Curious

[riverrat]

No imminent, pretrib rapture will occur. It is a myth.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofLLykErtp4

I have my understanding and you have your understanding.

 

[riverrat]

If it is not in the scripture, then someone made it up.

When the Law was given to Israel God did not tell Moses that it was a fixed block of time. So using your logic the Law was something that man made up.

You better think again.

 

[Interplanner]

A "rapture" could occur but not separately from the judgement day and entire change of all things into the new creation. No separate drawn-out events in the middle east etc.

 

[riverrat]

A "rapture" could occur but not separately from the judgement day and entire change of all things into the new creation. No separate drawn-out events in the middle east etc.

Scripture please.

 

[BABerean2]

I have my understanding and you have your understanding.

One understanding looks at the whole of scripture and does not produce any contradictions in the text.

The other takes a few select passages and weaves a fall-narrative by ignoring, twisting, adding to and taking away from God's Word.


I guess you know one of us must be wrong.

Which doctrine creates no conflict in scripture, as has been readily demonstrated on this forum?

 

[Interplanner]

What is a "fall-narrative"?

 

[Rev20]

When the Law was given to Israel God did not tell Moses that it was a fixed block of time. So using your logic the Law was something that man made up.

You better think again.

No, you had better. I seriously doubt that making things up and presenting them as biblical, like dispensations, the rapture, and an earthly kingdom of Jews, is the way God intended for us to serve him.

 

[Interplanner]

God did tell them a Prophet was coming and anyone who did not heed him would be disinherited, Acts 3.

 

[ebedmelech]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. The dispensation(stewardship) of grace is Paul's ministry to the Gentiles which has always been operative. I don't think so.

That's because again you as well as Danoh, are quite ignorant that Gentiles were ALWAYS able to be part of Israel. In that ignorance you miss God's grace to all people, which has ALWAYS BEEN!

When God gave Israel the Passover in Exodus 12, He made it very clear that Gentiles could become "as natives born in the land". The Gentile mean had to become circumcised, eat the Passover and the became part of Israel.

Exodus 12:
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it;
44 but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.
45 A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it.
46 It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it.
47 All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this.
48 But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.
49 The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

So once again the flaws of dispensational theology is exposed. Other places that prove this is how so many Gentiles became Jews in Esther, as Esther 8:17 records:
17 In each and every province and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

The BECAME JEWS because they did as Exodus 12 stated. God's grace to the Gentiles...missed by erroneous dispensational thinking.

UTTER FLAWS EXPOSED AGAIN!

This is why Gentiles like Rahab are in the line of Christ...THEY BECAME JEWS!!!

 

[Interplanner]

But Abraham was justified before any ceremonial observance. Maybe we should be looking, like Paul, for what and when a person is justified rather than when they are called a certain common ethnic label. Justification is the promise to Abraham.

 

[Danoh]

That's because again you as well as Danoh, are quite ignorant that Gentiles were ALWAYS able to be part of Israel. In that ignorance you miss God's grace to all people, which has ALWAYS BEEN!

When God gave Israel the Passover in Exodus 12, He made it very clear that Gentiles could become "as natives born in the land". The Gentile mean had to become circumcised, eat the Passover and the became part of Israel.

Exodus 12:
43 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it;
44 but every man’s slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it.
45 A sojourner or a hired servant shall not eat of it.
46 It is to be eaten in a single house; you are not to bring forth any of the flesh outside of the house, nor are you to break any bone of it.
47 All the congregation of Israel are to celebrate this.
48 But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.
49 The same law shall apply to the native as to the stranger who sojourns among you.”

So once again the flaws of dispensational theology is exposed. Other places that prove this is how so many Gentiles became Jews in Esther, as Esther 8:17 records:
17 In each and every province and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

The BECAME JEWS because they did as Exodus 12 stated. God's grace to the Gentiles...missed by erroneous dispensational thinking.

UTTER FLAWS EXPOSED AGAIN!

This is why Gentiles like Rahab are in the line of Christ...THEY BECAME JEWS!!!

You continue to crack me up - That is just you and yours lumping everyone into your one size fits all template's resulting one-eyed paradigm

My understanding of Ephesian's 2 is that, with the call of Abraham, the Gentiles did not have direct access to God, but had to go through Abraham and his seed, "but now in Christ" both have direct access.

But you go right ahead and continue to be books based wise in your own conceits about us all

 

[riverrat]

One understanding looks at the whole of scripture and does not produce any contradictions in the text.

The other takes a few select passages and weaves a fall-narrative by ignoring, twisting, adding to and taking away from God's Word.


I guess you know one of us must be wrong.

Which doctrine creates no conflict in scripture, as has been readily demonstrated on this forum?

Paul's doctrine=my doctrine

 

[riverrat]

No, you had better. I seriously doubt that making things up and presenting them as biblical, like dispensations, the rapture, and an earthly kingdom of Jews, is the way God intended for us to serve him.

yeah, none of those things are Biblical. Think what your will.

 

[ebedmelech]

You continue to crack me up - That is just you and yours lumping everyone into your one size fits all template's resulting one-eyed paradigm

I know you crack up...because when you force what you want on scripture, the true meaning will *appear* wrong. Yet you still don't address how it is that Gentiles like Rahab and Ruth are in the genealogy of Christ. That's ok though, I didn't expect you to.

Nor did you address how all those in Persia became Jews in Esther 8. I know though...Stam missed or ignored it, just as you do. Furthermore, a passage as clear as that HAS to be ignored when it outright disproves what you think.

My understanding of Ephesian's 2 is that, with the call of Abraham, the Gentiles did not have direct access to God, but had to go through Abraham and his seed, "but now in Christ" both have direct access.

I know it's YOUR understanding. That's how you can ignore it. God forbid you would understand how Gentiles are "FORMERLY Gentiles in the flesh". Of course that only leaves what they are in the Spirit. That's how they become FELLOW citizens. Of course you can't refute that...so it "cracks" you up. Especially other things Paul teaches such as "the Jerusalem above" or the heavenly Jerusalem". You have no other recourse but to be "cracked up"...you can't deal with it.

But you go right ahead and continue to be books based wise in your own conceits about us all

Indeed I will! The loose application of scripture you apply simply has too many holes. This is the WORD OF THE LIVING GOD...not "religious politics".

 

[Danoh]

I know you crack up...because when you force what you want on scripture, the true meaning will *appear* wrong. Yet you still don't address how it is that Gentiles like Rahab and Ruth are in the genealogy of Christ. That's ok though, I didn't expect you to.

Nor did you address how all those in Persia became Jews in Esther 8. I know though...Stam missed or ignored it, just as you do. Furthermore, a passage as clear as that HAS to be ignored when it outright disproves what you think.

I know it's YOUR understanding. That's how you can ignore it. God forbid you would understand how Gentiles are "FORMERLY Gentiles in the flesh". Of course that only leaves what they are in the Spirit. That's how they become FELLOW citizens. Of course you can't refute that...so it "cracks" you up. Especially other things Paul teaches such as "the Jerusalem above" or the heavenly Jerusalem". You have no other recourse but to be "cracked up"...you can't deal with it.

Indeed I will! The loose application of scripture you apply simply has too many holes. This is the WORD OF THE LIVING GOD...not "religious politics".

Whatever, twist all the words of others away, you wish too...

 

[ebedmelech]

Whatever, twist all the words of others away, you wish too...

Nothing twisted. All who read this thread will notice one thing, whether they agree or disagree with my position, You couldn't refute it.

Once again Danoh, just for kicks...this is Esther 8:17:
17 In each and every province and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

How did "the people of the land" become Jews? As you like to say..."simple question"...

 

[Interplanner]

What ethnicity was Abraham the moment before he believed? After? Is it about ethnicity? Was it ever?

 

[riverrat]

Ebed wrote:
Originally Posted by Danoh

Whatever, twist all the words of others away, you wish too...
​

Nothing twisted. All who read this thread will notice one thing, whether they agree or disagree with my position, You couldn't refute it.

Once again Danoh, just for kicks...this is Esther 8:17:
17 In each and every province and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

How did "the people of the land" become Jews? As you like to say..."simple question"...
They had blood transfusions.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh's 198 is pretty much what I think (I'm very surprised at what he said) but there are better passages in support of the transcultural or transethnic Gospel).

 

[Rev20]

Ebed wrote:
Originally Posted by Danoh Whatever, twist all the words of others away, you wish too...

Nothing twisted. All who read this thread will notice one thing, whether they agree or disagree with my position, You couldn't refute it.

Once again Danoh, just for kicks...this is Esther 8:17:
17 In each and every province and in each and every city, wherever the king’s commandment and his decree arrived, there was gladness and joy for the Jews, a feast and a holiday. And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

How did "the people of the land" become Jews? As you like to say..."simple question"...
They had blood transfusions.

Rat, maybe Esther is referring to a common occurrence after the decree of Cyrus, where members of the northern tribes returning from Babylon rejoined with Judah and adopted the name of Jew:

"These adherents from the Ten Tribes were too few to preserve their individuality; henceforth they are known simply as Jews. But they were sufficiently numerous to make the twelvefold leadership and sacrifice something more than a devout imagination, and their presence in the ranks of the returning exiles was an earnest of greater things to come. For the Restoration had its effect on the Assyrian as on the Babylonian Golah. Jerusalem and the Temple were no monopoly of Judah. When Zion had risen again, many sons of Israel in foreign lands looked to it from afar as the sanctuary of their faith; and thus the Psalmist of a later time used no mere figure of speech when he described 'the tribes of Jehovah' as going up to Jerusalem, nor the Apostle when he spoke of 'our twelve tribes instantly serving God day and night.'" [P Hay Hunter, "After the Exile Pt 1 - The Close of the Exile to the Coming of Ezra." Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1890, Ch.III, pp,74-75]​

"The people of Israel in general are spoken of by St. Paul as "our twelve tribes" (Acts xxvi. 7), and St. James writes also to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad." No countenance whatever is given in the New Testament to the fables of Josephus, or of the writer of 4th Ezra (2nd Esdras)..." [Charles H H Wright, "Zechariah and His Prophecies." Hodder & Stoughton, 1879, Zec.x.8-9, p.285]​

"Some portion of the ten tribes were not, as we have seen, carried away captive from their own land (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9), and a considerable number of them may have remained even after the Babylonish captivity. A portion of this remnant in process of time was no doubt incorporated with the Samaritan people, while those who resisted such amalgamation probably united themselves with the Jews, and were called by their name. The story of "the lost tribes" must be regarded in the main as a mere legend, though it may be very true that large numbers did not return from the land of their exile. Yet even in their land of exile all Israelites were generally known as Jews, to whatever tribe they might have originally belonged." [Charles H H Wright, "Zechariah and His Prophecies." Hodder & Stoughton, 1879, Zec.x.8, p.284]​

Wright is saying that some of the northern tribes, who had escaped captivity by the Assyrians, had already rejoined with Judah under king Hezekiah, prior to it's captivity by the Chaldeans:

"So the posts went with the letters from the king and his princes throughout all Israel and Judah, and according to the commandment of the king, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and he will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria." -- 2Chr 30:6​

Some of those from Israel who rejoined with Judah are mentioned in 2nd Chronicles 30:18, 25-26.

The decree of Cyrus, king of Persia (Ezra 1:1-3), went out to all of God's people; and some from all tribes returned. Ezekiel 37:15-19 is essentially a summary of the return from captivity by Israel and Judah, beginning around 535 BC; and the partial rejoining of the two kingdoms into one kingdom, named Judah, under the government of Zerubbabel of the house of David. The book of Ezra confirms that "all Israel" returned to their cities; but as Isaiah 10:20-24 pointed out, only a small remnant of the original number of the northern tribes returned. This is the regathering under Judah, as presented by the Septuagint (LXX):

"Then shalt thou say to them, Thus saith the Lord; behold, I will take the tribe of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel that belong to him, and I will add them to the tribe of Juda, and they shall become one rod in the hand of Juda." (Eze 37:19 LXX)​

So, the name Jew applied to all twelve tribes after the return from Babylon.