The Church Is The Israel Of God, Children Of The Promised Seed

[robert derrick]

The scriptures are the word of God, but the cannon was determined by church council and accepted doctrine. There are two apocryphal works in the Catholic Bibles that were rejected as Canon, but I didn't see anything in them that was actually contrary to sound doctrine, just negative statements about King Solomon. I might have missed something in my reading (which was at least two decades ago), but Solomon had huge issues revealed in the Canon of scripture, indulged in idolatry for the sake of his many wives (which the kings of Israel were not supposed to accumulate), and it isn't at all clear that he ever was restored from his apostasy.

I trust that the revelation of God is complete in the person of His Son, but I'm not so convinced that the cannon is complete because I've never seen the hundreds of writings held by the church and not accepted as scripture. Human consensus has never dictated truth, and it's clear that some church leadership in the past has been self serving and untrustworthy. The only difference between now and as little as a few hundred years ago, is that people who question church doctrine are no longer executed as heretics.

I trust that the revelation of God is complete in the person of His Son, but I'm not so convinced that the cannon is complete because I've never seen the hundreds of writings held by the church and not accepted as scripture.

And since you must rely on your own ideas and understandings, then your trust therefore in His revelation for His Son is corrupted.

Once we go down the road of doubting all Scripture is not with us, due to human error, then we must also doubt all Scripture with us is not all Scripture of truth.

And once we go down that road, then we begin choosing what to believe and not believe, based upon our own ideas and insights, that do not need all Scripture to guide us to the truth.

Once Scripture itself is doubted, the faith of Jesus known only by Scripture, cannot be known of a certainty, since what we have written of His faith is faulty and incomplete due to 'human error', which God Himself has been unable to prevent.

Human consensus has never dictated truth,

And so, we see the catastrophic error of the above, is due to putting our eyes on man, and not on Jesus Himself.

You are not acknowledging God's omnipotence to not only have all His Scripture written on earth, but also all preserved and written together on earth.

Since God can use the pagan Persian king Cyrus as His 'servant' for returning the captivity to Jerusalem, then so can He use any amount of people on earth as 'servants' to keep all His Scripture to be read by us on earth.

Once again, the Bible itself is all the proof I need, which God has preserved for me to read, and I don't need to read any old manuscripts, nor demand the originals to know that the Bible I read is all Scripture God ever gave to us, and all of it is Scripture indeed.

And if I did read them, I would certainly know the difference between them and Scripture by sight: When the word of truth by Scripture is hid and written in our hearts, we know it when we see it, and we know it is not Scripture when we read anything strange.

Now, if you have any contradiction or error in the Bible to show me, then my trust would be false. But there is none at all.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I trust that the revelation of God is complete in the person of His Son, but I'm not so convinced that the cannon is complete because I've never seen the hundreds of writings held by the church and not accepted as scripture.

And since you must rely on your own ideas and understandings, then your trust therefore in His revelation for His Son is corrupted.

Once we go down the road of doubting all Scripture is not with us, due to human error, then we must also doubt all Scripture with us is not all Scripture of truth.

And once we go down that road, then we begin choosing what to believe and not believe, based upon our own ideas and insights, that do not need all Scripture to guide us to the truth.

Once Scripture itself is doubted, the faith of Jesus known only by Scripture, cannot be known of a certainty, since what we have written of His faith is faulty and incomplete due to 'human error', which God Himself has been unable to prevent.

Human consensus has never dictated truth,

And so, we see the catastrophic error of the above, is due to putting our eyes on man, and not on Jesus Himself.

You are not acknowledging God's omnipotence to not only have all His Scripture written on earth, but also all preserved and written together on earth.

Since God can use the pagan Persian king Cyrus as His 'servant' for returning the captivity to Jerusalem, then so can He use any amount of people on earth as 'servants' to keep all His Scripture to be read by us on earth.

Once again, the Bible itself is all the proof I need, which God has preserved for me to read, and I don't need to read any old manuscripts, nor demand the originals to know that the Bible I read is all Scripture God ever gave to us, and all of it is Scripture indeed.

And if I did read them, I would certainly know the difference between them and Scripture by sight: When the word of truth by Scripture is hid and written in our hearts, we know it when we see it, and we know it is not Scripture when we read anything strange.

Now, if you have any contradiction or error in the Bible to show me, then my trust would be false. But there is none at all.

Nonsense and argument by implication on falsehood. In other words, your post begins with lies and you transgress the commandment (frequently I might add.)

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16

I forgive you, but you must fall upon the cross to receive His forgiveness. Repent and receive the Lord by faith.

 

[ewq1938]

"... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, ..."

The disciples did leave Bethany, crossing over the Mt of olives to reach Jerusalem. That doesn't change the fact that Christ ascended in Bethany.

Acts 1:11-12
It cannot be irrelevant that Daniel doesn't specifically mention a 1,000 year period of time because it is the entire point of our current debate. That being the 1,000 years of Rev. 20 is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture.

The events of the Millennium are mentioned by Daniel.

There is also this:

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

 

[GEN2REV]

It says nothing about rising out of middle of the Mt of Olives. ... He was not on Mt of Olives when he ascended.

they went to Bethany and he ascended there, which is a mile from the Mount of Olives and about 2 miles from Jerusalem.

... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, ..."

The disciples did leave Bethany, crossing over the Mt of olives to reach Jerusalem. That doesn't change the fact that Christ ascended in Bethany.

Not sure yet what your angle is in vehemently refuting that Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives, but here ya go:

Bethany
village, West Bank
Alternate titles: Al-ʿAyzariyyah
Bethany, Arabic Al-ʿAyzariyyah, small village and biblical site on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives just outside Jerusalem, situated in the West Bank.
Bethany | village, West Bank


Olivet and the Chapel of the Ascension[edit]
Main article: Chapel of the Ascension (Jerusalem)

The Ascension edicule

Close-up of the Rock of the Ascension inside the Ascension edicule
The traditional site of the Ascension is Mount Olivet (the "Mount of Olives"), on which the village of Bethany sits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus#:~:text=The%20traditional%20site%20of%20the,the%20village%20of%20Bethany%20sits.

 

[ewq1938]

Not sure yet what your angle is in vehemently refuting that Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives

Scriptural accuracy. Bethany is not on any part of the Mt of Olives.

 

[GEN2REV]

Scriptural accuracy. Bethany is not on any part of the Mt of Olives.

It's a simple scenario.

The location has been changed/moved, or the map is wrong.

The Bible is not.

Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives, just as scripture declares; and He will return to it, just as scripture declares.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives, just as scripture declares; and He will return to it, just as scripture declares.

No, scripture says he was in Bethany when he ascended. He also returns to Mt Zion, just outside of Jerusalem:

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

 

[GEN2REV]

No, scripture says he was in Bethany when he ascended. He also returns to Mt Zion, just outside of Jerusalem:

Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Ok, fine.

You win.

Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives.
Acts 1:12

Whatever.

 

[ewq1938]

Ok, fine.

You win.

Jesus ascended from the Mt of Olives.
Acts 1:12

You aren't reading the passage correctly:

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Jesus is gone!

Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Act 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

Why cite this last verse?? Jesus isn't with them as they left Bethany to the Mount, then back to Jerusalem.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

 

[GEN2REV]

You aren't reading the passage correctly:

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Jesus is gone!

Act 1:10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Act 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

Why cite this last verse?? Jesus isn't with them as they left Bethany to the Mount, then back to Jerusalem.

Luk 24:50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

Well, be careful. I know you're on point with all this stuff, but some people are not.

Those who are unlearned, and unstable in their faith, wrestle and twist the scriptures to their destruction.
2 Peter 3:16

That'd be scary.

God bless.

 

[Moriah's Song]

I do think the church and Israel are distinct; 1 Corinthians 10:32.

10:32 - "Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God":

Read the context! Paul is basically saying "Don't offend anyone by something you do that would cause a person to reject Christ." It says NOTHING whatsoever about "two separte groups of people" as the dispensationalists try to do make it fit into their preconceived ideas that originated in the mind of heretic John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.

 

[amigo de christo]

10:32 - "Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God":

Read the context! Paul is basically saying "Don't offend anyone by something you do that would cause a person to reject Christ." It says NOTHING whatsoever about "two separte groups of people" as the dispensationalists try to do make it fit into their preconceived ideas that originated in the mind of heretic John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.

Exactly the church and ISRAEL are not distinct . Not all of Israel are truly OF ISRAEL . ONLY believers in JESUS are in counted True israel
Ponder on the beauty of that . I mean true JERUSALEM is above , where GOD and Christ are the temple .
HEAVENLY JERUSALEM .
JESUS said it himself , and others i have NOT of this FOLD , them must i bring also
and they shall be ONE FOLD , With One SHEPARD .

 

[robert derrick]

Nonsense and argument by implication on falsehood. In other words, your post begins with lies and you transgress the commandment (frequently I might add.)

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Exodus 20:16

I forgive you, but you must fall upon the cross to receive His forgiveness. Repent and receive the Lord by faith.

Whoa. Touchy.

In other words, your post begins with lies and you transgress the commandment (frequently I might add.)

Just taking you at your word.

but I'm not so convinced that the cannon is complete because I've never seen the hundreds of writings held by the church and not accepted as scripture.

Unless I am reading something wrong here, you are doubting that the Bible as we have it is complete, and is missing other Scriptures of God.

And you say so, because you haven't looked at those other manuscripts for yourself.

Since you didn't show how my warning and correction was false, based upon your own words, then I'll not be prostrating myself at your feet at this time. (But since you gave me a forgiveness, then I'll just keep it in the hopper for later use if necessary. Thanks.)

 

[robert derrick]

10:32 - "Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God":

Read the context! Paul is basically saying "Don't offend anyone by something you do that would cause a person to reject Christ." It says NOTHING whatsoever about "two separte groups of people" as the dispensationalists try to do make it fit into their preconceived ideas that originated in the mind of heretic John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's.

I don't really know what dispensationalism is, but if it means that blind Israel after the flesh is at this time still the promised seed of Abraham, then I agree with your take on the Darby guy.

Until the generation following His return, the only promised people of the God of Israel, are them born of the seed of God, Jesus Christ.

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.

There is no physical seed born of flesh on earth today, other than all seed born of flesh, for He is now the propitiation for the sins of all the world.

There aren't two seeds of promise on earth today, one physical and one spiritual.

Physical Israel is the body of Christ, being of His flesh and of His bones, and the spiritual body of Israel will not appear to be with the Lord, until the resurrection in His likeness of spiritual body.

 

[robert derrick]

Exactly the church and ISRAEL are not distinct . Not all of Israel are truly OF ISRAEL . ONLY believers in JESUS are in counted True israel
Ponder on the beauty of that . I mean true JERUSALEM is above , where GOD and Christ are the temple .
HEAVENLY JERUSALEM .
JESUS said it himself , and others i have NOT of this FOLD , them must i bring also
and they shall be ONE FOLD , With One SHEPARD .

True. The other sheep are Gentiles grafted in with the circumcision of flesh that abides not un unbelief.

They are not some 'lost tribes' of Israel, that were only lost, until they were taken away to Assyria and destroyed from off the earth.

After that, there were only the lost sheep of Israel called the Jews, that the Redeemer came to, but was rejected.

 

[robert derrick]

That's referring to the rest of the army at Armageddon. That's who is slain by Christ. The civilians of the beast's empire are the ones ruled over. You are ignoring the verb rule is in the future tense and what the word rule means.

I didn't see you had already nailed it, and so there are two independent witnesses to the truth.

Yours of course being much shorter and to the point.

 

[Timtofly]

With respect, what you're ignoring though, like all pre-mil advocates, is that this thousand years you speak of is found literally nowhere in the Bible besides 7 consecutive verses in a book that is highly symbolic, made up of visions and signs - which Jesus Himself declares to be such in Rev. 1:1.

You cannot establish a legitimate doctrine out of one single passage in scripture. It must be supported elsewhere in the Bible. And not only that, but this concept of the thousand years is proven to be non-literal, and non-linear, by many chapters of the Book of Revelation itself.

So this very popular and trendy claim that you're making, as if scripture makes it absolutely clear, is completely illegitimate as a bona fide Biblical doctrine. Despite its widely-held belief in modern Christendom, it is completely unfounded.

You do realize that no period of time as in thousands of years is defined in the Bible except Revelation 20. So the last 1992 years are impossible because the Bible never said they would happen. That is just as foolish as you saying 1,000 years is impossible. The Bible does not literally have to claim any future time, yet time still happens. People are not building a doctrine. People are just pointing out John states a literal 1,000 years.

So the "doctrine" being built consist of all those who claim anything else besides what is written. Amil have a doctrine stating the 1,000 years is indefinite, it could be any time in the past and some even claim it happens in the NHNE. That is creating doctrine. Post mill claim it is indefinite and things just keep getting better and better. That is a created doctrine.

Doctrine is what men teach over and above what is stated, and doctrine usually changes a passage, or takes a passage out of context.

Pre-mill are literally the only readers who literally take the passage as written and as happening between Armageddon and the GWT.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture is not necessarily forming a doctrine. Although all doctrine is formed by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Of course doctrine can be formed from one verse, but harder to defend. Pre-mill has nothing to defend. Are you saying John was wrong? Only John can defend his own writings, pre-mill don't have to, not their responsibility. Pre-mill did not write the book of Revelation, John did.

Pre-mill do not have to establish doctrine to make Revelation 20 true. It is already true and the Word of God. This argument that you need true doctrine is nonsense. One only needs God's Word, not human doctrine. Human doctrine is not evil. It is just a form of teaching. Doctrine is evil when it deceives people and is not true. So explain how all eschatology can be true if there are a smorgasbord of different doctrines competing to be heard?

 

[robert derrick]

The disciples did leave Bethany, crossing over the Mt of olives to reach Jerusalem. That doesn't change the fact that Christ ascended in Bethany.


The events of the Millennium are mentioned by Daniel.

There is also this:

Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zec 14:17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

I have run across some Christians who are really zealous about Jesus not reigning Personally on earth.

Other than the Zionist plot, I really don't understand why? I mean, why not? God can do whatever He wants to do, and no man can stop Him.

If He wanted to rule under the earth like some Almighty Hades, He could certainly do so, and no worm could stop Him.

The bottom line is that God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob they themselves personally would be given that land they walked on for inheritance, and not just their physical offspring.

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

God's kingdom come is first spiritual in physical bodies on earth, and then physical in resurrected spiritual bodies on earth.

 

[robert derrick]

Well, be careful. I know you're on point with all this stuff, but some people are not.

Those who are unlearned, and unstable in their faith, wrestle and twist the scriptures to their destruction.
2 Peter 3:16

That'd be scary.

God bless.

Until you accurately show who 'them' is in Rev 19, you're doctrine is false.

And if you do accurately admit who 'them', then you may discard your false doctrine.

 

[Timtofly]

"... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, ..."
Acts 1:11-12
It cannot be irrelevant that Daniel doesn't specifically mention a 1,000 year period of time because it is the entire point of our current debate. That being the 1,000 years of Rev. 20 is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture.

Wrong and wrong.

Daniel 12:5-10

"Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

Daniel admitted he heard "time, times, and a half", but he did not understand. Who would understand, and when then?

You claim there is no other verse, but there is in Daniel 12:7. But you will not take my word for it, but keep making excuses. You cannot prove otherwise what this verse says, but perhaps in your private thoughts, or you have no opinion at all. No one until the end times could explain this verse, because even Daniel admitted he did not understand. Which is probably the wise choice, unless one does actually understand.