Question for those who believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture

[homwardbound]

Biblical sources? I pointed out that the LORD had already been married to Israel, not the Church...never to the Church. The Church is His BODY. How can one's own BODY also be his BRIDE? How does one marry Himself? I've heard of guys out there marrying goats and even their dinner plates, but never their own body...

So, if you would, please explain what I quoted from the OT scriptures of the Lord being married to Israel, handing her a write of divorcement, and yet later still referring to His being "married" to her? Numerous times it is revealed the Lord's marriage to Israel, and yet many today seem to think that He is going to become a serial polygamist just as many of them are within their subsequent marriage(s) after divorcing for unscriptural reasons, such as "incompatibility." Many out there living in sin think themselves qualified to overlay the scriptures with their own sinful viewpoints, with some even writing commentaries published on the market.

MM

Replacement theology, Thanks I looked that up and wow. woe is me to ever think being a gentile am better than the first chosen ever.
Adopted in, grafted into the tree. I see 'I" can easily get me grafted out as well, no thanks
Thank you for standing in belief Brother a friend in the risen Christ for us to be new in love and mercy to all also, as God in Son was/is to us which began on that cross to cross over with him in the resurrection
There I stand in thanksgiving and praise with by Son in his shed blood all sin taken away as far as the east is from the west forever, wow!
Ps 100:4, 103:12, Ezekiel 36:26, Micah 6:7-8


Living Bible Micah 6:7-8

For if you offered him thousands of rams and ten thousands of rivers of olive oil—would that please him? Would he be satisfied? If you sacrificed your oldest child, would that make him glad? Then would he forgive your sins? Of course not!
No, he has told you what he wants, and this is all it is: to be fair, just, merciful, and to walk humbly with your God.

 

[Cameron143]

So what you are saying, is that you do NOT agree that:


--Luke 21:8-11 is speaking of "the beginning of birth pangs" (exactly like Mt24:4-8 & Mk13:5-8 also do);


--and that verse 12 of that chapter (Lk21) states clearly "But BEFORE ALL THESE..." (i.e. BEFORE all of the "beginning of birth pangs" vv.8-11 JUST TALKED ABOUT), BEFORE ALL THOSE, the events of vv.12-24a,b [the 70ad events] MUST TAKE PLACE FIRST (*BEFORE* all of those items in vv.8-11);


--and that "the beginning of birth pangs" (Mt24:4-8... Mk13:5-8... AND Lk21:8-11) ARE "the SEALS" of Rev6 (SEALS 1-5);


--and that, the "end / outcome" of the 70ad events is spelled out in v.24a "and they shall be led away captive into all the nations"; but by contrast, the "end / outcome" of "the beginning of birth pangs" (and those "birth pangs" which FOLLOW ON from "the beginning of" them) is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE, in that, Matt24:29-31/Isaiah 27:9,12-13 speaks of their being "GATHERED" ("one by one") to worship the Lord in the holy mount, AT JERUSALEM" (IOW, the one being BEFORE all the beginning of birth pangs; the other being AFTER the beginning of birth pangs and those pangs which follow on from "the beginning" of them--i.e. COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ENDS / OUTCOME / results)



I completely disagree, based on the "SEQUENCE ISSUES" of the Olivet Discourse (and the parts of Rev which DO PARALLEL that, namely the SEALS [BEING "the beginning of birth PANGS"], which SEALS are at the START of the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time period that Rev1:1 / 1:19c / 4:1 speaks to), and which will unfold and lead up to His "RETURN" to the earth (Rev19). Not "soon [adverb]" (from when written), per these verses I've underlined [/explained earlier].







____________

On a slightly different note: who do you believe it refers to, where Rev2:13 says, "wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you..." ?

You are devoted to an end time apocalypse because you have invested so much time and energy trying to synchronize every single jot and tittle, you have lost sight of the forest for the trees.
You have also lost sight of the cross. Not redemptively personally, but it's purpose in God's plan to fill the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord. The cross, and all that accompanied it, is the central event of all of history. After the fall, nearly all the OT points to it, the gospels reveal it imminency, and the rest of the NT speaks to the ramifications of it. The whole spiritual power structure was changed. The gospels themselves predict it. Satan is cast from heaven...Luke 10:18...and Jesus speaks of building His church in which the powers of hell are impotent to halt...Matthew 16:18. Not too many days hence, Jesus, with newfound authority and power, commissions the building of said church...Matthew 28:19-20. And later, in Revelation 1, Jesus appears with 2 new keys on His key chain.

In coming and dying, Jesus reversed the course of history. The cross destroyed the works of Satan by rendering him impotent to stop the restoration of all things. And history, post cross, is a continual restoration of all things in and by Christ...1 Corinthians 15:23-28.

If you trace both history, and redemptive history, this can be easily shown. And I'll be glad to walk you through it, if that interests you. But history will continue to build to a time when the knowledge of the glory of the Lord shall fill the earth.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ @Cameron143 ,

I'm remembering a discussion between you and me, a long while back (to which I don't think I ever really got back to with a response--though I did have a response in mind...)

We were discussing a portion of Matthew 13, and I'd been pointing out that the "man" (and "merchant man") is Jesus (in vv.44, and 45-46), to which you had responding something like, Jesus isn't who needs to be redeemed (or something along those lines), which of course HAD NOT been my point.

Instead of it being, as many suggest [via Covenant Theology], that WE "sell all to BUY [it / Him]," ... JESUS (instead) is the One Who sold all "and BOUGHT it [/ONE pearl of great price]" v.46... and selleth all "and BUYETH it [/the field (with the hidden treasure)]" v.44.



Hidden Treasure
Mat 13:44
Again, the kingdom of heaven [/the kingdom OF THE heavenS] is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.


A Costly Pearl
Mat 13:45
Again, the kingdom of heaven [/the kingdom OF THE heavenS] is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
Mat 13:46
Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.


Again, this ISN'T about "the man / merchant man" being the one in need of salvation / redemption (or however you put it, once you saw me say "the man" in this text is JESUS not *us*). It is instead, what "the kingdom OF THE heavenS" (earthly-located) "is like unto"... and "the field" is the earth... a "treasure" is hid "IN" it... which Jesus [when He "findeth" it] "hideth" and "goeth and selleth all that he hath, and BUYETH that field". THIS, like Jer32 (and its sealed and unsealed writings), is what I believe "Revelation" is about (redemption of the earth... with the "treasure" hidden in it).

"The four living creatures" (Rev) are DESCRIBED in the exact ways that the four-directional plotment of Israel [in camps] was described, with their banners.


Matt24 / Lk17 (where it tells of "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be"), I see the connection between this (these passages) and those of Dan2:35c / Gen9:1 ("[actively] fill / filled the [whole] earth")... IOW, when the "toes" are crushed, the earthly MK age will thereafter commence (but Lk21:24c says, "and Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles [which started in 605bc, w/Neb as "head of gold"] be fulfilled" [see Rev11:2 for the LAST portion of THAT, which is yet "future"]); which corresponds with Dan9 saying "desolationS are determined" (following on from the 70ad events that preceded in that text). It all "fits" perfectly, when one acknowledges the "sequence / chronology" issues. But many people disregard this as unimportant / insignificant and merely gloss over the meticulous details regarding this, that HE placed therein.






[I'd still be interested in hearing ANY answer to the LISTING I supplied in that post of mine you quoted... do you agree with ANY of those points I spelled out? Just wondering... ]

 

[studentoftheword]

Do you also believe that a resurrection of the righteous dead also happens at the same time?[/QUOTE]

Yes ---according to Scripture --this is the Rapture of the Saints both dead and alive before the tribulation begins

 

[sawdust]

So what did the bible reveal?
I'm not able to read all the notes

When Jesus returns
....will it be a secret?
....will it be before or after the tribulation?
....Will it be to raise the saved and got back to heaven?

I was responding to your assertion that the understanding of the resurrection of the Church occurring prior to the Great Tribulation was from a particular school of thought.

I came to that conclusion based on what I read in scripture, not from any scholarly school of thought. I was a dispensationalist before I even knew what that was or that there was even such a thing.

 

[sawdust]

Dispensationalism was systematized and promoted by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the mid-19th century. It began its spread in the United States during the late 19th century through the efforts of evangelists such as James Inglis, James Hall Brookes and Dwight L.

It did not exist in the apostles day.
God uses different measures at different times but God does not change. As a whole God has one standard and one way to be saved.

He isn't more merciful and gracious today, then he was yesterday.

God's character is love and that principle does not change.

The same God loved Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel, Peter, Paul, you and me in the same way.

Does God change the goal posts at different times?. Do we gain salvation by works for a time, then by grace for a different time?

Dispensationalism is an evil invention.

You don't seem to read very well. I had never heard of Darby or Plymouth Brethen or Dispensationalism. I read scripture and saw God deal with people differently at different times ergo I was a Dispensationalist before I even knew of such a thing.

 

[Cameron143]

^ @Cameron143 ,

I'm remembering a discussion between you and me, a long while back (to which I don't think I ever really got back to with a response--though I did have a response in mind...)

We were discussing a portion of Matthew 13, and I'd been pointing out that the "man" (and "merchant man") is Jesus (in vv.44, and 45-46), to which you had responding something like, Jesus isn't who needs to be redeemed (or something along those lines), which of course HAD NOT been my point.

Instead of it being, as many suggest [via Covenant Theology], that WE "sell all to BUY [it / Him]," ... JESUS (instead) is the One Who sold all "and BOUGHT it [/ONE pearl of great price]" v.46... and selleth all "and BUYETH it [/the field (with the hidden treasure)]" v.44.



Hidden Treasure
Mat 13:44
Again, the kingdom of heaven [/the kingdom OF THE heavenS] is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.


A Costly Pearl
Mat 13:45
Again, the kingdom of heaven [/the kingdom OF THE heavenS] is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
Mat 13:46
Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.


Again, this ISN'T about "the man / merchant man" being the one in need of salvation / redemption (or however you put it, once you saw me say "the man" in this text is JESUS not *us*). It is instead, what "the kingdom OF THE heavenS" (earthly-located) "is like unto"... and "the field" is the earth... a "treasure" is hid "IN" it... which Jesus [when He "findeth" it] "hideth" and "goeth and selleth all that he hath, and BUYETH that field". THIS, like Jer32 (and its sealed and unsealed writings), is what I believe "Revelation" is about (redemption of the earth... with the "treasure" hidden in it).

"The four living creatures" (Rev) are DESCRIBED in the exact ways that the four-directional plotment of Israel [in camps] was described, with their banners.


Matt24 / Lk17 (where it tells of "as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be"), I see the connection between this (these passages) and those of Dan2:35c / Gen9:1 ("[actively] fill / filled the [whole] earth")... IOW, when the "toes" are crushed, the earthly MK age will thereafter commence (but Lk21:24c says, "and Jerusalem shall be TRODDEN DOWN OF the Gentiles UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles [which started in 605bc, w/Neb as "head of gold"] be fulfilled" [see Rev11:2 for the LAST portion of THAT, which is yet "future"]); which corresponds with Dan9 saying "desolationS are determined" (following on from the 70ad events that preceded in that text). It all "fits" perfectly, when one acknowledges the "sequence / chronology" issues. But many people disregard this as unimportant / insignificant and merely gloss over the meticulous details regarding this, that HE placed therein.






[I'd still be interested in hearing ANY answer to the LISTING I supplied in that post of mine you quoted... do you agree with ANY of those points I spelled out? Just wondering... ]

You have alot here. I'll try to answer some of it.
As far as the parables concerning the kingdom, I agree that they speak to the great value of being included in the kingdom of God. I only remember the previous conversation vaguely, so I don't recall the point I was making. If I tied it to salvation, it is because I believe salvation is what gains for an individual a place in the kingdom. And in every example concerning treasure, you find an awareness on the part of the individual of the value of it that didn't previously exist. And so much so,they are willing to part with all else. And this is exactly what transpires in genuine salvation.
Another aspect of the difference between us is what it is the kingdom of God actually consists in. There was a literal physical kingdom along with the spiritual kingdom under the old covenant. The Jewish people and land were a literal observable kingdom, although there was only at any point a spiritual remnant who were truly the Israel of God.
All this changed with the cross, and 2 very important things occurred. The cross opened the door for the NT to come into existence. At the same time, the OT had accomplished its purpose of bringing the Savior into the world. It was no longer necessary. But to end the covenant, the sanctions demanded by the stipulations set forth in the covenant must be brought to bear on the covenant people. Thus, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
So what I believe is that your focus is wrong. And I believe because of this, your explanations necessarily err. I don't disagree necessarily with your exegesis, just its application.
Because I believe the old covenant no longer exists, and because I see no provision in the new covenant for God dealing with nations as a whole, I believe the kingdom of God consists solely of those who have experienced genuine salvation.
While I admire the depth and length of your scholarship, I simply believe it has missed the mark.

 

[sawdust]

That's a good question. Let's look at what Jesus said:

Matthew 10:5-6
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The original twelve, therefore, were not given over to the Church. I don't see that anywhere. The Gospel the twelve continued to preach was the Kingdom Gospel, which required repentance and water baptism. They remained in Jerusalem rather than to go out into all the world as commanded because the Kingdom Gospel was set aside on account of Israel's continued rejection of Christ when stoning Stephen. That was the straw that broke the proverbial Camel's back for the Lord. Within a few years after that the Lord confronted and blinded Saul, through whom was launched the Gospel of Grace that brought about the body of Christ.

So, when asking about the apostles having been "given over to the Church," that language isn't in scripture so far as I have ever found, at least to the extent that the nation and tribes to whom the LORD was married, that never changed.

Replacement Theology comes in two basic forms:

1) Total replacement, and
2) Partial replacement.

In the evil system of total replacement, Israel remains cast aside, with the "Church" replacing her, even though Paul warned against that form of pride, pointing out that she can be graft back into the vine, but some out there choose the evil of human pride in this regard.

In the system of partial replacement, they spiritualize everything to the extent that Gentiles are made into "spiritual Jews," which is indeed a valid concept, but not the one operating to the extent that Israel is not at all distinctive in relation to whom the LORD joined Himself in marriage, which was ONLY to the bloodline nation of Israel.

Only Paul was the assigned apostle to the Gentiles, and I have doubts that his name is one of the names on the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem given that he was a murderer of the saints, and therefore his considering himself the least among the apostles and the brethren. His acute awareness of his past sins as a murderer, that kept his view of himself in check, so to speak.

So, yes, the apostles became the builders of the "ecclesia" that is translated as "church" in many places. The unfortunate aspect of that is the overly simplistic application of that term as always inclusive of Gentiles to the extent that replacement theology has a foothold in the minds of those who routinely fail to rightly divide the word of truth, instead believing what those false teachers of theirs teach them from their filthy pulpits.

The Gospel of Grace, as you know, is the means by which distinction are erased, but only in this age of grace. In the tribulation, that Kingdom distinction will once again become established, with Gentiles having to become Jews in order to be saved, just as it was before the cross, as pointed out in Esther 8:17.

Modern folks don't like anything not being what they think it should be, claiming they believe in the Bible when in fact they only believe in the fanciful thinking from the minds of false teachers and themselves for how they WANT things to be, and by golly, it HAS to be that way....right? To heck with what scripture says when they can allegorize it into oblivion, having no absolute basis for keeping their allegories on the track of truth. They claim that comparing scripture to scripture is how they keep it all on track, never minding that incongruent comparisons cross each other off into falsehoods.

MM

I'll be the first to admit that I have seen a problem with the question of the Bride for sometime now but it is something I have had in the back of my mind because I keep finding questions I cannot answer.

You say the original 12 were not given over to the Church but the Church didn't exist at the time they were sent to Israel and one of them was a "devil".

There is no doubt in my mind the Church is built on the apostles and prophets. Maybe one can argue who they are but I don't believe one can argue there are no apostles in the Church.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Ephesians 4:11
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

I also find it difficult to say at least Peter wasn't given over to the Church when Jesus used him as an example of upon what He would build His Church. Peter proves to be the prime example of faith yet doesn't belong to the Church? It's a stretch in my mind.

Paul may have been assigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles but it was his custom, as best as I can see, to always go to the Synagogue first.

As far as his name on a foundation stone? That's God's domain.

 

[sawdust]

I don't read that in the bible.

Jesus said he will come again, second coming, and we shall be with the Lord forever more.

Joh 14:2-3
2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Those mansions in Heaven are prepared by Jesus for us to be with Him.

I don't see any verses about a secret rapture.
It will be a surprise to those that are not prepared.

When Jesus comes judgement is finished
There is no second chance after probation closes. His reward is with Him.

Rev 22:11-12
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Notice how it says "and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be."

Nothing about 2 or 3 second comings.

If the saved are off to their mansions in heaven and the unsaved are destroyed, who is left on earth to go enjoy the Millennium?

 

[Omegatime]

-------------------------------------------------------

Is this the first resurrection?? Rev 20:6

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ I believe one of the primary purposes of the future Tribulation Period (7 years--what the bulk of Revelation is describing) is to bring Israel into the New Covenant.

I've said: Matt24:29-31 / Isaiah 27:9,12-13 (at the "GREAT" trumpet) corresponds with both Romans 11:27 and Daniel 9:24 [parts] which latter verse is in the context of a specific "time-prophecy" concerning "THY [Daniel's] people" (Israel) and "THY [Daniel's] holy city" (of a passage WRITTEN sequentially);

Matthew 19:28 (where the 12 are told they will "sit on 12 thrones, judgING the 12 tribes of Israel") corresponds (time-wise) with Matthew 25:31-34 ("when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory..." [separation-judgment of the sheep and goats of the "nationS" (Gentiles)], which takes place "on the earth" upon His "RETURN" there)--Even Rev19:15b says (at that point in the chronology), "and he SHALL [future tense] rule [/shepherd] them [the nationS] with a rod [/sceptre] of iron [/righteousness and strength; Heb1:8!]"... which whole thing (Trib & MK) parallels what Acts 17:31 says, "Because he has fixed A DAY [not "a singular 24-hr day" kind of day] IN WHICH he will JUDGE THE WORLD [in an ongoing sense] the world in righteousness..."

...but in the Preterist viewpoint, there IS NO "12 tribes of Israel" following the 70ad events. (contrary to the point Lk21:24c is actually making, lol).






Again, in the "Amill-teachings" and in Preterism (and several other viewpoints), "the beginning of birth pangs" precede and LEAD UP TO "the 70ad events" which are their culmination. But that is NOT what the passages say, which I laid out (in brevity). This is to totally disregard the "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" Lk21:12 states (and many ppl do that, BECAUSE they don't see the LABEL "the beginning of birth pangs" WRITTEN in vv.8-11, thus they do not properly CONNECT vv.8-11 WITH Matt24:4-8/Mk13:5-8 AS *should* be!)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

-------------------------------------------------------

Is this the first resurrection?? Rev 20:6

The word "FIRST [ADJ]" in this passage does not carry the meaning of "first IN TIME"... but first IN QUALITY.

We know this, because the sentence, saying "THIS is the resurrection the first [adj]" has the word "THIS" pointing back to what v.4b was talking about: those martyred/beheaded/killed ONLY DURING THE LAST HALF of the 7-yr period (not all believers of all time, being spoken of IN PARTICULAR in verse 4b... only the LAST ONES to be killed before Christ's return to the earth FOR the MK age).

But then verse 6 GOES ON to speak of ALL believers, by saying, "Blessed and holy is the one HAVING A PART IN the resurrection the first [adj]..." (NONE OF THOSE [i.e. believers] will be subject to "the second death"--ALL will be PRESENT to enjoy the MK age).






We should also note what it is that 1Cor15:22b-23 is saying, "[re: resurrection] But each IN HIS OWN ORDER / RANK" (meaning, there is an ORDER / RANK to it... there doesn't remain ONLY ONE at ONE SINGULAR point in time). ALL of what is in vv.22b-23 is YET "FUTURE" (per v.22b's "future tense" and the conjunction "But" v.23a); This is also why we see the "2W" who will be resurrected (and ascend up into heaven) at the "6th Trumpet / 2nd Woe," a time-slot DISTINCT from when all others [saints] will be resurrected.


This is also why Paul (when addressing "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY") says, in 1Cor15:51-54, "THIS corruptible" (and "THIS mortal"), where the "THIS" in these phrases refers SPECIFICALLY TO "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" (those to whom he/Paul has been tasked with disclosing "[Behold, I SHEW *you*] A MYSTERY..." [something not yet having been disclosed, to this point]--something distinct from what ALL OT saints already WELL-KNEW: like Job in Job 19:25-27 and Daniel in Dan12:13 and Martha in John 11:24! Not THAT!)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Note: My Post #191 (with the "arrow up") was intended to be a response to @Cameron143 's Post #187 (which WAS right before I started typing my Post #191... but a few posters came in between there while I was still typing. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. LOL)

 

[Inquisitor]

Sure. But notice it isn't God who wants it. It's the Jews, who think that's what God wants. But do you know who else wants it built? That's right, the antichrist wants it built too. How else is he going to desecrate it and try to take God's place?

It'll be interesting how they will get that done considering the Dome of the Rock sitting where the Jewish temple used to be - and God will be watching all this and watching them ignore everything He's said and done in the New Testament. I'm thinking the antichrist will just have it removed somehow. This is why I don't think he will be Muslim like some people believe. Back in Roman times, the Roman "religion" was pagan, not Islam, but notice that Rome tolerated all the religions of their conquered peoples for a time (until it got out of hand like with the Jews). The antichrist will tolerate all the religions too until he desecrates the third temple and demand to be worshipped in God's place.

The fact that the third temple hasn't been built yet gives us time to build our faith up so that we will be able to endure to the end if it should happen in our lifetime. Unlike in previous times, with the current technology, the third temple can be quickly built.


🪔

The problem you face is that modern Israel is a secular nation.

Modern Israel was established not by God but by the United Nations.

Israel has no need of a temple, a priesthood, or the law of Moses.

The idea of a third temple on the Temple Mount with daily sacrifices is madness.

We are in the 21st Century.

 

[Musicmaster]

Replacement theology, Thanks I looked that up and wow. woe is me to ever think being a gentile am better than the first chosen ever.
Adopted in, grafted into the tree. I see 'I" can easily get me grafted out as well, no thanks
Thank you for standing in belief Brother a friend in the risen Christ for us to be new in love and mercy to all also, as God in Son was/is to us which began on that cross to cross over with him in the resurrection
There I stand in thanksgiving and praise with by Son in his shed blood all sin taken away as far as the east is from the west forever, wow!
Ps 100:4, 103:12, Ezekiel 36:26, Micah 6:7-8


Living Bible Micah 6:7-8

For if you offered him thousands of rams and ten thousands of rivers of olive oil—would that please him? Would he be satisfied? If you sacrificed your oldest child, would that make him glad? Then would he forgive your sins? Of course not!
No, he has told you what he wants, and this is all it is: to be fair, just, merciful, and to walk humbly with your God.

One thing I will say in relation to your statements is that Gentiles are not grafted into Israel, but into Christ:

John 15:1-5
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Isn't that wonderful?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I'll be the first to admit that I have seen a problem with the question of the Bride for sometime now but it is something I have had in the back of my mind because I keep finding questions I cannot answer.

You say the original 12 were not given over to the Church but the Church didn't exist at the time they were sent to Israel and one of them was a "devil".

Actually, I simply questioned the phraseology of the apostles "given" to the Church. They were the ones tasked with "building" the Lord's ecclesia, called out ones from the world into a glorious body that is of Christ.

There is no doubt in my mind the Church is built on the apostles and prophets. Maybe one can argue who they are but I don't believe one can argue there are no apostles in the Church.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,

Ephesians 4:11
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Yes, there were some apostles, who also functioned as prophets when speaking to the Church in the manner of "Thus saith the Lord..." rather than to speak from their own intellects alone.

I also find it difficult to say at least Peter wasn't given over to the Church when Jesus used him as an example of upon what He would build His Church. Peter proves to be the prime example of faith yet doesn't belong to the Church? It's a stretch in my mind.

Actually, that's not true, for Peter could never, as a mere man, be the one and only mortal human upon whom the Church could be built. That's roman catholicism that teaches that falsehood. Additionally, Peter lost his preeminence as the shift in dispensations took place, and that is easily verifiable by reading Acts 15, where we see that James was the one who ruled over the council of the eleven apostles.

Paul may have been assigned to be the apostle to the Gentiles but it was his custom, as best as I can see, to always go to the Synagogue first.

Not always. At first, yes, but he later gave up on the circumcision because of how stiff-necked they were:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

Who are "they" but the 11 apostles in Jerusalem. The uncircumcision, of course, were the Gentiles, and the circumcision the Jews.

Also, Paul himself stated his shift in focus away from synagogues:

Acts 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook [his] raiment, and said unto them, Your blood [be] upon your own heads; I [am] clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

This is when Paul had had enough of the oppositions he routinely encountered from the leadership within the Jewish synagogues.

As far as his name on a foundation stone? That's God's domain.

It is true we are not told if Paul's name is there, but then what about Barnabas?

Acts 14:14 [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out...

So, if we fancy that Paul was one of the names, then we also must ask about a 13th, and so on...

Yes, many things we are not told, and the Lord will see to it that His perfect will is done. This is a minor, unimportant thing for us today. With that I agree.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Generally speaking:

Given that the Church (ecclesia) is the body of Christ, it follows that with Christ as the bridegroom, we therefore are part of His groomsman-ship. Furthermore, we are therefore a part of the bridegroom, not the bride!

Why the contradiction to this has become so vastly popular among Evangelicals, that remains a very odd mystery...except for the element of selfish, human pride.

MM

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

As far as the parables concerning the kingdom, I agree that they speak to the great value of being included in the kingdom of God. I only remember the previous conversation vaguely, so I don't recall the point I was making. If I tied it to salvation, it is because I believe salvation is what gains for an individual a place in the kingdom.

What I am pointing out about Matt13:44, and 45-46, is... A MUCH WIDER *PURPOSE* these verses are showing, than that of those [in Covenant Theology] who mistakenly make the claim that the "man" (and "merchant man") in these verses IS *US* / *the BELIEVER* (who supposedly "sells all that he hath AND BUYETH / [or] BOUGHT it"); No, the "man / merchant man" IS JESUS (not *us* / *the believer*) and this is about MUCH *MORE* than "...salvation is what gains for an individual a place in the kingdom" (as you put it). The "man / merchant man" in this text is NOT gaining "a place IN the kingdom"...


... so what you've stated in the following part (quoted below), I could actually be saying about *your* viewpoint (which does this very thing with these Matt13:44,45-46 verses, by placing *US* [as Covenant Theology does] in the role of the "man / merchant man" being spoken of, here... rather than "JESUS" [HIS *PURPOSES*]) :

you have lost sight of the forest for the trees.
You have also lost sight of the cross. Not redemptively personally, but it's purpose in God's plan to fill the earth with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.

 

[sawdust]

Actually, that's not true, for Peter could never, as a mere man, be the one and only mortal human upon whom the Church could be built.

i didn't say it was built on him, I said it was built on his example of faith.

 

[Cameron143]

What I am pointing out about Matt13:44, and 45-46, is... A MUCH WIDER *PURPOSE* these verses are showing, than that of those [in Covenant Theology] who mistakenly make the claim that the "man" (and "merchant man") in these verses IS *US* / *the BELIEVER* (who supposedly "sells all that he hath AND BUYETH / [or] BOUGHT it"); No, the "man / merchant man" IS JESUS (not *us* / *the believer*) and this is about MUCH *MORE* than "...salvation is what gains for an individual a place in the kingdom" (as you put it). The "man / merchant man" in this text is NOT gaining "a place IN the kingdom"...


... so what you've stated in the following part (quoted below), I could actually be saying about *your* viewpoint (which does this very thing with these Matt13:44,45-46 verses, by placing *US* [as Covenant Theology does] in the role of the "man / merchant man" being spoken of, here... rather than "JESUS" [HIS *PURPOSES*]) :

I assume you believe I am wrong, so, of course, I accept that you believe my focus and understanding is off.
In Matthew 13, Jesus is concerned to teach about the nature and substance of the kingdom of God. I believe there are 7 parables. Because biblical subjects are vast in scope, when Jesus teaches concerning them, He often gives the different aspects in smaller bits that are more easily received and comprehended. This is such a time. The particular parable you have proffered is simply dealing with the value of the kingdom of God. There is simply nothing a person will not do or offer in exchange for it. The rest of the details are incidental and may have further meaning or not. Each parable is revealing a particular aspect of a subject.

I do believe the man in the particular parable can be identified, but doing so or not does not add or detract from the point the parable is making. The reason I believe the man represents believers, and not Jesus, is because all that Jesus was doing during His earthly ministry was to bring the kingdom of God to mankind. He was the walking, talking, miracle-working manifestation of the kingdom of God.