MORE RAPTURE QUESTIONS

Biblewriter · Jul 6, 2017

BABerean2 said:
The problem is that what you claim Dispensationalist today teach and what they really teach is not the same.

No, we leave the deceptive language to others. We teach exactly what I said.

How many times have we heard that the "Age of Grace" or the "Church Age" ends 7 years before the Second Coming or that the Holy Spirit is removed at the same time, while ignoring Revelation 12:11? How many times have we heard about "the time of Jacob's trouble", while ignoring the word "captivity" used two times in the passage.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what we teach, and it does not in any way contradict what I have said earlier in this thread, or elsewhere. And is in no way ignores Revelation 12:11 or any other scripture. And I have already pointed out your error in cclaiming that Jeremiah 30 is speaking of the return from Babylon.

It is an example of propaganda. Keep repeating your story until people believe it.
I and others here are not buying the story, anymore.

Click to expand...

What you teach is not my problem or the problem of others here who once believed your system, but have now rejected it as false.
The problem is that what you and others of your system of interpretation teach, does not match the text of Scripture.
It depends on your interpretation of the Old Testament, while ignoring what is plainly written about genealogy in the New Testament.

We do not "interpret" the Old testament. We believe it. You interpret it to not mean what it explicitly says.

The New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ in Hebrews 8:6-13, and is specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, completely destroys your whole system of interpretation.
.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is exactly the opposite of the truth. In actual fact, the new covenant of Jeremiah 30 is an essential part of Dispensationalism.

BABerean2 · Jul 6, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Actually, this is exactly the opposite of the truth. In actual fact, the new covenant of Jeremiah 30 is an essential part of Dispensationalism.

That would be Jeremiah 31...

We are still waiting to see what you have written in your books about the New Covenant, since it "is an essential part of Dispensationalism".

.

Hank77 · Jul 7, 2017

jerry kelso said:
9. Paul talks about the grafting of Gentiles to provoke the Jews to God Romans 11:11.
God has a Jewish remnant which concerns the KoH reign and this is why verse 2 that God has not cast away his people which he foreknew.
God needs no Jewish remnant in the olive tree for Jews to be saved because the Gentiles were given the KoG (spiritual) to be witnesses to them to come to know the Lord

The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven appear to be written about the same thing but determined by the preface of the writer. Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, while Luke and Mark use Kingdom of God, in parallel verses.

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus uses both terms in the same matter and in the same manner.

Compare Matthew 11:11-12 with Luke 7:28; Matthew 13:11with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10; Matthew 13:24 with Mark 4:26; Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30 and Luke 13:18; Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20; Matthew 18:3 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16; and Matthew 22:2 with Luke 13:29.

Got Questions is very helpful sometimes.

What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

Marilyn C · Jul 7, 2017

Hank77 said:
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven appear to be written about the same thing but determined by the preface of the writer. Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, while Luke and Mark use Kingdom of God, in parallel verses.

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus uses both terms in the same matter and in the same manner.

Compare Matthew 11:11-12 with Luke 7:28; Matthew 13:11with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10; Matthew 13:24 with Mark 4:26; Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30 and Luke 13:18; Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20; Matthew 18:3 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16; and Matthew 22:2 with Luke 13:29.

Got Questions is very helpful sometimes.
What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

Hi Hank77,

God is very specific when He writes His word. The kingdom of Heaven, or properly heavenlies, refers to God`s promises to Israel, that they would rule the nations of the world, and that God`s rulership in the heavenlies would be over them. The book of Matthew was written to Israel (the king of Israel) while the other books had a different audience in mind. Thus God speaks of the kingdom of God, when speaking to the Gentiles for that is the part they will have, being in God`s great kingdom which is over all.

Marilyn.

BABerean2 · Jul 7, 2017

Marilyn C said:
The book of Matthew was written to Israel (the king of Israel) while the other books had a different audience in mind.

Below Christ reveals His Church in the Book of Matthew.

Mat 16:16　 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.　
Mat 16:17　 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.　
Mat 16:18　 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.　

Below is the Great Commission to the Church in the Book of Matthew.

The Great Commission (subtitle from eSword)

Mat 28:16　 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.　
Mat 28:17　 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.　
Mat 28:18　 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.　
Mat 28:19　 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:　
Mat 28:20　 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In Acts 2:36, on the Day of Pentecost Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel". On that day about 3,000 Israelites became part of the New Covenant Church.

During the first few years of the Church almost all of its members were Israelites.

John Nelson Darby's attempts to "rightly divide" scripture into that for Israel and that for the Church has just been shown to be in error.

.　

jerry kelso · Jul 7, 2017

Hank77 said:
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven appear to be written about the same thing but determined by the preface of the writer. Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, while Luke and Mark use Kingdom of God, in parallel verses.

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus uses both terms in the same matter and in the same manner.

Compare Matthew 11:11-12 with Luke 7:28; Matthew 13:11with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10; Matthew 13:24 with Mark 4:26; Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30 and Luke 13:18; Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20; Matthew 18:3 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16; and Matthew 22:2 with Luke 13:29.

Got Questions is very helpful sometimes.
What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven?

hank77,

1. Because of the KoH being universal physically, then the KoH and KoG have most all things in common.

2. The KoG in it's spiritual aspect to the Jews is about salvation Luke 17:20 comes without observation and Matthew 6:33 says to seek the KoG first and all these things shall be added unto you.
The Jews were never told to seek the KoH for salvation or that it came without observation.
There are spiritual things contained in the KoH physical but salvation had to do with the spiritual rule of God in their hearts. Got to go work and will explain more differences in these terms. Jerry kelso

Biblewriter · Jul 7, 2017

Once again, we see the fairy tale that Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby. This has been debunked more times than I can count. But it continues to pop up.

Hank77 · Jul 7, 2017

Marilyn C said:
Hi Hank77,

God is very specific when He writes His word. The kingdom of Heaven, or properly heavenlies, refers to God`s promises to Israel, that they would rule the nations of the world, and that God`s rulership in the heavenlies would be over them. The book of Matthew was written to Israel (the king of Israel) while the other books had a different audience in mind. Thus God speaks of the kingdom of God, when speaking to the Gentiles for that is the part they will have, being in God`s great kingdom which is over all.

Marilyn.

That explanation doesn't make any sense at all.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Where is the difference in who is asking, who is they and them, or the subject they are discussing, Literally?

The audience is NOT you and me, the audience is the disciples and those with them, who were all ethic Jews or proselytes to Judaism not Gentiles.

Hank77 · Jul 7, 2017

jerry kelso said:
hank77,

1. Because of the KoH being universal physically, then the KoH and KoG have most all things in common.

2. The KoG in it's spiritual aspect to the Jews is about salvation Luke 17:20 comes without observation and Matthew 6:33 says to seek the KoG first and all these things shall be added unto you.
The Jews were never told to seek the KoH for salvation or that it came without observation.
There are spiritual things contained in the KoH physical but salvation had to do with the spiritual rule of God in their hearts. Got to go work and will explain more differences in these terms. Jerry kelso

Please address the scriptures I posted and tell me how they are referring to anyone besides those in Judaism, who is the audience, or a difference in the subject matter.
Matt. 13:11, Mark 4:11, and Luke 8:10.

BABerean2 · Jul 7, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Once again, we see the fairy tale that Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby. This has been debunked more times than I can count. But it continues to pop up.

Darby did not invent it.

He adopted it after Edward Irving died.
Darby then divided scripture into that for Israel and that for the Church, in an attempt to make the doctrine work.

Darby then became the greatest salesman of the doctrine, bringing it to America about the time of the Civil War. It was later included in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible and as they say, the rest is history.
It is a history that some would like to keep hidden from those sitting in the pews.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

jerry kelso · Jul 7, 2017

Hank77 said:
Please address the scriptures I posted and tell me how they are referring to anyone besides those in Judaism, who is the audience, or a difference in the subject matter.
Matt. 13:11, Mark 4:11, and Luke 8:10.

hank77,
1. I never said they were spoken to anybody but the Jews.

2. The KoH and the KoG message was strictly to the Jews.
They had to believe as the Messiah and that he would forgive them of their sins (the spiritual aspect of the KoG) Matthew 6:33:Luke 17:20 to gain entrance into the physical KoH reign on earth Matthew 4:17; Repent (KoG spiritual aspect) for the KoH is at hand.
One has to understand the historical context before the cross under Israel's eternal covenants before they can understand what parts mean to new covenant believers.
For example; the Sermon on the Mount has a historical context that deals only with Israel specifically and not the church.
Israel was backslidden, the true church is not.
Israel was and has and will be trodden under the foot of men not the church for the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.
The Jews were under the law of Moses and the church has never been under the Mosaic Law.
The Jews had to mourn which means to repent, they had to hunger and thirst after righteousness and be pure in heart and be peacemakers and show mercy etc., in order to be blessed.
They had to do in order to attain whereas. the church does things because of who are in Christ and his finished work.
I have to but you should get the just of it. Jerry kelso

Hank77 · Jul 7, 2017

jerry kelso said:
hank77,
1. I never said they were spoken to anybody but the Jews.

2. The KoH and the KoG message was strictly to the Jews.
They had to believe as the Messiah and that he would forgive them of their sins (the spiritual aspect of the KoG) Matthew 6:33:Luke 17:20 to gain entrance into the physical KoH reign on earth Matthew 4:17; Repent (KoG spiritual aspect) for the KoH is at hand.
One has to understand the historical context before the cross under Israel's eternal covenants before they can understand what parts mean to new covenant believers.
For example; the Sermon on the Mount has a historical context that deals only with Israel specifically and not the church.
Israel was backslidden, the true church is not.
Israel was and has and will be trodden under the foot of men not the church for the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church.
The Jews were under the law of Moses and the church has never been under the Mosaic Law.
The Jews had to mourn which means to repent, they had to hunger and thirst after righteousness and be pure in heart and be peacemakers and show mercy etc., in order to be blessed.
They had to do in order to attain whereas. the church does things because of who are in Christ and his finished work.
I have to but you should get the just of it. Jerry kelso

Is there some reason that you do not want to address the three scriptures I quoted and answer the questions that I asked?

Biblewriter · Jul 7, 2017

BABerean2 said:
Darby did not invent it.

He adopted it after Edward Irving died.
Darby then divided scripture into that for Israel and that for the Church, in an attempt to make the doctrine work.

Darby then became the greatest salesman of the doctrine, bringing it to America about the time of the Civil War. It was later included in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible and as they say, the rest is history.
It is a history that some would like to keep hidden from those sitting in the pews.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

The Schofield Reference Bible was indeed the main document that caused Dispensationalism to be so widely accepted. And Scofield was indeed influenced, at least in part, by J. N. Darby. But the rest of this rant has been thoroughly disproved, right in this forum, more times than I can count.

The false narrative carried in these articles is that Manuel Lacunza originated the notion of a pre-trib rapture, that Edward Irving took it up from him and circulated it. And that Darby got the idea from Edward Irving and popularized it.

But in 1761, nearly thirty years before Lacunza published his work in Spanish 1790 Grandtham Killingworth published a commentary in the Englishlanguage, in which he not only taught a pre-tribulation rapture, but spoke of those who would be left behind, and discussed the saints being taken to heaven for safety, escaping troubles.

He also discussed the tribulation coming upon "the Jews."

His work, titled "On the immortality of the Soul," is easily availibe at low cost from Amazon through Kindle.

And this is just one of many such examples available, which conclusively prove the falsehood of every post in the list you love to circulate.

BABerean2 · Jul 7, 2017

Biblewriter said:
The Schofield Reference Bible was indeed the main document that caused Dispensationalism to be so widely accepted. And Scofield was indeed influenced, at least in part, by J. N. Darby. But the rest of this rant has been thoroughly disproved, right in this forum, more times than I can count.

The false narrative carried in these articles is that Manuel Lacunza originated the notion of a pre-trib rapture, that Edward Irving took it up from him and circulated it. And that Darby got the idea from Edward Irving and popularized it.

But in 1761, nearly thirty years before Lacunza published his work in Spanish 1790 Grandtham Killingworth published a commentary in the Englishlanguage, in which he not only taught a pre-tribulation rapture, but spoke of those who would be left behind, and discussed the saints being taken to heaven for safety, escaping troubles.

He also discussed the tribulation coming upon "the Jews."

His work, titled "On the immortality of the Soul," is easily availibe at low cost from Amazon through Kindle.

And this is just one of many such examples available, which conclusively prove the falsehood of every post in the list you love to circulate.

I never said the idea of a pretrib rapture came from Lacunza.

Edward Irving translated the Spanish version Lacunza's book into English and included his own commentary with the book. Irving then presented doctrine from the book at the UK prophetic conferences. You know this is a fact and it was confirmed by Dr. Charles Ryrie, who mentioned the link between Darby and the Albury Conference in his book "Dispensationalism".

It was several years later when the pretrib "Secret Rapture" doctrine was adopted by the Irvingites. It first appeared in the Irvingite journal "The Morning Watch", during the Fall of 1830. Darby got it from the Irvingites, although Darby apologists like William Kelly have done everything in their power to deny the history of the doctrine.

Darby was a later-comer to all of this after Irving died of TB in 1834.

.

jgr · Jul 7, 2017

Biblewriter said:
Once again, we see the fairy tale that Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby. This has been debunked more times than I can count. But it continues to pop up.

Dr. Thomas Ice, Pre-trib Research Center:

"From the time of his convalescence, Darby developed a theology that taught and supported a dispensational, premillennial, pretribulationism."

"It would take at least another decade for Darby to develop full confidence in his new views and their implications."

"Darby possessed the intellect, education, and capability needed for original thinking, and the discipline to develop ideas into a system."

"...the development of Darby's own theology, in spite of how he remembers it, was from 1827 to even as late as 1843 in a largely formative stage."

"As his thought developed during the 1830s, this principle of interpretation became the lynchpin of his system."

"On the other hand, Darby most likely thought of and then developed the idea of pretribulationism in the process of shifting to futurism."

If that's not invention, then it's some exceptionally innovative original personal embellishment.

Better call up Dr. Ice and set him straight.

jerry kelso · Jul 7, 2017

Hank77 said:
Please address the scriptures I posted and tell me how they are referring to anyone besides those in Judaism, who is the audience, or a difference in the subject matter.
Matt. 13:11, Mark 4:11, and Luke 8:10.

hank77,

1 Matthew 13:11; mysteries of the kingdom to those who believe Christ as Messiah with verse 16.
In Verse 13; those who would not believe would not understand the mysteries with verses 13-15.
Jesus is talking about the Jews that would hear and those that would not.

2. Mark 4:11
The same

3. Luke 8:10; the same

4. The same principle in 1 Corinthians natural man cannot receiveth the spiritual. Jerry kelso

Biblewriter · Jul 7, 2017

BABerean2 said:
I never said the idea of a pretrib rapture came from Lacunza.

Edward Irving translated the Spanish version Lacunza's book into English and included his own commentary with the book. Irving then presented doctrine from the book at the UK prophetic conferences. You know this is a fact and it was confirmed by Dr. Charles Ryrie, who mentioned the link between Darby and the Albury Conference in his book "Dispensationalism".

It was several years later when the pretrib "Secret Rapture" doctrine was adopted by the Irvingites. It first appeared in the Irvingite journal "The Morning Watch", during the Fall of 1830. Darby got it from the Irvingites, although Darby apologists like William Kelly have done everything in their power to deny the history of the doctrine.

Darby was a later-comer to all of this after Irving died of TB in 1834.

.

The claim that Darby got this idea from the Irvingites is a rank assumption which lacks any vestige of proof. There is solid proof that it was taught by many others in England, long before Irving took up the idea. And there is simply zero proof that it was Irving, and not some of the many others, from whom Darby got the idea, if he did not personally get it entirely from the scriptires. Which has also not been disproved.

jerry kelso · Jul 7, 2017

jerry kelso said:
baberean2,

1. First, you deflect and talk about a different point.

2. Now you give me the scriptures for the Babylonian Captivity which I never denied that Israel would come out of.
However, you want to leave the context fully in that captivity when it has a prophetic perspective that you don't want to admit in verses 8-9 which you left out because you know you don't want to admit you are wrong. How deceptive!

3. Verse 4 does speak concerning Israel and Judah and the Babylonian captivity and any rest was short lived because Medo-Persia was the next oppressor then Greece, then Rome. We know this from Daniel 2&7.

4. Verse 5 &6 talk about the time of Jacob's trouble which was not exclusive to the Babylonian captivity. Isaiah 66:7-9; Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21-22; Revelation 12.
All these passages are the time of Jacob's trouble that are future and a message to Israel and Judah.
Israel and Judah never become one stick according to Ezekiel 37:16-28. That will not happen until the end of the tribulation.

5. Jeremiah 30:7; alas for that day is great. This phrase is relative to the Day of the Lord which is relative to a day of reckoning and involves travail of a woman or Jacob Isaiah 13:6-9; Daniel 12:1; Zephaniah 1:14-15; Matthew 24:15:22; Revelation 12 both past and future even past Jeremiah's time.

6. Jeremiah 30:9; But the (Israel) shall serve the Lord their God and David their King; whom I (God) will raise up.
This is future for David was dead and was not raised up then and will not be until the Kingdom when both Judah and Israel will become one sick and never be separated again Ezekiel 37:16-24;25-28.
Once again you are one sided and leaving out the other side of the truth and being deceptive to yourself as well as others because of your tunnel vision and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
This is why you cannot explain verse 9 about David being raised up as King in Jeremiah's day. Quit being ridiculous. Jerry kelso

baberean2,

1. Still can't come up with a proper rebuttal.
David wasn't raised up as King of Israel in Jeremiah 30:9. Also, Jacob's trouble was not only for Babylonian captivity.
Israel and Judah did not become two stick and still are not and will not be until the KoH reign comes and King David is made King.
You have purposely left out the prophetic distinction of Jeremiah's context.
Please quit going on with your wrongly dividing the word because it is merely your opinion. Jerry kelso

Marilyn C · Jul 7, 2017

BABerean2 said:
Below Christ reveals His Church in the Book of Matthew.

Mat 16:16　 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.　
Mat 16:17　 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.　
Mat 16:18　 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.　

Below is the Great Commission to the Church in the Book of Matthew.

The Great Commission (subtitle from eSword)

Mat 28:16　 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.　
Mat 28:17　 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.　
Mat 28:18　 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.　
Mat 28:19　 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:　
Mat 28:20　 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In Acts 2:36, on the Day of Pentecost Peter addressed the crowd as "all the house of Israel". On that day about 3,000 Israelites became part of the New Covenant Church.

During the first few years of the Church almost all of its members were Israelites.

John Nelson Darby's attempts to "rightly divide" scripture into that for Israel and that for the Church has just been shown to be in error.

.　

Hi BABerean,

Jesus could not have revealed the `Church` to the 12 disciples or He would have been a liar. Jesus, the Head, only revealed the revelation of the Body of Christ, first, to the Apostle Paul.

You know that the word `ekklesia,` means called out ones. Jesus was not revealing the Body of Christ, just saying that He would build His called out ones. The 12 disciples are a special group but are NOT apostles of Christ`s ascension ministries. They will be rulers over Israel in the New Jerusalem, as told in scripture. (Matt. 19: 28 Rev. 21: 14)

The good news that Jesus told the 12 disciples, concerned Himself, who He was. And that is what the Apostle Peter spoke about on the day of Pentecost - (Acts 2). If the 12 disciples had revelation of the Body of Christ then why would they ask concerning the `restoring of the kingdom` to Israel? (Acts 1: 6)

Marilyn.

Marilyn C · Jul 7, 2017

Hank77 said:
That explanation doesn't make any sense at all.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Where is the difference in who is asking, who is they and them, or the subject they are discussing, Literally?

The audience is NOT you and me, the audience is the disciples and those with them, who were all ethic Jews or proselytes to Judaism not Gentiles.

Hi Hank,

Fait enough question. Yes we see that Jesus was talking to the people of Israel, however the intended audience was for Roman readers.

Marilyn.

MORE RAPTURE QUESTIONS

Senior Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Pre-tribulation.

Newbie

Food For Thought

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Food For Thought

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Food For Thought

Senior Member

Food For Thought

Pre-tribulation.

Pre-tribulation.

Similar threads