The Rapture

[TWC]

Look, you have every right to make a fool of yourself if and when you so choose! I did not and will not reply to your statement. The only one of us that is teaching the timing of the Rapture is you, o'mighty one with the moving lips! I have a good deal more snap than to venture to impose my, and that is just that, my, idea of when the Rapture will occur. You on the other hand are, visibly, seeking to intimidate a three tour combat veteran that trained men on how to intimidate the enemy... are you for real?

Oh yeah, that is an "Over and out, boss!"

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-5)

By the way, circular reasoning is when the conclusion is claimed or assumed in the argument. I mentioned it because it seems to keep popping up in this thread.

 

[veteran]

What I said was that I agreed that Jesus comes back at the end of the tribulation, I said that I agreed that there will be a gathering at the end of the tribulation. This is all that the scripture says. A gathering is not the same thing as a catching away. For example...

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

The gathering of the saints by Christ at His coming is what the 'harpazo' ("caught up") is about. The Greek word 'harpazo' simply defines His elect being gathered to Him. Just because God's Word uses different words to describe the saints being gathered to Christ at His coming does not mean we can create a whole separate doctrine for each word type. That's a very weak foundation to rest upon. And it STILL does nothing to Scripturally prove Christ raptures His saints PRIOR to the tribulation. Gen.1:9 about the waters doesn't support any such idea either.

What it is talking about is gathering all of his elect, His Bride from Heaven, and Israel and the tribulation Saints from the earth. He speaks of the Gathering for Israel many times in the old testament.

Eze 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.

Yeah, the OT speaks of God gathering His elect in many places, but concerning His Church it's all the same event of Christ gathering them when He comes, of both believing Israelite and believing Gentiles, together, as one body. The New Testament shows many times how both groups make up Christ's Body of saints known as God's Church. The OT prophecy also reveals about the Gentiles being gathered with Israel...

Isa 49:22
22 Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up Mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up My standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.
(KJV)

The Book of Acts also shows how the early Church was made up of both believing Israelites and Gentiles as one body. So for what real purpose were the doctrines of Dispensationalism started in the 1800's that divides Israel as one body, and the Gentile Church as another body? It was devised to try and drum up Biblical support for the pre-trib rapture doctrine which also came from those same ones who started Dispensationalism. But in reality, there is no Biblical support for a pre-trib rapture.

During the Millennium Reign, Jesus will give Israel all the land that was promised her. The nation that exists now, is just a foretaste of what they will experience, when their King and Messiah returns.

That above I definitely agree with, since that is well written of in Ezekiel 47-48. And the Zadok of Ezek.44 is about the saints gathered to Jesus that will also be there. Zadok means 'the just, or righteous'.

After going back through and rereading all my posts I realize that maybe I mispoke. I shouldn't have said that I agree with you, I should have said that I agree with the scripture as written. I agree that Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation, which I agree with, it also says that there will be a gathering, which I agree with. What it doesn't say is that this gathering is the exact same event as the rapture, which is what you claim, which I don't agree with. So as far as me misspeaking by saying that I agree with you, please accept my apology.

I am having trouble with the formatting on this reply, so I am going to try to start again. Joshau David

No problem brother.

But I still cannot agree with your statement that you're staying within Scripture on the idea of a rapture (or gathering) of the saints PRIOR to the tribulation. If you'll take time to compare the duties of those 'gathered' to Christ you will discover the Scripture is speaking of the same ones. That's another way how you can know 'harpazo' ("caught up") and the gathering is the same event.

 

[veteran]

Ok I see your point. Maybe teaching what the other side believes, is not really the right way of saying it. I was trying to explain exactly what I meant by using the example of Eternal Security. There are verses that seem to teach that you can lose your salvation, there seems to be verses that seem to teach that you can't lose your salvation. If you are teaching that you can lose your salvation, then you must at least address the verses that seem to indicate that you can't lose your salvation, and what they really mean. If you feel that you that you can't lose your salvation, then you must at least address the verses that seem to indicate that you can lose your salvation, and what they really mean. Because if you don't the first time your student runs up against someone who says , "Well yeah, if what you are saying is true, then what about this verse?" Then your student will be left struggling to come up with something and it is easy for him to get confused. That's all that I was saying. It is a part of the lesson that I call 'those troubling verses' and I try to include them in every lesson I teach.

I got that. There are no contradictions within God's Word (i.e., the manuscripts; translations are another matter). If we think we're solid on an idea from God's Word and then we read other verses that contradict it, then it means we need more Bible study. It means God's Word has not confirmed the idea for us yet, and we need to look further. I supposed what I'm saying is, there shouldn't be any troubling verses, everything should fit together as a whole.

And this is the source of why you see scripture pointing toward a post tribulation rapture, and why I see a pretribulation rapture. The timing of the rapture has more to do with a study of the church, and it's distinctness from Israel, as it does with a study of end time prophecy. Because If there is no distinction between Israel and the Church, then I will fully agree that the rapture is post tribulational. But if there is a distinction between Israel and the church, then the rapture must be pretribulational. Now, before you start throwing up one of the those 'troubling verses' allow me a sec to define exactly how I see Israel and the church. In the Old Testament, I see Israel being a national entity. Within this national entity is a spiritual remnant, that is called Spiritual Israel. These are the God fearing, God serving Israelites, such as Moses, David, and Daniel.

All those who are not Israel, they are considered gentile, and can be placed in either the saved gentile, and unsaved gentiles. The saved group would consist of everyone not born an Israelite, but feared God anyway, such as Rahab, but also those that came before Abraham, such as Adam and Noah. So in the Old Testament we have the gentiles, which are composed of saved gentiles and unsaved gentiles, and then we have national Israel, in which is a remnant of those Israelites who are dedicated to God, this remnant is called Spiritual Israel. All through the Old Testament, especially after Abraham, the focus is on the Nation of Israel. The Old Testament is full of distinctions. In one example look at how the Temple was set up. You had the gentiles in the outer court so that only Israelites could enter into the inner court. Only Men could function as the spiritual head of the house. Only Levites could function as priests, and perform duties inside the temple it self. Only one family out of all the Levite families could be trained to be High Priest, and only the current High priest could enter into the Holy of Holies, and even then only once a year.

When we get into the New Testament, it changes... After the Day of Pentecost, in Acts two, which was what I consider the birth of the church, The focus shifts from the Nation of Israel to the entity known as the church, otherwise known as the Bride of Christ. Within the bride, there are no distinctions. There are those that are a part of the bride and those that are not part of the bride.

It's really a mistake to think of the word Israel just in terms of nationality and geography, etc. That's not the sense in how God assigned the name to Jacob. The name Israel means 'to prevail with God'. God gave that name to Jacob because of how Jacob had prevailed with the Angel of The LORD. The process of Him giving Jacob that name involves the Birthright that He first gave to Abraham which is by Faith.

Do you not see the picture I'm drawing here? Israel is the Salvation name for Christ's Salvation, and it's linked with the Beth-el which Jacob then named the pillar, which God also called Bethel (which means 'House of God'). And God's House in the NT is His Church, the Body of Christ, the Church of God, the congregation of believers on His Saviour Jesus Christ, of all peoples and nations that believe.

So instead of being busy trying to throw away the name Israel which God gave to Jacob within His Birthright Promise about His Salvation Plan through Christ, those in Christ need to embrace it as a label for His True Church throughout His Word.

Did Apostle Paul understand this? Yes, which is why he used the term "commonwealth of Israel" in Ephesians 2 when speaking to Gentiles, and how they were once strangers afar off from the Promises, but now were made nigh by the Blood of Jesus Christ.

Our Lord Jesus in the Matt.21 parable of the husbandmen also showed this about His vineyard (Israel per Isaiah 5). He said He would take control of His vineyard away from the evil husbandmen and give it to another 'nation' that would bring forth its fruits. That He did, took His Israel away from unbelieving Israel and gave it to... Gentiles? No, to OTHER Israelites that believed first, and then it was they who took it to the Gentiles so they might be graffed into it. Then they both were to become one in Christ Jesus. That's what makes True Israel Christ's Body today, His Church.

There's no confusion as to when some of unbelieving Israel will come to Christ. That time is now, and all the way leading up to Christ's return. However, it's the same for the unbelieving Gentile also. But that in no way supports a pre-trib rapture of those who have already believed. Trying to make a distinction between the word 'church' and the name 'Israel' is not evidence to support a pre-trib rapture. Yet that's exactly what the Dispensationalists have tried to do. It's only a vain attempt to try and drum up support for the pre-trib rapture idea. It came out of 1800's Britain along with that pre-trib rapture doctrine.

 

[veteran]

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

There are no distinctions.. And you see this lack of distinction throughout all of the New Testament books, with one exception. That one exception being the book that deals specifically with the time period known as the tribulation. Once the tribulation gets here, we start to see distinctions again. Only 144,000 Israelites are sealed, and only 12,000 from each tribe are sealed. You have the woman of Rev 12, which represents Israel. You do have the Tribulation Saints, but the focus is back on Israel. You see three distinctions in the book of Revelations. You have Israel, you have the Tribulation Saints, and you have the Unrepentant. Jesus spoke of these three, when he returns he gathers everyone who is alive on the earth. By this time all of Israel (who are left) will be saved.

(My underlines added to your quote)

That's actually a run-on of several Scripture ideas. Let's rightly divide them.

Paul showed how all those of Faith are now put for the seed of Abraham because of God's Promise first given to Abraham, and it was by Faith, not of the law, and 430 years prior to the law. That in itself proves how the Birthright to Israel is His Salvation Plan by The Saviour, because that Promise first to Abraham was later transferred to Isaac, then Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5).

In Gen.48 Ephraim was to become "a multitude of nations", and Manasseh was also to become "great". They have been directly involved in God's Salvation Plan through His Son Jesus Christ, many just don't know how that is yet. And that's about a remnant of believing flesh descendents of Israel, and believing Gentiles with them, together as one in Christ Jesus. It did not happen in the holy lands of promise.

So when Paul brings up the subject of Abraham and the Promise in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, he is not just saying that about Gentile believers only, but the majority of Israelites that were scattered abroad separated from Judah and Benjamin. And Gentile believers graffed in with them as one. It's the majority of the 'house of Judah' today that still refuse Christ, not the majority of Israel that was scattered. Thus, God's Birthright Promise first given to Abraham is still literally in effect today for that elect remnant of Israel which Paul said God had preserved per Romans 11. They are very much part of the Acts Church history and are a great numerous people.

So then, if the elect remnant of saved Israelites is under Christ Jesus today, along with believing Gentiles and together make up Christ's Church, then a pre-trib rapture idea woud be to actually separate Christ's Church into Israelites and Gentiles again. Such a separation is against the Scripture. It means the 144,000 and sealing Message does not mean what Dispensationalists have thought it means.

Per the real Bible history about Israel, including OT prophecy, the majority of Israelites were concluded under Christ not long after He died on the cross. I'm talking just a few centuries after Christ's crucifixion. The prophecy that would occur is in prophets like Hosea (which Paul quoted in his Epistle to the Romans about The Gospel). That's one of the places where Paul is declaring the scattered remnant of Israel (ten tribes) being led back to God through Christ Jesus, specifically Rom.9 through 11.

If you stop to look at what OT prophets Paul quoted from when preaching The Gospel, you will know about this. If not, then the preaching of The Gospel in the NT might be misinterpreted as a separate revelation apart from the OT prophets, when it is not.

If the scattered remnant of Israel make up a huge part of Christ's Church today, and only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a portion of Levi make up the Jews, then that means the identity of the 144,000 has been completely misunderstood by the pre-trib schools who treat the 144,000 as mainly Jews.

Well, the truth is, the Jews are only made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a portion of Levi, with the rest of the tribes of Israel making up a totally separate group apart from them. The house of Judah, or Jews, retained their heritage link as Israel. But the ten tribes of Israel lost their heritage link as Israel, their being lost to the world. That can be found starting in 1 Kings 11 through 2 Kings 17 about their scattering. In Ezek.37 God shows how He will eventually bring both houses back together into one stick. They are still apart today.

The majority of that 144,000 list are actually Israelites in Christ's Church today, the remnant according to the election of grace that Paul mentioned in Romans 11. ONLY the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi make up those known as Jews today, and they are only 1/3 of that 144,000 list! And even a lot of them are believers on Christ Jesus also!

But the Dispensationalist doctrines refuse to treat all those 144,000 as any other thing than Jews, and most often as unbelieving Israel that goes through the tribulation that will turn to Christ in the end.

Per Ephesians, the idea of God's sealing His servants is about their redemption by The Holy Spirit...

Eph 4:30
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
(KJV)

Eph 1:13-14
13 In Whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in Whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.
(KJV)

Paul spoke of that 'sealing' for all the NT saints, i.e, Christ's Church!!!

 

[veteran]

When Jesus returns, he will gather everyone still alive. This is the judgment of the sheep and goats.

Matt.25:31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

So you have Israel, which the Lord calls, my brethern, you have the tribulation saints, which are the sheep, and you have the unrepentant, which are the goats.

These distinctions do not exist in the church, therefore they are not part of the church, and the only way that the could not be part of the church is if the church was no longer on the earth, during the tribulation.

Christ's usage of the word 'brethren' there cannot be used to define those of Matt.25:40 as Israelites. Very weak assumption with that...

Matt 12:48-50
48 But He answered and said unto him that told Him, "Who is My mother? and who are My brethren?"
49 And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, "Behold My mother and My brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

Moreover, Apostle Paul called those in the Churches he was give to oversee as his 'brethren', and he did not mean they were all Israelites. Even peoples of different nations that believe on Christ Jesus as we have are 'our' brethren.


Different words like Greek harpazo (caught up) and episunagoge (gathering) are not enough to create whole separate doctrines out of, especially when the context they are used in is about Christ's coming. Maybe you've forgotten that multiple comings of Christ are required to support a pre-trib rapture vs. a post-trib gathering.

Nor can you just throw away the heritage of born descendents of Israel with Paul's teaching about neither Jew nor Gentile, etc., for Paul certainly was not throwing away his own heritage as an Israelite. To further prove that point, Rom.11 about an elect remnant of Israel that God preserved is strongly covered by Paul. The neither Jew nor Gentile idea is about no difference with who believes on Christ's Jesus. It has not destroyed a people's national heritage. But Socialist doctrine does try to destroy national distinctions.

A lesson on that? God shows in Ezek.37 He is going to re-establish the nation of Israel again in the holy lands of promise, specifically joining the two sticks (houses) of Israel back together in the land, even per Ezek.47 through 48, specifically naming each tribe of Israel. In Matt.19:28 our Lord Jesus told His Apostles they would sit upon 12 thrones judging over the 12 tribes of Israel in His coming Kingdom. Per Rev.21, the New Jerusalem is to have 12 gates with the 12 names of the tribes of Israel upon them. So much for false ideas that destroys Israel as a nation.

Now I am more than willing to take the conversation into the direction of the 'lost 10 tribes' or what or the distinction between Israel and the church because like I said before, this is one of the defining foundations of what I understand to be the reason for the pretribulation church.

Joshua David

You're right that wrongly thinking Christ's Church has nothing more to do with God's Israel is a traditional Dispensationalist -Pre-trib doctrine. Both ideas came out of the same era in Britain, the Pre-trib idea first, and then the Dispensationalists ideas to help support it.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

I had a dream I was raptured.

I was walking out of a grocery store and heard trumpets. Then there was a beam of light. Much like the one on Star Trek. Next thing I know I was way up in the air being slowly pulled to the sky. I was relaxed and comfortable. Then I realized, and thought, "Oh, this is the rapture!, Cool, I'm going to Heaven!"

When I woke up I thought, "What a strange dream. I don't even believe in Rapture."

 

[veteran]

Now I am more than willing to take the conversation into the direction of the 'lost 10 tribes' or what or the distinction between Israel and the church because like I said before, this is one of the defining foundations of what I understand to be the reason for the pretribulation church.


Joshua David

Below is a link to some archaeological info about the captivity of the ten tribe house of Israel, and their later names and migrations. I don't necessarily endorse other studies this fellow has done, but from what I've read on his papers about the history of the ten tribes so far, he has done a good job with archaeological documentation, and I endorse that part.

Keith Hunt - Missing Links in Assyrian Tablets - Page Six


The Biblical side of this:

For those of God's people that don't trust secular historians and archaeological artifacts about this matter, then they should at least be willing to trust God's Word on the matter. There's a whole thread on the ten lost tribes subject, so I won't bother going into great details with it here, which is supposed to be a rapture subject thread.

It would even be better to start a new thread if you want to discuss this subject.

 

[Robbie]

I like turtles...

 

[Joshua David]

The gathering of the saints by Christ at His coming is what the 'harpazo' ("caught up") is about. The Greek word 'harpazo' simply defines His elect being gathered to Him. Just because God's Word uses different words to describe the saints being gathered to Christ at His coming does not mean we can create a whole separate doctrine for each word type. That's a very weak foundation to rest upon. And it STILL does nothing to Scripturally prove Christ raptures His saints PRIOR to the tribulation. Gen.1:9 about the waters doesn't support any such idea either.

Neither can we take two separate words and automatically assume that they are talking about the exact same event. My belief in the pretribulation rapture is not created entirely on the basis of two different words. I was just showing how the word gathering does not necessarily mean the rapture.

The Book of Acts also shows how the early Church was made up of both believing Israelites and Gentiles as one body. So for what real purpose were the doctrines of Dispensationalism started in the 1800's that divides Israel as one body, and the Gentile Church as another body? It was devised to try and drum up Biblical support for the pre-trib rapture doctrine which also came from those same ones who started Dispensationalism. But in reality, there is no Biblical support for a pre-trib rapture.

And I agree with the statement that the book of Acts shows how the early church was made up of both believing Israelites and Gentiles, as I have stated in my other reply, which is one major proof that this dispensation is vastly different than the dispensation of Law, where there was a distinction. And yet even though Paul tells us that Israel has been set aside temporarily because of their unbelief, he makes it very clear that God is not through with Israel.

Rom chap 11 makes this very clear. Right now. Israel has been cast aside until the fullness of the gentiles have come in. Right now, within the church there is no distinction. There is no Jew, there is no gentile, there is only the Bride.

Gal 3:27-29 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Once the fullness of the gentiles comes in then God's focus returns to Israel. This can be seen with the fact that Israel is once again referred to by tribes of specific names. Even in the gospels, acts, and the epistles, If Israel is referred to at all it is referred to as Israel, or as Jews. And as far as you discounting Dispensationalism, answer me one question. Is there a difference in How God interracted with Man during the time of Adam than the time of Abraham? Was there a difference between how God dealt with man before the Law was given and after the law was given? Was there a difference in how God dealt with man when he gave the Israelites the Law, and after the crucifixion of Christ?

Again, I do not believe dispensationalism because someone named John Darby wrote it in a book. I believe it because I see it portrayed out in the scriptures.

[font="tahoma][size="2"]It's really a mistake to think of the word Israel just in terms of nationality and geography, etc. That's not the sense in how God assigned the name to Jacob. The name Israel means 'to prevail with God'. God gave that name to Jacob because of how Jacob had prevailed with the Angel of The LORD. The process of Him giving Jacob that name involves the Birthright that He first gave to Abraham which is by Faith.[/size][/font][font="tahoma][size="2"]Do you not see the picture I'm drawing here? Israel is the Salvation name for Christ's Salvation, and it's linked with the Beth-el which Jacob then named the pillar, which God also called Bethel (which means 'House of God'). And God's House in the NT is His Church, the Body of Christ, the Church of God, the congregation of believers on His Saviour Jesus Christ, of all peoples and nations that believe.[/size]
[/font][font="tahoma][size="2"]So instead of being busy trying to throw away the name Israel which God gave to Jacob within His Birthright Promise about His Salvation Plan through Christ, those in Christ need to embrace it as a label for His True Church throughout His Word. [/size][/font]

Yes I am sure this is the exact justification that the people that came up with Replacement Theology started with. But is this idea bibical. IF Israel just means the people of God, then this is how it should be portrayed in the scriptures all the time, especially in the New Testament. Wouldn't you agree? Let's check the scriptures to check this out.

Rom 11:1 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


So are "His people" here talking about the church, as you are claiming? No.. it not, for Paul distinctly says that he is an Israelite, from the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:7 7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.


Is Paul saying that the Church was blinded? No of course not. He is talking about Israel here, not the church. Now is there a Remnant, a spiritual Israel, that accepts Jesus as their messiah? Yes. But Israel in this sense is still national Israel, which is the exact opposite of how you claim that Israel is referred to in the New Testament.

Rom 11:15 15For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?


So who was cast away? The Church? Would Christ cast away his bride? Of course not.

So there you have it. Clear, unambiguous evidence that Israel is not the Church. Now I will admit that since the formation of the church, the church is made up of both Israelites and gentiles. And the bible clearly teaches that there are no distinctions in the church. I don't understand why this is so hard for some people to grasp. The church is NOT Israel, Israel is NOT the church. Within the age of Grace, there are no distinctions. In the OT around the time of Abraham, God mainly dealt with one family, the Family line of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, and their descendants. That is not to say that no one outside of that family was saved, just that he primarily dealt with just one family. We see this same type of focus when we get to the Tribulation. We see Israel, not referred to as just Jews, but as all twelve tribes. The Tribulation period is called the Time of Jacob's trouble. Does this mean that only Israelites are saved during the tribulation? Of course not. Just as God saved people in the Old Testament who were not Israelites, he will save gentiles in the Tribulation who are gentiles. These are the Tribulation Saints. I see this clearly shown in the scriptures, at least, I see this a lot clearer than I see Israel is the church, which just isn't the case.

Let me say this. It is not that I am opposed to being an Israelite. Quite frankly, I would love to know one day that I was to be so blessed. All I am saying is that I do not find any biblical reason to assume that distinction. Imagine that we were all at a banquet, and Jesus gave the Israelites seats of honor at this banquet. I would have no problem giving the seat of honor to an Israelite, and taking a seat further away. Now you would have no problem taking one of the seats of honor for yourself, because you believe that the church is Israel. Am I right?

Luke 14: 7-11 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”


Joshua David

 

[Joshua David]

[font="tahoma][size="2"]I got that. There are no contradictions within God's Word (i.e., the manuscripts; translations are another matter). If we think we're solid on an idea from God's Word and then we read other verses that contradict it, then it means we need more Bible study. It means God's Word has not confirmed the idea for us yet, and we need to look further. I supposed what I'm saying is, there shouldn't be any troubling verses, everything should fit together as a whole.[/size][/font]

I personally believe that it was God's plan to have 'troubling verses' in the bible. For no matter how much I study, I am always finding verses that prove that I do not know it all. That encourages me to dig deeper, learn more, study harder. It is when you think that you have everything figured out that you start to run into trouble. Because if you have everything figured our already, then why would you continue to study?

Paul showed how all those of Faith are now put for the seed of Abraham because of God's Promise first given to Abraham, and it was by Faith, not of the law, and 430 years prior to the law. That in itself proves how the Birthright to Israel is His Salvation Plan by The Saviour, because that Promise first to Abraham was later transferred to Isaac, then Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5).

I disagree. Now are we considered to be spiritual sons of Abraham? Yes. But that does not give us right to claim the promises that God gave Israel. Let me ask you this. Do the Palestinians, who draw their linage all the way back to Ishmael, do they have any claim to the lands that God gave Israel? No they do not. But aren't they son's of Abraham? And God said he would bless Ishmael and his lineage.

Gen 17:19-21 [sup]19[/sup] Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. [sup]20[/sup] And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. [sup]21[/sup] But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”

In the same way that Ishmael and his descendants do not have claim on the blessings that God specifically gave Issac and Jacob, neither can we claim those blessings, just because we are "Son's of Abraham."

Paul showed how all those of Faith are now put for the seed of Abraham because of God's Promise first given to Abraham, and it was by Faith, not of the law, and 430 years prior to the law. That in itself proves how the Birthright to Israel is His Salvation Plan by The Saviour, because that Promise first to Abraham was later transferred to Isaac, then Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5).

In Gen.48 Ephraim was to become "a multitude of nations", and Manasseh was also to become "great". They have been directly involved in God's Salvation Plan through His Son Jesus Christ, many just don't know how that is yet. And that's about a remnant of believing flesh descendents of Israel, and believing Gentiles with them, together as one in Christ Jesus. It did not happen in the holy lands of promise.

So when Paul brings up the subject of Abraham and the Promise in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, he is not just saying that about Gentile believers only, but the majority of Israelites that were scattered abroad separated from Judah and Benjamin. And Gentile believers graffed in with them as one. It's the majority of the 'house of Judah' today that still refuse Christ, not the majority of Israel that was scattered. Thus, God's Birthright Promise first given to Abraham is still literally in effect today for that elect remnant of Israel which Paul said God had preserved per Romans 11. They are very much part of the Acts Church history and are a great numerous people.

I totally disagree. Let's take the issue of the Salvation plan by the savior being transfered from Abraham to Issac, to Jacob, to Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh. If this was the case, then Jesus would have been born from the tribe of Ephraim and Manasseh. He wasn't, he was born from the Tribe of Judah. Again this is just more erroneous justification to assume promises that don't belong to us.

Now let's take the issue of Galatians 3.

Gal 3:7-9 [sup]7[/sup] Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. [sup]8[/sup] Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” [sup]9[/sup] So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Paul was talking about the Gentile nations. There is no mention of scattered Israelites, none. We are blessed because through faith, we have become a son of Abraham, but more importantly, through the shed blood of Jesus, we have become a Son of God. And as in my previous answer, being a son of Abraham, does not make you automatically an Israelite.

Now to the issue of the so called 'lost 10 tribes'. Let's see what the bible says.

2 Chronicles 11:16-17 [sup]16[/sup] Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the LORD, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the LORD, the God of their ancestors. [sup]17[/sup] They strengthened the kingdom of Judah and supported Rehoboam son of Solomon three years, following the ways of David and Solomon during this time.

When the Kingdom divided, the faithful from every tribe of Israel, those who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, followed the Levites to Jerusalem, where they strengthened the Kingdom of Judah. The Assyrians conquered the LAND of the 10 Northern Tribes, and carried away the unfaithful who lived there. At this point, it doesn't really matter what happened to the ones that were left, because God has maintained a remnant within the LAND of Judah. After Babylon those who returned came back to the LAND of the southern Kingdom from which they had been taken, and that’s why it was called Judah, not because only the southern tribes lived there. Since according to 2 Chronicles 11, there were faithful of all 12 tribes in Judah, when Babylon took them, there were 12 tribes there then they returned. There were 12 tribes there when Jesus was there, and I believe there are 12 tribes in Israel today. Not because they all came from the tribe of Judah, but because when they returned from Babylon captivity, they resettled in the land of Judah.

The notion of 10 lost tribes is one of the many myths surrounding Israel that simply can’t be supported Biblically. It began as an attempt to support the divine right of rule for the British monarchy and continues among those who believe that even though God gave the land to Israel forever, most of the Jews living there today aren’t the people He gave it to. It is this desire to rob the Israelites of their land that is the heart of Replacement Theology. So until you can prove biblically where the faithful returned to the Northern Kingdom, then I just don't accept this whole notion of the 'lost 10 tribes' and I consider it Heresy.

Joshua David

 

[Joshua David]

Well, the truth is, the Jews are only made up of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a portion of Levi, with the rest of the tribes of Israel making up a totally separate group apart from them. The house of Judah, or Jews, retained their heritage link as Israel. But the ten tribes of Israel lost their heritage link as Israel, their being lost to the world.

The Lost ten Tribes lost their heritage link because they turned against God. And when they did that they were cut off from their people, just as God said they would be. But again 2 Chron 11 proves that God has always maintained a faithful remnant. You totally treat the bible as if that verse was not even in it.

Christ's usage of the word 'brethren' there cannot be used to define those of Matt.25:40 as Israelites. Very weak assumption with that...
Matt 12:48-50
48 But He answered and said unto him that told Him, "Who is My mother? and who are My brethren?"
49 And He stretched forth His hand toward His disciples, and said, "Behold My mother and My brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of My Father Which is in heaven, the same is My brother, and sister, and mother.
(KJV)

Moreover, Apostle Paul called those in the Churches he was give to oversee as his 'brethren', and he did not mean they were all Israelites. Even peoples of different nations that believe on Christ Jesus as we have are 'our' brethren.

So you don't like my definitions? No problem, give it a shot. Who are the sheep, who are the goats, and who are the brethern? The brethern can not be the sheep, because he is talking to the sheep in the first part and to the goats in the second part. So if they are not the Israelites, who are they?

A lesson on that? God shows in Ezek.37 He is going to re-establish the nation of Israel again in the holy lands of promise, specifically joining the two sticks (houses) of Israel back together in the land, even per Ezek.47 through 48, specifically naming each tribe of Israel. InMatt.19:28 our Lord Jesus told His Apostles they would sit upon 12 thrones judging over the 12 tribes of Israel in His coming Kingdom. Per Rev.21, the New Jerusalem is to have 12 gates with the 12 names of the tribes of Israel upon them. So much for false ideas that destroys Israel as a nation.

I have been maintaining that Israel is separate as a nation from the church. I am not the one seeking to destroy Israel as a nation, you are the one who claim that all Christians are Israelites, are you not? What I said, was that within the church, and during the church age, there is no distinction, and this is clearly taught in the bible. Between the two of us, I am the one who is seeking to maintain Israel as a nation. Did you not say earlier...

It's really a mistake to think of the word Israel just in terms of nationality and geography, etc. That's not the sense in how God assigned the name to Jacob.

So which is it? Do we maintain Israel as a nation, or is it a mistake to do so? You can't have it both ways.


Also I will look over the thread on the lost 10 tribes, but if they fail to deal with 2 Chron 11, then to me it doesn't really matter what 'evidence' they have.


WhiteKnucle,

I had a dream I was raptured.
I was walking out of a grocery store and heard trumpets. Then there was a beam of light. Much like the one on Star Trek. Next thing I know I was way up in the air being slowly pulled to the sky. I was relaxed and comfortable. Then I realized, and thought, "Oh, this is the rapture!, Cool, I'm going to Heaven!"


When I woke up I thought, "What a strange dream. I don't even believe in Rapture."

Just wanted to say that I had a similar dream... when I woke up, my whole body felt like it was electrified. Maybe God is trying to tell you something?


Joshua David

 

[lawrance]

Is there any Jews around today that are 100% Jewish Joshua.

I would say that vetran is right. and your wrong.

Joshua i think you are idolising the Jews just like a stupid mate of mine does.

I wonder if Jesus would kick out people from there home land the way that the radical Zions has been doing it. no wonder the mossies are not happy about it and i don't think it's the way a Christian would go about it do you.

Who has a right to disrespect people like that !
Would you like someone boot you out of your home.

It's just an extreme utter totally disgusting full on load of racial prejudice nonsense and it's sickening.

 

[Joshua David]

Is there any Jews around today that are 100% Jewish Joshua.

I would say that vetran is right. and your wrong.

Joshua i think you are idolising the Jews just like a stupid mate of mine does.

I wonder if Jesus would kick out people from there home land the way that the radical Zions has been doing it. no wonder the mossies are not happy about it and i don't think it's the way a Christian would go about it do you.

Who has a right to disrespect people like that !
Would you like someone boot you out of your home.

It's just an extreme utter totally disgusting full on load of racial prejudice nonsense and it's sickening.

Well it depends.. Lets say that I was given a home by my father. And I went away from it for a long time. And while I was gone, my neighbor just moved in and made themselves at home. Let's say that I was away for a very long time, a couple of years. Now during this time, my neighbor has paid the utilities, mowed the yard, and lived there, for all intents and purposes, this was their home, since it was where they were living for the past two years. Well after I have been gone for that long one day I show up...

Don't you think I might not really care if I disrespect the people that are living in MY HOUSE!, and claiming it for themselves. I would tell them to get out, and if they didn't move fast enough, I would throw them out. I wouldn't care about why they were there. I wouldn't really care that they don't have any other place to go. This is MY House.. Get out.

Well Israel is THEIR land. Given to them by God himself. The Palanstinians have no right, nor claim on that land, and they never have. So what if they have been living there a long time. It is still God's land and he gave that Land to Israel and their descendants. The Palenstinians draw their linage from Ishamael. The Israelites draw their from Issac.

This attitude is one of the exact reasons that I reject this whole lost ten tribes. I believe that it was started to support the British right of Monarchy, as well as justification for denying or reclaiming the Land that rightfully belongs to Israel.

Joshua David

 

[aspen]

I wonder if Mr. Rosenberger is aware how his Christian ancestors pushed Aboriginal tribes out of their lands in Australia? Or how American's created the doctrine of Manifest Destiny - a mandate from God to push West to the coast of America - displacing Native Americans whenever we encroached on their lands?

 

[Robbie]

I like how Rossenberger calls everyone stupid and then talks about how it's wrong to disrespect people... hhahahhaha... EPIC!!! Not even offensive in my opinion.... just classic... hahhahaha

 

[Foreigner]

It all depends on how far you want to go back for "Right of Return."

The Jews were carted off into slavery into what is today modern-day Iraq.

They returned, rebuilt the temple and their nation was restored....Israel 2.0

....until they were occupied by the Romans. They rebelled in 70AD and the Romans destroyed the city and scatted the citizens of Israel to the four winds.

Today's incarnation is actually the 3rd Jewish state in that very same real estate.


The Palestinian plight today is really a self-inflicted one.
When the UN gave the new borders, Israel accepted. The Palestinians, along with Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt didn't.
They attacked vowing to wipe Israel off the map and instead got their butts handed to them.

The Palestinians had done unto them only a small fraction of what they had planned to do unto Israel.

One should be asking why their Arab Brothers are still keeping them in camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria decades later....keeping them as prisoners and not letting them mix with their Arab brothers.

One should also ask why, when Jordan took all that land (including East Jerusalem)....they did not turn that land over to the Palestinians. Instead they chose to keep it.




.

 

[[email protected]]

Well it depends.. Lets say that I was given a home by my father. And I went away from it for a long time. And while I was gone, my neighbor just moved in and made themselves at home. Let's say that I was away for a very long time, a couple of years. Now during this time, my neighbor has paid the utilities, mowed the yard, and lived there, for all intents and purposes, this was their home, since it was where they were living for the past two years. Well after I have been gone for that long one day I show up...

Don't you think I might not really care if I disrespect the people that are living in MY HOUSE!, and claiming it for themselves. I would tell them to get out, and if they didn't move fast enough, I would throw them out. I wouldn't care about why they were there. I wouldn't really care that they don't have any other place to go. This is MY House.. Get out.

Well Israel is THEIR land. Given to them by God himself. The Palanstinians have no right, nor claim on that land, and they never have. So what if they have been living there a long time. It is still God's land and he gave that Land to Israel and their descendants. The Palenstinians draw their linage from Ishamael. The Israelites draw their from Issac.

This attitude is one of the exact reasons that I reject this whole lost ten tribes. I believe that it was started to support the British right of Monarchy, as well as justification for denying or reclaiming the Land that rightfully belongs to Israel.

Joshua David

I agree with your post. Well said.

Apparently the argument isn't over title deed to the land, but squatter's rights. I didn't know that God's word had a provision in it for that. If it does, will someone please enlighten me.

IMO the European, American and Arab political influences in the area do not serve any of the people there well.
Ideally, all should step back and let the folks there deal with one another as neighbors, squatters or whatever.
That isn't likely to happen, but it's a thought.

 

[Robbie]

Woke up and looked at this board and saw this thread and thought of this song...

 

[Foreigner]

Well Israel is THEIR land. Given to them by God himself.

-- That really is what it comes down to.

You either believe Scripture or you don't.

But if you wish to leave God's promise to them out, you still have history on their side.

 

[Joshua David]

I agree with your post. Well said.

Apparently the argument isn't over title deed to the land, but squatter's rights. I didn't know that God's word had a provision in it for that. If it does, will someone please enlighten me.

IMO the European, American and Arab political influences in the area do not serve any of the people there well.
Ideally, all should step back and let the folks there deal with one another as neighbors, squatters or whatever.
That isn't likely to happen, but it's a thought.

Yes ultimately it is about squatter's rights, but as far as I know, there is no provision for squatter's rights in the bible, mainly because all the Earth belongs to God anyway. And he gives or takes it from whoever he chooses.


Of course I believe this present crisis is nothing short of fulfilled prophecy.


Zechariah 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah [and] against Jerusalem.
[font="Arial][color="#001320"]
[/color][/font]
[font="Arial][size="3"]It is amazing to see how the Nations of the World are so consumed over a nation the size of New Jersey, and even down to a single city, just as God said would happen.[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="3"]
[/size][/font]
[font="Arial][size="3"]Joshua David[/size][/font]