Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
20Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
i guess this is the relevant verse, sorry
i'm not, i am just asking who reputes themI didn't name any names, so how do you automatically assume that they are not reputable?
actually the exceptions, which are rare, i generally accept as reputable, so you kinda lost me there sorryThey are not considered reputable by you
wth are you even talking about? I am not at all convinced that Ezekiel 13:20 is about rapture heresy. "Fly like birds" is interpreted in other ways, possibly even "ensnared like birds," which considering v 21 strikes me as more likely. But there are still the "charms" (now that you have performed the acceptable altar works, you are saved, forevermore) and "pillows" (which strike me as "rapture")You make yourself out as the sole authority on scripture, and anyone that doesn't hold your view to the letter is wrong.
gee, ya think? "God with us?"I suppose if one comes from a position that the (C)hurch has replaced Israel
then the question is--and it has not changed yet, in like 3 pages now--what is the relevance, do you think--iow no wrong answers here really, as no one knows for sure i guess--of "soft landings" and "pillows" and "hunt souls, to make them fly like birds?"I see no relevance.
gee, ya think? "God with us?"
Well, the church replacing Israel by some shows a misunderstanding of who Israel is and what the church is. Both currently and their destinies. Israel has always had an earthly application with earthly promises. The church has a spiritual application with heavenly promises. If the Church has replaced Israel in the earthly application, then God is a liar.
His covenant with Abraham and to his physical descendants is unconditional. Israel could not forfeit the covenant God made with Abraham and his physical descendants if they wanted to. And some idea that other nations are now the true physical descendants is arrogance to the extreme and nonsense based on Middle Ages folklore.
Take a good look at the actual description of this in Genesis 15:7-21. A covenant in the ancient times was confirmed by the parties of the covenant cutting some sacrificial animals in two, then both parties walking between the cut pieces reciting the terms of the covenant. The reasoning was a blood oath that if either party violated the terms of the covenant, they were to be like these cut up animals. God put Abraham to sleep and passed between the pieces on His own. That showed that God Himself was confirming the covenant and it was taking upon Himself the full burden of maintaining the covenant.
If the covenant is no longer valid, and Israel has no right to the covenant and it now belongs to the church, then God is a liar and His word is a sham. But God is one that delights in making and keeping His promises. He holds His word higher than anything else. If He cannot be trusted to honor that covenant, then He cannot be trusted in regards to salvation either, because His word is meaningless. And to say that He has abrogated the covenant, in violation of the oath He took, is impugning God's character and down right blasphemy.
And God has indeed upheld His word.
Ezekiel was told to lie on one side for several days, and then the other side for several days to show the number of years that Israel would be punished for their rebellion against God. 430 years. 70 of those were done in the Babylonian captivity. But most of the Hebrews did not return at the end of that captivity.
Leviticus 26 describes that if Israel remained obstinate against God, that their punishment would be 7 times more. Since only a fraction returned after the Babylonian captivity, most of the Hebrews remained in rebellion of God.
Ezekiel's prophecy of 430 years minus the 70 in Babylon leaves 360 years 360 years multiplied by 7 times the punishment of Leviticus 26 is 2520 years. The prophetic calendar is based on 360 day years. Multiply 360 by 2520 and it comes to 907200 days. Divide those days by 365.25 of the Julien calendar and you get 2483.8 years. Take those years and apply them to the August of 537 BC (which would be -536.4 for math purposes) when Cyrus issued the decree to rebuild the temple (also the point where most of Israel remained in rebellion of God by not returning to the land after this decree by Cyrus allowing them to return), factor out that there is no "0" year (it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no zero year) and you come out to May 1948, when modern Israel was declared a sovereign, independent nation again.
Paul's interpretation of the OT and promises God made to Abraham and Israel contradict your argument.
It is the rapture to heaven theory that is the wild and new idea.Respectfully disagree. Many passages have been given to show, even from the OT, that a removal of the righteous before the calamity of the wrath of God comes upon the earth is a valid position, and one can deny the numerical prescriptions regarding Israel all they want, but they are laid out for all to see. I know it flies in the face of what many have held for a long time, mostly because they have never taken such things into account. But it in not some new or wild idea or blatant abuse of scripture. Deny it all you want. But at least disprove the passages are valid for credibility.
Respectfully disagree. Many passages have been given to show, even from the OT, that a removal of the righteous before the calamity of the wrath of God comes upon the earth is a valid position, and one can deny the numerical prescriptions regarding Israel all they want, but they are laid out for all to see. I know it flies in the face of what many have held for a long time, mostly because they have never taken such things into account. But it in not some new or wild idea or blatant abuse of scripture. Deny it all you want. But at least disprove the passages are valid for credibility.
And I have laid out my portions based on two witnesses... the OT and the NT. Given that the Bereans (who were commended for searching out the scripture), and all the churches of the NT for that matter, had was the OT to confirm what Paul and the other Apostles taught them, it is incumbent on anyone making a argument from a interpretation of NT scripture also justify their position firmly from the OT as well. There are many who view the OT as some antiquated bunch of scribblings that don't mean anything anymore, or that New Testament abrogates the Old Testament. No, the New Testament is in the Old testament, concealed. And the Old Testament is in the New Testament, revealed. They are two witnesses that support each others testimony. The Apostles would in no way teach anything that countered the OT and would commend those who confirmed what they were teaching by searching the OT to confirm them.
Throwing around Greek words like Ekklesia and cherry picking verses out of context does not make the case. Any position must be supported by ALL scripture, as espoused by Paul and Peter themselves.
Paul:
Acts 17:10-11 (NKJV) Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Peter:
2 Peter 3:14-16 (NKJV) Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
It is the rapture to heaven theory that is the wild and new idea.
God does not change, Christians have been persecuted for their faith since Stephen. To think that this generation should be removed from any hard testing, is just pretentious and simply wrong.
I would like to see those prophesies that you say prove a rapture to heaven. I would warn you, that I know the Bible very well and have never seen one that says that. Protection, yes; removal, no.
What do you consider to be the wrath of God?
You made a general statement about the nature of God's promises that I believe are false. I have no desire to get bogged down in debate over your views on Ezekiel's temple, etc.
1. The early Church was Jewish. They did not see themselves as merely a "spiritual" fulfillment of anything. They were "true Israel" and all of God's OT promises were directed at them.
2. Paul says that the promises God made to Abraham and his "offspring" were directed to Jesus Christ. Thus, these promises were not "spiritual" but were specifically directed toward Jesus....the physical, incarnate Son of God.
3. The emphasis in ALL Paul's teaching regarding faith and the promises of God emphasize the fact that the dividing wall that separates Jew and Gentile is gone and all can be children by faith. Your argument insists that this isn't true and that there is special privilege to being a physical Israelite.
4. Circumcision was a physical "everlasting" covenant. Yet Paul makes it very clear that it means nothing and that those who rely on it...either Jew are Gentile...are cut off from grace. Seems weird he would discard a "physical" covenant seal for Israel if the focus of the Church was merely spiritual. I mean, Paul was a Jew.
5. The notion that the Messiah failed to establish the promises of God to Israel at his first appearance I think is very troubling. This seems to be the very thing that upset the Pharisees and why they rejected him as their Messiah. Jesus did fulfill the promises of God to Abraham and Israel and I think the NT authors bear this out in vivid detail.
Exactly what the OT says regarding the last days before Messiah sets up His earthly kingdom.
True, but they also recognized their unbelieving countrymen as also being Hebrews and descendants of Abraham. Paul especially so in his letter to the Romans. And go back and read the part in Acts about Steven.
nd indeed Messiah will physically reign on David's thrown in the future.
While in spiritually in Messiah, there is indeed neither Jew nor Greek, to imply it actually has a literal physical application regarding physical descendants of Abraham is a stretch. If you go down that road, you have to take the entire verse and not cherry pick that one part from it and ignore the rest. It also says there is also neither male or female.
Too bad you don't bother to put what the Bible actually does say; Ezekiel 4:4-5....I ordain Israel's punishment for 390 days, one day for each year of their exile....Then Judah's for 40 years. They are separate times for separate nations, that have not rejoined as yet.Ezekiel was told to lie on one side for several days, and then the other side for several days to show the number of years that Israel would be punished for their rebellion against God. 430 years. 70 of those were done in the Babylonian captivity. But most of the Hebrews did not return at the end of that captivity.
Can you show one scripture that says Christ returns before the tribulation?