THE CALLING OUT OF THE BRIDE, to go to The Wedding of the Lamb

[Absolutely]

Psa 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

This pertains to the body of Christ. ALL of the members of the body of Christ are WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE.
The Old Testament saints are WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE.

That means that the Old Testament saints are members of the body of Christ.

They ultimately came through Jesus when Christ descended and "took captivity captive."

They were "looking to salvation" until Jesus preached the gospel to them,and took them to heaven

 

[Absolutely]

This is no defense for your doctrine(s).
Still no rapture:

John 17:
15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by d the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,

I was not addressing the rapture.
I was pointing to the lone ranger types that have no agreement with the rest of the body of Christ.
According to you,since no other ministry agrees with you,you kinda become disqualified.

You are taking a position outside the body of Christ. Nobody,only you have the answers.

That historically has not ended well.

 

[KJV1611]

@VCO please friend can you say something about this.

Dan 9:27 And he (Christ) shall confirm (affirm an EXISTING covenant) the covenant (the covenant God made with Abraham) with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (Christ) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he (Christ) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (The Jews).

Daniel 9:27 is about our Lord not "The Antichrist".

 

[KJV1611]

They ultimately came through Jesus when Christ descended and "took captivity captive."

They were "looking to salvation" until Jesus preached the gospel to them,and took them to heaven

I agree with most of that.

The gospel was preached to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their day. The only thing they were waiting for was for Christ to come and pay for their sins.

But you are right Jesus did go to hell and preach the gospel to those before the flood.

1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

[Absolutely]

When did the bible become a groupie thing?

According to you then,another brother has no buisness correcting you.
You see yourself as infallible ,right?

(All the herecies out there are basically spawed in mentally bracketing verses...perception of truth)

 

[Absolutely]

I agree with most of that.

The gospel was preached to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in their day. The only thing they were waiting for was for Christ to come and pay for their sins.

But you are right Jesus did go to hell and preach the gospel to those before the flood.

1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Well it appears as though you think the patriarchs did not need the gospel preached to them since they,according to your post,had the full revelation of Jesus as the Messiah.
I say that is not plausable since the disciples were taught in person and misunderstood the message of Jesus taught to them firsthand.

 

[Melach]

Dan 9:27 And he (Christ) shall confirm (affirm an EXISTING covenant) the covenant (the covenant God made with Abraham) with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (Christ) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he (Christ) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate (The Jews).

Daniel 9:27 is about our Lord not "The Antichrist".

thats actually one way to read it as well. does it somewhere say that Christ confirmed the abrahamic covenant, or confirmed any covenant?thats proof for your interpretation.

 

[Melach]

We see Jesus in the act of abraham sacrificing his son.
Isaac "what about the sacrifice"

Heaven "you are the sacrifice"

In hebrews it says of abraham "...who believed that even if his son died God would raise him from the dead"

That points to Jesus

thank you. im sorry for being so rude against you in the previous pages. i need to mind my tongue better.

 

[KJV1611]

Well it appears as though you think the patriarchs did not need the gospel preached to them since they,according to your post,had the full revelation of Jesus as the Messiah.
I say that is not plausable since the disciples were taught in person and misunderstood the message of Jesus taught to them firsthand.

Gal_3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

The bible says the gospel was preached to Abraham. In fact Abraham SAW CHRIST on the day of his resurrection. The Old Testament saints knew way more than "Churchianty" gives them credit for.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

We must be carful how we hear if it is our desire to hear Him who has not form.(Not a man)
Which Israel are you referring to? The one defined that has nothing to do with the flesh of a Jew . But does have to do with having the born again Spirit of Christ as the power that works in any man and because of that power over comes.
The Bible informs us if any man has not the Spirit of Christ. (God's holy born again Spirit.) . . then they simply do not belong to him .

Read carefully my Post #830. I've repeatedly stated that "our Rapture [event]" will be a [/one of a] primary impetus that brings Israel to faith in their Messiah [not 100% of them will come to faith in/during the trib, but some of them will and they will be among the first who will indeed grasp the Truth... and it is these (as they increase in number during the trib yrs, as I see it) who will be the ones DOING the "INVITING" TO their promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, Matt24:14(26:13), Matt22:8-14, Rev19:9 (distinct from v.7), etc since no one reads these posts anyway; so there's what I've said, I've not said that unbelieving Israel will receive anything but judgment from the Lord, hello.)

One of the purposes of that future, specific, limited time period, is for Israel to turn to their Messiah and come into the new covenant [see Hosea 5:15-6:3 again ('TIL'), among others I've listed re: their "future"]. Not 100% of them will come to faith.

And yes, I believe that the 70th Week [/7 yrs] is yet future (FOLLOWING our Rapture), and that is because: 1) Daniel 9:25-27's contents are SEQUENTIAL; and 2) the wording of verse 26b would be superfluous and needlessly redundant if it were referring to the Person already spoken of in v.25 (IOW, in 26b it would have been sufficient [if referring to the same person as v.25] to say "of the prince" (or even "of him") if it had been speaking of the same Person as in the immediately preceding verse... but instead it says, "of the prince THAT SHALL COME" in order to clue us into the fact that another, wholly separate person is being spoken of now... That, and the SEQUENCE issue, convinces me that another "prince" is now the topic being covered... Then when you trace out all the other connections I've listed in the past [one small example is the wording in 2Th2:9a "whose COMING"], it just becomes almost impossible to "unsee" it There's way more connections than I care to repeat here in this post...)

 

[KJV1611]

Well it appears as though you think the patriarchs did not need the gospel preached to them since they,according to your post,had the full revelation of Jesus as the Messiah.
I say that is not plausable since the disciples were taught in person and misunderstood the message of Jesus taught to them firsthand.

Gal 3:17 (KJV) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Wait, you're suggesting that something that took place "430 yrs" apart from some other thing (as referred to in that verse) is when the Daniel 9:27 verse was fulfilled?

[ https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-17.htm (see the wording here at this link) ]

I could be mis-reading you. Not sure.


[after reading your post again, and seeing Abs' words you quoted, I do think I HAVE mis-read your point... My apologies! ]

 

[Noose]

According to you then,another brother has no buisness correcting you.
You see yourself as infallible ,right?

(All the herecies out there are basically spawed in mentally bracketing verses...perception of truth)

I have been corrected before and in this forum, but i surely test doctrines that i once believed and once i'm convinced that there's no truth in them, i toss them aside never to engage in them anymore. This has nothing to do with infallibility.

I suggest you test what you believe in and a good starting point is consider what others are saying. I'm not asking you to believe but consider and use them to test what you believe in.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I must have been mixing up your [KJV1611's] point with garee's (I think), sorry.

 

[KJV1611]

^ Wait, you're suggesting that something that took place "430 yrs" apart from some other thing (as referred to in that verse) is when the Daniel 9:27 verse was fulfilled?

[ https://biblehub.com/text/galatians/3-17.htm (see the wording here at this link) ]

I could be mis-reading you. Not sure.


[after reading your post again, and seeing Abs' words you quoted, I do think I HAVE mis-read your point... My apologies! ]

The covenant that was confirmed in Christ is the covenant God made to Abraham. The law which came 430 AFTER the covenant with Abraham CAN NOT disannul the covenant made with Abraham.

 

[Noose]

I was not addressing the rapture.
I was pointing to the lone ranger types that have no agreement with the rest of the body of Christ.
According to you,since no other ministry agrees with you,you kinda become disqualified.

You are taking a position outside the body of Christ. Nobody,only you have the answers.

That historically has not ended well.

..“The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. 21Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”c

Nor can anyone say those in history that believe this doctrine or that doctrine or this here is the body of Christ.

There are so many differing opinions, which one do you refer to as to have originated from the body of Christ? Pre-trib?!

 

[garee]

Read carefully my Post #830. I've repeatedly stated that "our Rapture [event]" will be a [/one of a] primary impetus that brings Israel to faith in their Messiah [not 100% of them will come to faith in/during the trib, but some of them will and they will be among the first who will indeed grasp the Truth... and it is these (as they increase in number during the trib yrs, as I see it) who will be the ones DOING the "INVITING" TO their promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, Matt24:14(26:13), Matt22:8-14, Rev19:9 (distinct from v.7), etc since no one reads these posts anyway; so there's what I've said, I've not said that unbelieving Israel will receive anything but judgment from the Lord, hello.)

One of the purposes of that future, specific, limited time period, is for Israel to turn to their Messiah and come into the new covenant [see Hosea 5:15-6:3 again ('TIL'), among others I've listed re: their "future"]. Not 100% of them will come to faith.

And yes, I believe that the 70th Week [/7 yrs] is yet future (FOLLOWING our Rapture), and that is because: 1) Daniel 9:25-27's contents are SEQUENTIAL; and 2) the wording of verse 26b would be superfluous and needlessly redundant if it were referring to the Person already spoken of in v.25 (IOW, in 26b it would have been sufficient [if referring to the same person as v.25] to say "of the prince" (or even "of him") if it had been speaking of the same Person as in the immediately preceding verse... but instead it says, "of the prince THAT SHALL COME" in order to clue us into the fact that another, wholly separate person is being spoken of now... That, and the SEQUENCE issue, convinces me that another "prince" is now the topic being covered... Then when you trace out all the other connections I've listed in the past [one small example is the wording in 2Th2:9a "whose COMING"], it just becomes almost impossible to "unsee" it There's way more connections than I care to repeat here in this post...)

Hi thanks for the reply,

I read it carefully. Which Israel? The one God defines as Israel. . . a inward Jew born again of the unseen Spirit of Christ? or the one that as outward Jew according to the flesh ? Can't serve two masters? (1) The flesh as a outward Jew seen as defined by the word Jacob. . . or (2) the new creature that has power with God to over come the evils of this life. that he calls Israel today called by the new name He named her Christian.?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The covenant that was confirmed in Christ is the covenant God made to Abraham. The law which came 430 AFTER the covenant with Abraham CAN NOT disannul the covenant made with Abraham.

Okay, then this is the part I've mentioned in past posts, about the distinction (in Genesis) between "seed" SINGULAR and "seed" PLURAL (where used), in order to grasp what point Paul is making in Gal3 / HERE (about "seed" SINGULAR). One must understand of WHICH of the TWO in the Genesis verses is being referred, in this Gal passage... (because the other one is also important to grasp and not to be altogether neglected, if that makes sense)...


[quoting Gaebelein]

"Now we come [in v.15] to the question of promise, which is a very different thing. Faith [the subject of the preceding section ending with vv.13-14] involves, at any rate, the condition of soul in the person who believes; the promise looks at the dealings of God; and although we have seen that those who have faith are the only receivers of the blessing, and not those essaying to do the law, now we have to consider God promising, as well as law given. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made" - not the law given. Abraham knew nothing about the law, neither did his seed or son; yet they could not deny that Abraham got the blessing. So that here he stands on a new ground. It is not only that souls which have faith will get the blessing, but why not have faith in the law too? The latter part of the chapter takes up this question, and shows that God has given promises; and the question is, how to reconcile God's law with His promises. What did He give these two things for? Were they meant to produce the same end? Were they on the same principle? The Holy Ghost settles these questions. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ." Here it is plain, that the allusion is to two distinct and signal occasions in Abraham's history. These two occasions were first to Abraham alone; (Gen. 12; ) and secondly, to Isaac, or rather in Isaac alone. (Gen. 22) In the last chapter, both the numerous seed and the single seed are referred to. With the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies - that is, Jewish supremacy, But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles. In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct. Where the seed is spoken of without allusion to number, the blessing of the Gentiles comes in; but where they are said to be multiplied as the stars and the sand, then the character is unequivocally Jewish precedence. Such is, I believe, the argument of the apostle. Where Christ, typified by Isaac, is meant, it is "thy seed" simply, without a word of seed innumerable as the stars or the sand. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made;" namely, of the blessing of the Gentiles, and not merely of the putting down of the Gentiles. The promises were made first to Abraham, and then were confirmed in his seed. "He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and of thy seed, which is Christ." He takes Christ as the one intended by Isaac."

--Gaebelein, Commentary on Galatians 3 [source: BibleHub]

[end quoting; bold, underline and bracketed inserts mine]



Hope that helps you see my perspective. The distinction (in Genesis) between "seed [SINGULAR]" and "seed [PLURAL]" in order to not only grasp the point Paul is making here in Gal3, but also to acknowledge the other (as true).

 

[KJV1611]

Well it appears as though you think the patriarchs did not need the gospel preached to them since they,according to your post,had the full revelation of Jesus as the Messiah.
I say that is not plausable since the disciples were taught in person and misunderstood the message of Jesus taught to them firsthand.

Just adding a little more. The church IS NOT NEW, it’s been around since the covenant with Abraham.

The Old Testament saints were saved by grace... they believed God and it was counted to them as righteousness, just like us.

The gospel was preached to them, just like us.

Do you you what is the major difference between us and them is? They were hidden, IN THE CLOSET.

Joe 2:16 (KJV) Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

When did they come out of the closet? Well I think that’s self explanatory - we have known about the existence of the church since THE BRIDEGROOM came 2000 years ago.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Just adding a little more. The church IS NOT NEW, it’s been around since the covenant with Abraham.
The Old Testament saints were saved by grace... they believed God and it was counted to them as righteousness, just like us.
The gospel was preached to them, just like us.

It almost sounds as though you are suggesting that no one before Abraham could be saved. Is this your view?


[again, my view is that "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" was not present on the earth until (that which) Eph1:20-23 says! ('the church in the wilderness' not being the same entity... though "faith" was and has been in operation across the entire spans... ["by faith Abel...'])]