HERESY?

[Moriah's Song]

Is that what they call Replacement Theology? I don't believe in that. The New Covenant was for the Jews first, and the Gentiles were added at the door of Cornelius. There is one kingdom, and the Jews were only partially blinded, not fully blinded so they could still come into the Church and become part of the Bride of Christ.

I can only agree with you....to some degree and this is why....

Many, many people do not understand that the entire 65 books of the Bible are all about the Messiah/Christ; beginning with Adam and Eve and the battle between good and evil.

In the Garden in Eden, there were two trees - The tree of the "knowledge of good and evil' and "tree of life." After the fall, they were both sent out of the Garden because of that "tree of life." That tree represented "eternal life." If Adam and Eve had eaten of the "tree of life" they would have been "eternally" dead in their sins forever. So, it was in their best interest that God's love and desire to forgive them prevented them from staying in the Garden.

But, before they left, God indicated that animal sacrifices for their sins would become the norm for the OT humans that followed them until the Messiah's time came 2,000 years ago. How did God do that? It was when God "clothed them with garments of [animal] skins." (Gen 3:21)

Then God promised that [the Messiah/Savior/Christ] would come through the "seed" of the woman; not a man's seed. Now remember that all these millions of people, up to and including Abraham, were of the Gentile DNA...no Jewish DNA existed and has NEVER existed as a determination of who "God's people" would be...even by circumcision. If you read the scriptures you will find at least 3 Gentile women and also Moses was a Gentile. Circumcision has the same purpose as our baptism today --- confirmation of our choice to let God be our Lord and our commitment to Him by showing it in our lifestyle and dedication to help the poor, the lame and to put all others above ourselves. But anybody could join the Jewish religion. The OT scripture uses terms like soujouner, alien, foreigner or visitor to indicate that they too were welcome to be a part of God's plan of salvation. It was NEVER to make any nation, or group of people (even the Jews as God's chosen people) to become a "power" nation that would rule the world. God rules the world.

If you read the book of John, when Jesus began his ministry, He did two things:

1- The wedding at Cana (a repesentation of the Great Banquet and the Bride of Christ: the church)
2- Then, after choosing his disciples, he took them on a tour of Judea and then to Israel (Samaria at the time).​

Now remember that the Samaritans were considered to be Gentiles by the Jews because they were of a mixed race of Jews and Gentiles of Assyeria. Why did Jesus take that route to Gentiles? Because He was giving those disciples and "preview" of what they were to do after His ascencion and that is that the Jews had first chance to spread the gospel of salvation first and then to the Gentiles, of which is what they did.

Bottom line is this...from the time of Adam and Eve ALL people who believed God could be called "an Israelite" - God's people by name, not circumcision! Isn't that great?

In regards to the New Covenant; it was for all God's people, Jew and Gentile believers as you say too. But there are dispensationalist that do say that the New Covenant is "not now" for the Gentiles; it's for a later time for the Jews.

 

[Moriah's Song]

After the last Gentile comes into the Church at the cutoff being the start of the Great Tribulation, then the partial blindness will be fully removed and the rest of national Israel alive at that time will be lifted and all Israel will be saved during the first 3 1/2 years. Romans 11.

That is one of the 3 aspects of Dispensationalim concerning the end times - - -

1- rapture before the tribulation or
2- rapture in the middle of the tribulation or
3- rapture after the tribulation

It does not matter to me which one it is because there is only 1 rapture indicated in scripture and that is at the end of the world/ages when both the dead saints are raised and the living believers are translated and so we all meet together with the Lord in the air.

Personally, I believe this is the last month before the year the GT starts. The timing I see has to do with the fulfillment of Rev. 8 on April 13, 2029 according to NASA. So minus 7 years for the GT, is 2022.

So we only have 18 days left? This is a new one to me!

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I agreed with you up until you said this:

If you read the scriptures you will find at least 3 Gentile women and also Moses was a Gentile.

What made you think Moses was a Gentile when his brother Aaron was from the Tribe of Levi? And Moses had to have been circumcised because how else would the Egyptians know he was a Jew?

Bottom line is this...from the time of Adam and Eve ALL people who believed God could be called "an Israelite" - God's people by name, not circumcision! Isn't that great?

No one was called an Israelite until Jacob's name was changed by God to Israel. The 13 tribes were descendants of Jacob.

In regards to the New Covenant; it was for all God's people, Jew and Gentile believers as you say too. But there are dispensationalist that do say that the New Covenant is "not now" for the Gentiles; it's for a later time for the Jews.

Those particular dispensationalists that you are referring to I don't agree with at all. The New Covenant is of the Spirit, so anyone that believes in Jesus who doesn't also have the indwelling Spirit of Jesus does not belong to Him. Not all who claim to be Christians actually are. Here is a test everyone must pass. 1 John 3:21-24. Also 2 Peter 1:2-11, and Romans 61-23, and Romans 8:1-9; Romans 8:29-30.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

That is one of the 3 aspects of Dispensationalim concerning the end times - - -

1- rapture before the tribulation or
2- rapture in the middle of the tribulation or
3- rapture after the tribulation

It does not matter to me which one it is because there is only 1 rapture indicated in scripture and that is at the end of the world/ages when both the dead saints are raised and the living believers are translated and so we all meet together with the Lord in the air.

So we only have 18 days left? This is a new one to me!

I'm post trib. I do NOT believe in a secret rapture. It is just not scriptural.

We have about a little more than 7 years before Christ returns. But as far as evangelizing to reach more Gentiles, that will end sometime next year. Maybe April. I really don't know how long after the GT that the trumpets and woes are. But the seals are 7 years containing the horsemen. I could be mixed up on that as I haven't finished my study and document to get everything in the correct timeline. What do you think about the seals, trumpets and woes.

 

[Curtis]

hmm, you dont think “flesh and blood thinking” is what was in view there? As outlined elsewhere?

No.

 

[Moriah's Song]

What made you think Moses was a Gentile when his brother Aaron was from the Tribe of Levi? And Moses had to have been circumcised because how else would the Egyptians know he was a Jew?

Oooop! on my part. Moses was born from the tribe of Levi and then was brought up in the Gentile home of the Pharaoh of Egypt and it says in Exo 2:10..."And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said, "Because I drew him out of the water."

However, I have not found any scripture that says that Moses was circumcised. He certainly would not have been unless he was circumcised prior to being put in a basket in the river. If you find a verse please let me know.

Edit added: It is interesting that Moses married a Gentile Cushite woman.

 

[Enoch111]

I do NOT believe in a secret rapture.

How about a "public" rapture? But the only public will be Christians. And it would be totally absurd if the Rapture occurred AFTER the Tribulation.

 

[Moriah's Song]

How about a "public" rapture? But the only public will be Christians. And it would be totally absurd if the Rapture occurred AFTER the Tribulation.

The rapture was a part of the 1st century debate and was eventually rejected until Darby resurrected it and added a few ideas to it. It is still dispenational doctrine. There are no verses in scripture about a "rapture" except for the one event on the last day at the end of the world/ages.

 

[farouk]

Define "mainstream dispensationalism" please?

FYI....Dispensationalist author Harry A. Ironside* wrote a book that promoted this idea, called The Great Parenthesis the mystery in Daniel’s prophecy.

Ironside said, “I believe it can be shown from Scripture that this Great Parenthesis is the true key to a right understanding of prophecy.” With this premise, based on their interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, the dispensationalists reinterpret all prophecy. But scholars have found that the book of Revelation is chock full of allusions to Old Testament prophecy. Its opening verse says, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass.” It seems strange, if there was to be a two thousand year gap, before the prophecies described in the book were to occur. These facts suggest that the idea of a Great Parenthesis which Ironside took as his “key” to unlock all prophecy was a flawed premise. In his book, Ironside described his view of the prophecies, which he represented metaphorically as mountains. The church age, he said, lay in a valley that was hidden from the prophets.

The Great Parenthesis is what is referred to as the "offer that Jesus made and was rejected by the Jews" and is the basis for separating the "church" from the Jews; a twofold false system of theology.

(Henry Allen "Harry" Ironside was a Canadian-American Bible teacher, preacher, theologian, pastor, and author who pastored Moody Church in Chicago from 1929 to 1948. en.wikipedia.org)

It's still Scriptural to see a distinction between Jews and the church (1 Corinthians 10.32).

 

[Moriah's Song]

It's still Scriptural to see a distinction between Jews and the church (1 Corinthians 10.32)

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

Give none offence - Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so as to lead others into sin; see the note at Romans 14:13.

Neither to the Jews ... - To no one, though they are the foes of God or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship, and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion, and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not attend the feasts in honor of idols.

Nor to the Gentiles - Greek "Greeks." To the pagans who are unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead them into the sin of idolatry.

Nor to the church of God - To Christians. Many of them are weak. They may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in themselves strictly "lawful," may yet be the occasion of leading others into sin, and endangering their salvation.​

Bottom line is...Don't act in such a way that would lead "anyone"; (unsaved Gentiles or unsaved Jews or saved Gentile and converted Jewish believers) to sin.

 

[farouk]

Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

Give none offence - Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so as to lead others into sin; see the note at Romans 14:13.

Neither to the Jews ... - To no one, though they are the foes of God or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship, and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion, and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not attend the feasts in honor of idols.

Nor to the Gentiles - Greek "Greeks." To the pagans who are unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead them into the sin of idolatry.

Nor to the church of God - To Christians. Many of them are weak. They may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in themselves strictly "lawful," may yet be the occasion of leading others into sin, and endangering their salvation.​

Bottom line is...Don't act in such a way that "anyone"; (unsaved Gentiles or unsaved Jews or saved Gentile and converted Jewish believers) to sin.

Good points there, indeed....

I was also thinking in terms of dispensations, that there are distinctions.

 

[Enoch111]

There are no verses in scripture about a "rapture" except for the one event on the last day at the end of the world/ages.

That is TOTAL NONSENSE. But total nonsense seems to be the norm today.

 

[Moriah's Song]

That is TOTAL NONSENSE. But total nonsense seems to be the norm today.

Scripture is clear that on the last day, those who are dead saints and those that are alive saints will be joined together with the Lord in the air. No doubts about it. However, if you have proof in scripture that says there are TWO different raptures at TWO different times then please provide that verse. The only other rapture of more than one individual at one event is in Matthew 27:52-53 which many scholars believe were the OT saints that ascended to heaven with Jesus after the resurrection. But that one is not a NT rapture of any living at that event because it occurred just prior to the ascension.

 

[bbyrd009]

No.

ok, but what if you're wrong? I mean, you dont want to qualify your statements any, just in case?

 

[Wrangler]

If you are offended at the Truth then that is your problem.....

A little humility would go a long way.

You thinking it is your job to tell people they are wrong is the problem.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Church teaches that immersion in water is preferred for baptism. However baptism ALSO can mean sprinkling or dipping which doesn't involve submersion. For some there are medical reasons not to be fully submerged in water. Should they be denied baptism because they can't be submerged? Also, I can walk into a river and come up out of the river without being submerged. Matthew 3 STRONGLY suggest that Jesus was submerged (and he probably was) but now where.....and this is VERY IMPORTANT....no where in scripture does it say that a person has to be submerged.

Considering what baptism means, full immersion is what is required. It is a symbolic 'death' to a former life course and a 'rising' to do the will of God first in life. Jesus' baptism was not for the forgiveness of sins because he didn't have any. His baptism was to begin his new life course, therefore our baptism means the same...death to the former...life to the new, continuing the work he started.

If we bury something, we don't leave parts of it exposed to become corrupted.

JW's have no difficulty at all baptizing people with all kinds of disabilities.....where there is a will there is a way.
The reason why infants should not be baptized is because it would endanger their lives....and there is no proxy arrangement where someone can dedicate your life to Christ for you as if the act of sprinkling water on anyone has significance. It has to be a conscious choice based on learning the truth and becoming a disciple of Jesus of their own volition. Its not the baptism itself that carries the import.....it is the reason for the baptism that matters.

Its the reason why babies had to be baptized that makes me cringe....do you really think that God would send an innocent baby to hell because his parents didn't sprinkle water on him/her?

According to the Didache (written before some NT letters) the early church allowed the baptizer to "pour out water three times upon the head". Other early Christian historical art show and writings say the same thing....pouring of water, not submersion, is acceptable.

And yet there is no mention of this in the Bible....go figure.
If the disciples came to a river to get baptized then a body of water was required, not just a jug....unless it is full immersion, it loses all significance.

I know you don't accept what your Christian forefathers (apostolic fathers) from the 1st century had to say about a lot of Christian practices/doctrine/dogma etc. You accept what your 19th century fathers have taught you. For this girl....I trust the 1st century Christians teachings/practices and NOT 19th century teachings/practices.

And yet you follow the teachings of a church that has well and truly apostatized from the teachings of Jesus Christ and given allegiance to those who fell away, introducing all manner of doctrines which find no support in scripture at all.
So many beliefs and practices that run contrary to what Jesus taught....I can never understand anyone reverting back to what the Reformers rebelled against....but even they did not stay true to the teachings of Christ, running with the same erroneous core of teachings that the Catholic church held to be true. The trinity, immortality of the soul and hellfire.....none of which are from the Bible.

During the Mass the priest says, “The Lord be with you,” and the congregation responds, “And with your spirit.” This practice comes from 2 Timothy 4:22: “The Lord be with your spirit.” The Mass...in general.... is the re-presentation of The Last Supper. The priest repeats what Jesus said: This is my body/blood, take and eat/drink,......see Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:24-25. We say The Lords Prayer at every mass.

Again with the repetition. Jesus did not recommend repetitious prayers and neither did the Apostles. Jesus never said "pray this prayer"...but "pray this way". He warned his disciples not to repeat the same things over and over. (Matthew 6:8) God is not a moron who needs to hear the same words repeated ad nauseum ad infinitum....he gave us the gift of speech to talk 'TO' him, not 'AT' him...parrot fashion.

2 Timothy 4:22 has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper.
When Jesus instituted the Memorial supper, he used the bread and wine as emblems of his flesh and blood because all the animals used for sacrifice in Israel were of flesh and blood. These blood sacrifices were an "atonement" for their sins and needed repeating often, whereas the sacrifice of Christ was "once for all time", and yet if Catholics believe that these turn into the actual flesh and blood of Christ then you are suggesting that he told them to break God's law. Nowhere were the Jews given permission to eat human flesh and it was a capital offense to consume blood. These are representations of what he sacrificed for mankind, otherwise you are sacrificing him over and over again every time a Mass is celebrated.
When he said that people had to "eat his flesh and drink his blood" they were repulsed! (John 6:53-57) But he waited for his apostles to respond like the others...they waited for an explanation. (John 6:60-61; 66-69)

 

[Aunty Jane]

In Acts 2 it says they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers .Catholics still do these things, among other things from Scripture, 2,000 years later. Does your denomination?

Jehovah's Witnesses hold an annual observance of the Lord's Supper on the date that it was held by the first Christians, but only those who were parties to the New Covenant partake of the emblems. The rest of those present pass the emblems in remembrance of the sacrifice Christ made for all of us, because we see ourselves as the beneficiaries of that New Covenant, not parties or signatories to it. The Kingdom has rulers and subjects...we know the difference. A kingdom is not a kingdom without subjects.....and these will live forever on earth as God first intended.(Revelation 21:2-4)

The AF's were said to be contemporaries of some of the apostles. Thus, they should have been familiar with apostolic teachings. Regarding what those men wrote, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says:
“Taken as a whole the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are more valuable historically than any other Christian literature outside the New Testament.”⁠

If the apostles taught the Trinity, then those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too. It should have been prominent in their teaching, since nothing was more important than telling people who God is. So did they teach the Trinity doctrine?

The Didache, (the authors of which are unknown) deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19. But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.

In its 10th chapter, The Didache includes the following confession of faith in the form of a prayer:

“We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy Name which you have made to dwell in our hearts; and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever! You, Almighty Master, created everything for your Name’s sake . . . And to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and life eternal through Jesus your Servant.”⁠

There is no Trinity even hinted at here. Jesus is a "servant" of his Father (Acts 4;27, 30 ) not an equal.
In the matter of God’s supremacy and his relationship with Jesus, the teaching of the Apostolic Fathers is fairly consistent with the teaching of Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles, as recorded in the Bible. All of them speak of God, not as a Trinity, but as a separate, eternal, almighty, all-knowing Being. And they speak of the Son of God as a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will. And the holy spirit is nowhere included as an equal of God.
The ECF's were the ones who began to veer off course.....ever so gradually...little by little until the declaration of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century. Christianity has no nationality.

The Didache is a very early (written before some NT books) writing from the Christian community. Part of it instructs Christians on what to do on Sunday: “on every Lord's day gather yourselves together, break bread and give thanks after having confessed your transgressions”. The Didache, written by people who walked and talked with the Apostles, instructs us what to do with the Eucharist (bread and wine). Catholics still do these things that the Apostles taught us to do, 2000 years later.

Do they? Why Sunday? The Jewish Sabbath was on Saturday. What connection does the weekly Sabbath have with the annual event of what replaced the Jewish Passover? Nowhere are we told to memorialize Jesus death except on the anniversary on which it falls.

Why does the "Lord's Day" have to be Sunday? Of what significance is Sunday (held in honor of the sun god by the pagan Romans) a significant day for Christians?
The "Lord's Day" in Revelation is the future thousand year reign of God's Kingdom in the hands of his Christ and the elect.

The writings of the Apostolic Fathers in no way taught a trinity or promoted a weekly (or even daily for some) "Mass". They most certainly did not teach Christendom’s Trinity.

Revelation 1:1 says: “This is the revelation given by God to Jesus Christ.” (The Jerusalem Bible) Again, the resurrected Christ in heaven is shown to be entirely separate from God, and the holy spirit is not mentioned. If Jesus were the second person of a Trinity, knowing all things, how could he be “given” a revelation?

Way too many unanswered questions for me....

 

[Davy]

@Davy

I'm sorry. I want to ask for your forgiveness for getting frustrated at your responses to me and putting you on ignore. I've obviously taken you off of ignore now. Let's just both remember we are Christians and curb our conduct in our words.

I can be civil if you will.

 

[Enoch111]

Scripture is clear that on the last day, those who are dead saints and those that are alive saints will be joined together with the Lord in the air.

Scripture says no such thing. And "the last day" is used as a metaphor for a very long period, not for a 24 hour day.

 

[Davy]

Scripture says no such thing. And "the last day" is used as a metaphor for a very long period, not for a 24 hour day.

No, Moriah is correct, the "last day" is when Lord Jesus showed the resurrection will happen...

John 6:38-40
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him That sent Me.

39 And this is the Father's will Which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of Him That sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
KJV

... and that "last day" is what Apostle Paul was covering in 1 Thessalonians 4 about the resurrection of the 'asleep' saints Jesus brings with Him on the day of His coming.

You simply need to file 13 that false Pre-trib Rapture theory from man that you have believed on.