do control Jreusalem. Go right ahead but that still does not change the fact that Jreusalem is now under Israel’s government is back under Jewish control. It’s up to you believe the facts or ignore them just because they don’t fit your.

Yep. thats is why there is a dome of the rock there and not a temple.

Again, My neighbor has family which lives there. I will trust her eyewitness testimony (she just came from there a few weeks ago) over some words of me.

So despite the fact that the Jews have instituted their own government and are now a sovereign nation under their own control, recognized by the UN does not mean they are in control of their own country? Interesting logic you use there my friend, makes perfect sense if one isn’t interested in truth and is only interested in promoting their unprovable futurist propoganda.

1. Are they living in peace? No
2. Are they still in sin? Yes
3. have the gentile nations which treated them badly been puniushed for their harsh treatment by God himself? Nope.

All these things are said to be true when prophesy has been fulfilled. Futurist propoganda?? lol. Ok. if you say so..

Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches(G1577): and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches(G1577).

G1577 ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

Churches are the believers as a group. Yes the believers have been slain and left dead in the streets ever since the tribulation began back in the first century. But even as one life ended when a believer had finished their testimony another stepped up and started his. No man can live for centuries, but the chain of believers the church can. We can only serve God the lengths of our lives and when that life is over we have finished our testimony. How many Christians and Jews have been slain and left in the streets of Jerusalem over the last 2000 or so years? Through out the centuries haven’t the persecutors rejoiced at their deaths? At the last trump when all are resurrected arise won’t fear fall upon the persecutors that see this?

It’s not forcing a fit when you use the definitions Scripture provides.

lol.. Ok.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner. [SUP]6 [/SUP]These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire. [SUP]7 [/SUP]When they finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our[SUP][c][/SUP] Lord was crucified. [SUP]9 [/SUP]Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow[SUP][d][/SUP] their dead bodies to be put into graves. [SUP]10 [/SUP]And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Two prophets.. I guess we just totally ignore this passage.

Dead, by the beast (satan)

Seen by the whole world for three days

Power to make plaugues happen all over the earth.

yet this is the church.. Keep believing that fantasy, i will believe they will be two literal prophets sent by God..

 

[zone]

In post 387 Therapon said


That gray color you see comes from the surface of the Moon which is mostly oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium and aluminum.
Read more: Color of the Moon
This google search shows numerous sites explaining the craters.

Looks like Galileo was right.

But as usual in Zones desperate attempt to disprove anything Therapon says wrong Zone finds an article (brought to you by the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism) which is a different subject then whether the moon is grey and has craters instead of lily white as the church contended and then claims this article proves Galileo wrong despite the fact that even on the subject of geocentrism chosen by Zone "practically every scientist (and 79% of Americans) accept that the Earth and the other planets go around the Sun," So "the idea that “Galileo was wrong” is now 401 years out of date, and very, very easy to disprove" http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/



Care for another pitcher of kool aid Zone?[/FONT][/COLOR]

*yawn*
do you want some new pics?
LOL.

ya....most ill-informed agree with the Kabbalistic BIG BANG "theory".
eons and eons of star stu-u-u-u-u-f-f-f-f-f.

billions of years to account fo' EBOLUSHUN.

no, they never even believed God when He told of creation

doulos, you got nada.
poor you.

 

[zone]

Is this written somewhere for us all to see?

I was raised to be a rabbi and have been aware of the presence of the Kodesh Ruach (the Holy Spirit) all my life.” Now the Holy Spirit does not indwell the hearts of those who do not belong to G-d, so unless Rabbi Zwern was lying through his teeth, I had to conclude that it was possible for Jews during the Christian era to be saved without recognizing Yeshua as Messiah. I now have a host of Biblical and anecdotal evidence to support that conclusion.

...........

 

[zone]

Ellis will you confirm or deny that you wrote that?

I was raised to be a rabbi and have been aware of the presence of the Kodesh Ruach (the Holy Spirit) all my life.” Now the Holy Spirit does not indwell the hearts of those who do not belong to G-d, so unless Rabbi Zwern was lying through his teeth, I had to conclude that it was possible for Jews during the Christian era to be saved without recognizing Yeshua as Messiah. I now have a host of Biblical and anecdotal evidence to support that conclusion.

........

this is another gospel, and ellis believes people can believe in some other christ and be saved.
why this is tolerated i do not know.

 

[zone]

Thank you, i may of missed it in the past.

i believed Rabbie Zwern accepted Yahshua the Messiah.. i don't understand how he can be an example if anything it goes against the idea that they are 'unable' to believe...... He believed.

exactly loveme.

if God supposedly has Two Trees - One Jewish and One Gentile, and the unbelieving Jews (not in Jesus but any other messiah is okay) are saved and preserved Old Testament Wineskin Jews who were purposely BLINDED so they wouldn't PERISH, why would God wake any of them up?

like......er....ok

 

[zone]

Brother,

Throughout the Christian era, there have been many new openings of God's Word. It isn't that the Bible changed in any way, but our understanding of it sure has. The theology we teach today bears little resemblance to the doctrines of the 14th century. For instance, the church didn’t recognize that “the just shall live by faith” before Martin Luther, there was no Armenian position before the 1600s and no Calvinism either.

Preterism didn’t become widespread until the middle is the 18th century and Dispensational eschatology didn’t enter the American church until John Darby taught it to C.I. Scofield. Whether any of them were correct or not isn’t the issue. In fact, everyone of them thought those with opposing views were raving heretics. <smile>

Now in my own lifetime, the greatest fulfillments of Bible prophecy since the Cross, have taken place in the holy land and those two events have changed everything!

The new nation of Israel was established in 1948 and Jerusalem was freed of Gentile control in 1967. So I now say in the Lord, sovereign God has opened His Word anew through those two events, but it’s like Jesus said, they won’t hear you, even if someone were to rise from the dead.

Ellis, you wrote:

"Daniel was a Jew raised under the Levitical code, so we should look at Daniel's prophecy from Daniel's knowledge base, the Levitical code!!! One seven, followed by seven sevens, followed by a jubilee year with 360 Sabbaths. Now look at the 70 weeks, One seven or "shavuim," followed by 62 "shavuim" followed by one unique "shavua." Different numbers, but the numeric progression is the same. So is it possible that this unique "shavua" is like the jubilee year with 360 Sabbeths?

If so you multiply that "shabua" or 7 x 360 and you get 2520 Hebrew years or 2484 solar years, which (by some coincidental fluke according to you) fits history exactly.

So lets read Daniel 9:29 again looking t that verse in a Levitical light, with the possibility that this final Seven was Fulfilled in 1948 by the new nation of Israel.

Daniel 9:27 "But he (a satanic prince) will confirm a covenant with many (Jewish people) for one seven (2520 prophetic, i.e., 2484 solar years), but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering (by making the temple mount spiritually desolate), and one who causes desolations (the satanic spirit behind Islam) will place abominations (the Dome of the Rock) on a wing of the temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

Now doesn’t that fit Scripture and recorded history a whole lot better then an imaginary seven-year tribulation?"

...........................................

"Daniel 9:27 "But he (a satanic prince) will confirm a covenant with many (Jewish people) for one seven (2520 prophetic, i.e., 2484 solar years), but in the middle of that seven, he will put an end to sacrifice and offering (by making the temple mount spiritually desolate), and one who causes desolations (the satanic spirit behind Islam) will place abominations (the Dome of the Rock) on a wing of the temple, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

...........................................

okay

not only do we have another group taking the Finished Work of Christ For Daniel's people in the 70th week and attributing it TO SATAN.....

we have:

69 of the 70 weeks being just what they really were - periods of 7 years.

BUT - since we are zionists and need to hate on A-rabs and the DOR, we made the 70th week 2484 solar years LONG!

and nothing is evidence, and everything hinges on a question: "So is it possible that this unique "shavua" is like the jubilee year with 360 Sabbeths?"

and there ain't no unique week...

and people actually listen to us!

mkay.

 

[Abiding]

Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect (G1588) from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other
G1588 ἐκλεκτός eklektos ek-lek-tos'
From G1586; select; by implication favorite: - chosen, elect.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election (GG1589), they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
G1589 ἐκλογή eklogē ek-log-ay'
From G1586; (divine) selection (abstractly or concretely): - chosen, election.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
The enemies of the gospel that are part of the election are elect just like the elect in Mat24:31 that are called to be with the Lord at the last trump. Therefore the elect that are enemies of the gospel are born again or they would not be granted access to the kingdom of God.

The verse does not say they will be elect after they are born again, the verse does say that they are elect while being an enemy of the gospel.

Can any one explain how one that is part of the election (born again believer) can be an enemy of the gospel? Surely out of those that say Therapon is in error someone should be able to provide a Scripturally sound explanation (don’t just throw out verses without your interpretation) how this can happen.

Ive explained your error many times. I know you know that. Word play with the word "elect"
You keep insisting "elect" always means saved. Which it doesnt. Im afraid now i find you dishonest on purpose.

Israel as a nation and people were "elect" Right? Yes!!
But:

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
[SUP]11 [/SUP](For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth


Then we have it used in a different way in chapter 11:5 this time it is used for salvation.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]Even so then at this present time also there is "a remnant according to the election of grace".
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

You cannot go around the bible with the word "elect" and say it means the same thing each time.
Israel was chosen, elected to have a position and status until Christ. Election according to grace is not the same.

So now to your fav verse you think is a stumper to folks:

[SUP]28 [/SUP]As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

This time election again pertains to Israel as a chosen people to bring the promises made to the fathers. In otherwords unbelieving Israel became Gods enemies and the gospel went to the world and as far as touching the purposes of Israel they are beloved by bringing those promises to pass. And we have obtained mercy now and can show them mercy.

In otherwords for you to continue saying that the ones in unbelief are the same as the saved ones is just wrong.
And the fairytail in this thread sorta hinges on that oversimplistic error.

 

[zone]

 

[Therapon]

Ive explained your error many times. I know you know that. Word play with the word "elect"
You keep insisting "elect" always means saved. Which it doesnt. Im afraid now i find you dishonest on purpose.

Here is the verse . . . "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."

Abiding, that simple conjunction is the problem with your position. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies. . . but . . ." Though "de" can be translated in different ways, in this passage "de" is translated "but" by all major authorities.

That but shows opposing thoughts: " enemies of the Gospel, but . . ."

But what? ". . . but "elect . . ." in Greek "ekloge," defined by every major authority as "divine selection, choice," referring everywhere else in the New Testament to the Gentile believers.

Now you can't have election working for Gentile believers everywhere else in the New Testament and say, "Oh no, that word means something different for the Jews and I'll use other verses to show why that can't be true."

It is faulty exegesis to proclaim one verse of scripture subordinate to another, each is the Word of God. Romans 11:28 can be believed as stated, even if it were the only verse in the Bible! This is not to imply that all Jews of the Christian era are saved, but the Bible tells us who is . . .

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Notice that the Lord is not speaking about the Gentile church, but about the Jews of the Christian era, and whether it goes along with our doctrine or not, their "praise is of God." Why do you think Preterists are so in love with Replacement Theology? If God is still dealing with the Jewish people during the Christian era, then the verses above and many like it are the death-knell of their view.

 

[zone]

Here is the verse . . . "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."

Abiding, that simple conjunction is the problem with your position. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies. . . but . . ." Though "de" can be translated in different ways, in this passage "de" is translated "but" by all major authorities.

That but shows opposing thoughts: " enemies of the Gospel, but . . ."

But what? ". . . but "elect . . ." in Greek "ekloge," defined by every major authority as "divine selection, choice," referring everywhere else in the New Testament to the Gentile believers.

Now you can't have election working for Gentile believers everywhere else in the New Testament and say, "Oh no, that word means something different for the Jews and I'll use other verses to show why that can't be true."

It is faulty exegesis to proclaim one verse of scripture subordinate to another, each is the Word of God. Romans 11:28 can be believed as stated, even if it were the only verse in the Bible! This is not to imply that all Jews of the Christian era are saved, but the Bible tells us who is . . .

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Notice that the Lord is not speaking about the Gentile church, but about the Jews of the Christian era, and whether it goes along with our doctrine or not, their "praise is of God." Why do you think Preterists are so in love with Replacement Theology? If God is still dealing with the Jewish people during the Christian era, then the verses above and many like it are the death-knell of their view.

there it is...Replacement Theology.

..................

"There is no such thing as "Replacement Theology." Critics of historic Reformed theology misrepresent their position by asserting the Church has replaced Israel.

There is one people of God. This singular “People of God” is comprised of people from both Jewish and Gentile descent.

The common factor is that they are “saved by grace through faith.”

This theme of Jew / Gentile unity is replayed so many times in the New Testament.

To reject the premise of one people of God is almost to reject the message of Christianity."

RIGHT VIEW


ONE TREE​

as for the death knell?

explain this Ellis:


Galatians 4
Sons and Heirs
1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,a though he is the owner of everything, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principlesb of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul’s Concern for the Galatians
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. 9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? 10You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

12Brothers,c I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15What then has become of the blessing you felt? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?d 17They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

Example of Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband.”

28Now you,f brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.



either Paul is wrong, or you are.



2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.




Dual-covenant theology is a Christian view of the Old Covenant which holds that Jews may simply keep the Law of Moses, because of the "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah to be assured of a place in the World to Come.

Many forms of Christianity, especially Conservative Protestants, consider this view to be heresy.

Dual-covenant theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Here is the verse . . . "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes."

Abiding, that simple conjunction is the problem with your position. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies. . . but . . ." Though "de" can be translated in different ways, in this passage "de" is translated "but" by all major authorities.

That but shows opposing thoughts: " enemies of the Gospel, but . . ."

But what? ". . . but "elect . . ." in Greek "ekloge," defined by every major authority as "divine selection, choice," referring everywhere else in the New Testament to the Gentile believers.

Now you can't have election working for Gentile believers everywhere else in the New Testament and say, "Oh no, that word means something different for the Jews and I'll use other verses to show why that can't be true."

It is faulty exegesis to proclaim one verse of scripture subordinate to another, each is the Word of God. Romans 11:28 can be believed as stated, even if it were the only verse in the Bible! This is not to imply that all Jews of the Christian era are saved, but the Bible tells us who is . . .

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Notice that the Lord is not speaking about the Gentile church, but about the Jews of the Christian era, and whether it goes along with our doctrine or not, their "praise is of God." Why do you think Preterists are so in love with Replacement Theology? If God is still dealing with the Jewish people during the Christian era, then the verses above and many like it are the death-knell of their view.

elect does not always mean salvation.

Israel was God elect in the OT. It never meant they were always saved. Romans 9 proves this.

If your using the word elect to prove all jews are saved, even if they do not believe in Christ who died 2000 years ago., Your taking the word out of context and its true BIBLICAL meaning

 

[Therapon]

elect does not always mean salvation.
Israel was God elect in the OT. It never meant they were always saved. Romans 9 proves this.
If your using the word elect to prove all jews are saved, even if they do not believe in Christ who died 2000 years ago., Your taking the word out of context and its true BIBLICAL meaning

I have never claimed that Jews are saved just because they are Jews, neither have I ever claimed that all Jews are saved. Salvation, Old Testament and New, is not based on how correct the doctrine is, but on how right the heart is before God.

Watchman Nee was holding a tent service in Outer Mongolia, at the end of whichand an ancient Mongolian walked up to Nee and said . . .

"When I was 14, my mother took me to the Buddhist temple to pray, give an offering and burn incense. I looked that old idol and said to myself, 'Buddha, you're just a piece of stone and you can do nothing for me good or ill so I am not going to worship you.' I walked out into the courtyard, raised my hands toward heaven and said, 'oh God who made all of his, I don't know who You are or anything about You, but
it is You I am going to worship all my life.' Then with tears running down his face, the old Mongolians said, 'I've met God twice in my life. The first time was back in that courtyard, the second time is right now, when I know who He is.'"

I read that testimony in one of Watchman Nee's books, my words may not be exact, but the story is true. So EG, I have a couple of questions to ask you.

1. Was he saved the first time or the second time he met God?
2. If he had died before he heard the gospel would he have gone to hell?

!f 1, then salvation does not depend on what you know.
If 2, then salvation depends on knowledge rather than heart condition and there are a zillion versus that say otherwise!

The point of all this is that churches today are teaching doctrinal salvation: if you've said the sinner's prayer (come down to the mourner's bench or performed the approved ritual, whatever that night might happen to be) you're saved, or if you're in a covenant Church and were baptized as an infant, you're saved.

Not so! You can do all the above and more, and still be as lost as a kangaroo in Manhattan. God is not looking for kangaroos who can march lockstep with a gazillion other kangaroos. God is looking for people who are aware they are sinners, but have a humble and contrite heart towards Him. True for Jew, true for Gentile, doctrine has nothing to do with it. You know, EG, I hear a lot of doctrine on here, but precious little humility, kindness or love. But a Jew, blinded to the Gospel by sovereign God, exhibiting all three godly attributes is going to hell because he hasn't gotten his doctrine updated?

 

[zone]

God is looking for people who are aware they are sinners, but have a humble and contrite heart towards Him. True for Jew, true for Gentile, doctrine has nothing to do with it. You know......I hear a lot of doctrine on here, but precious little humility, kindness or love. But a Jew, blinded to the Gospel by sovereign God, exhibiting all three godly attributes is going to hell because he hasn't gotten his doctrine updated?

this fellow is kind, humble, good to his family, and believes he is fallen short of his god's desires (he believes in a creator).

i'm so pleased he's saved.

i wonder if we should recall all our missionaries?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I have never claimed that Jews are saved just because they are Jews, neither have I ever claimed that all Jews are saved. Salvation, Old Testament and New, is not based on how correct the doctrine is, but on how right the heart is before God.

Is this so? the penalty of sin is death. so how can a right heart make one right with God apart from death?

Watchman Nee was holding a tent service in Outer Mongolia, at the end of whichand an ancient Mongolian walked up to Nee and said . . .

"When I was 14, my mother took me to the Buddhist temple to pray, give an offering and burn incense. I looked that old idol and said to myself, 'Buddha, you're just a piece of stone and you can do nothing for me good or ill so I am not going to worship you.' I walked out into the courtyard, raised my hands toward heaven and said, 'oh God who made all of his, I don't know who You are or anything about You, but
it is You I am going to worship all my life.' Then with tears running down his face, the old Mongolians said, 'I've met God twice in my life. The first time was back in that courtyard, the second time is right now, when I know who He is.'"

God heard him, and sent him the gospel. Heard this story many times. It is one thing to know who God is, it is another to know you need salvation vbecause your dead in your sin.. Many know God and will never be saved, because they rejected the redeemer.. If they are Open. God will send them the truth, just like this child.. He will do the dsame for Isreal. when they repent.

I read that testimony in one of Watchman Nee's books, my words may not be exact, but the story is true. So EG, I have a couple of questions to ask you.

1. Was he saved the first time or the second time he met God?

When he heard the gospel and said yes

2. If he had died before he heard the gospel would he have gone to hell?

You think if God knew he would say yes, he would let him die before he heard it? Do you have the little faith in God he will not keep his promise?

!f 1, then salvation does not depend on what you know.

It depends on what God says
1. You have sinned
2. You are dead to me because of sin
3. I (will in the OT/Have in the NT) send a redeemer who will remove all your sin and make you right with me.
4. If you repent, and believe all of this, you will be saved.

there is no other gospel.

If 2, then salvation depends on knowledge rather than heart condition and there are a zillion versus that say otherwise!

There a bazillion verses which says salvation apart from the salvation of God through his redeemer, is impossible..

You can scream all you want this is not true, but your argument is with God

The point of all this is that churches today are teaching doctrinal salvation: if you've said the sinner's prayer (come down to the mourner's bench or performed the approved ritual, whatever that night might happen to be) you're saved, or if you're in a covenant Church and were baptized as an infant, you're saved.

Not so! You can do all the above and more, and still be as lost as a kangaroo in Manhattan. God is not looking for kangaroos who can march lockstep with a gazillion other kangaroos. God is looking for people who are aware they are sinners, but have a humble and contrite heart towards Him. True for Jew, true for Gentile, doctrine has nothing to do with it. You know, EG, I hear a lot of doctrine on here, but precious little humility, kindness or love. But a Jew, blinded to the Gospel by sovereign God, exhibiting all three godly attributes is going to hell because he hasn't gotten his doctrine updated?

While I agree many who do that will be in hell, it will be because they never repented or had faith.

Yes., A jew who does not believe in the gospel will go to hell. Paul makes this very clear in Galations 1.

Scripture is very clear.. There is no other way to heaven by which men (ALL MEN) must be saved.

if a jew would repent, and realize that under law he is condemned, and separated from God. and asked God for the truth, God will send them the truth like he did that child. He has been doing it for 6000 years now.