The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[Timtofly]

You say the most nonsensical things I've ever seen in my life. It does not say a branch (singular) was cut off, it says branches (plural) were cut off. The branches represent Israelite unbelievers who were cut off because of unbelief. The remnant of believing Israelites were not cut off. So, don't act as if all Israelites in the nation of Israel were cut off because that is not the case.

That you reference a branch being cut off rather than branches shows that you have never even read Romans 11 carefully. Which means that you can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

Romans 11:17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.


There is no cut off branch. Try actually reading Romans 11 for once and then get back to me.


I can't replace "the branch that was cut off" because there was no singular branch that was cut off. Again, try actually reading Romans 11 before you comment on it. Your post is making me nauseous because of how ridiculous and nonsensical it is, so I can't read any further right now.

You are the one claiming two Israels not me. Certainly one individual branch does not make an entire Israel.

You would have to have all those branches back into your second Israel.

You can't have 2 Israels either, but that is your claim. You have a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. You are the one claiming it happens because some branches were cut off. I was just sticking to your point. I agree your point does not make sense.

 

[Timtofly]

The beginning of the fulfillment was occurring on the day of Pentecost, otherwise Peter would not have said "this" (what was happening on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was being poured out on all the believers there) is "that" (what was prophesied in Joel 2:28-32). You're ludicrously trying to claim that "this" was not "that" at all. You can't be taken seriously if you can't even acknowledge that the day of Pentecost was the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Peter said "this is that". You say "this is not that". I'll take Peter's understanding of Old Testament prophecy over yours every time.

Which means the total fulfillment will be in the Millennium reign of Christ when it is literally part of every human on earth, and not just on a few people here and there. There was a beginning. There will be a future fulfillment. You have now changed it to the "beginning of". It will still be true when it is totally fulfilled, and completed.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The beginning of the fulfillment was occurring on the day of Pentecost, otherwise Peter would not have said "this" (what was happening on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was being poured out on all the believers there) is "that" (what was prophesied in Joel 2:28-32). You're ludicrously trying to claim that "this" was not "that" at all. You can't be taken seriously if you can't even acknowledge that the day of Pentecost was the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Peter said "this is that". You say "this is not that". I'll take Peter's understanding of Old Testament prophecy over yours every time.

Again, we all take Peter's understanding to be true. Our discussion centers on what Peter meant by what he said. Your objection to my view is that I am adding to Peter's words; that I am not taking Peter's words at face value. I highlighted a portion of your post so that you might see that you and I both are supplying additional information to better understand what Peter meant to say.

If you can see this, we can proceed.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Remind us again what "this is that" means.

That's what Peter said.

That's what the Holy Spirit inspired him to say.

We can't discuss this subject constructively unless we agree about the larger question at hand. Let me remind us both. The larger question at hand is whether the OT stands on its own or whether one needs to have the NT at hand in order to understand the OT. I maintain that the OT stands on its own. Jesus, the apostles, and the disciples all used the OT as if it could be understood without the aid of the NT. We could multiply examples from the NT to prove this.

Both you, @Spiritual Israelite, and I have explanations as to why Peter is not disagreeing with Joel. All three of us have added explanatory information in order to harmonize Peter's sermon with the word of Joel.

For instance, @Spiritual Israelite suggested that "The beginning of the fulfillment was occurring on the day of Pentecost." And I can agree with that. That is also what I believe. But surely you can see, can't you, that this bit of explanatory information isn't what Peter actually said. Right. Did Peter say that this was the beginning of the fulfillment? No. He didn't literally say that. But I would maintain that @Spiritual Israelite's explanation is a reasonable inference from what Peter said in light of what Joel said.

Do you agree or not?

 

[CadyandZoe]

John 6
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

If Peter didn't say what you claim he meant to say, then neither did Jesus say what He meant to say.

What did Jesus mean to say?

What do you think he meant to say? Did he mean "I am literally that very same bread that they ate in the wilderness?"

Nah, it's a metaphor. Just as the Father sent mana from heaven to sustain the life of those living in the wilderness, the Father sent Jesus from heaven to sustain the life of his followers. But, and this is important to what Jesus means to say, bread can only sustain a person for a limited period of time; Jesus offers eternal life to those who follow him.

Was Peter using a metaphor when he said, "This is that"? I don't think so. Do you?

I don't think Peter was using a metaphor. But neither is Peter giving new meaning to what Joel said. Our task, as Bible students is to take both Peter and Joel seriously and figure out what Peter saw in Pentecost that corresponded to Joel.

Agree?

 

[brightfame52]

SI

Can you tell me why we would go right back down to the earth after meeting Jesus in the air? What would be the point of meeting Him in the air in that case?

Well to meet Him and then proceed to the Earth to perform the Great White Throne Judgment. Where do think that takes place ? In the heavens or on the earth ? Im not dogmatic about it, however I believe that the Judgment begins at the Second Coming. What you think ?

 

[covenantee]

I maintain that the OT stands on its own.

How does a covenant which is decayed and vanished (Hebrews 8:13), and which has been replaced by a better covenant established on better promises (Hebrews 8:6); stand on its own?

Under the definition of a testament, which is a will, a new will/testament revokes and replaces an old will/testament in its entirety.

That which is revoked and replaced no longer has any force and effect, so it cannot stand on its own.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
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.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

If you deny that God has appointed His Son alone as heir of all things, you declare God to be a liar.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But notice:

There are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

How does a covenant which is decayed and vanished (Hebrews 8:13), and which has been replaced by a better covenant established on better promises (Hebrews 8:6); stand on its own?

I'm saying that the scriptures stand on their own. The covenant is a different question. That is, we don't need the NT to understand the OT.

 

[covenantee]

I'm saying that the scriptures stand on their own. The covenant is a different question. That is, we don't need the NT to understand the OT.

The Covenant is an inextricable part of the Scriptures. Scripture is identified by Covenant i.e. Old Testament and New Testament. It is anything but "a different question".

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Covenant is an inextricable part of the Scriptures. Scripture is identified by Covenant i.e. Old Testament and New Testament. It is anything but "a different question".

The question at hand between you and I is whether or not the OT can be understood without the NT as an aid.

 

[covenantee]

The question at hand between you and I is whether or not the OT can be understood without the NT as an aid.

These couldn't. Do you think that you can?

Luke 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John 6
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

If Peter didn't say what you claim he meant to say, then neither did Jesus say what He meant to say.

What did Jesus mean to say?

Well, obviously, Jesus meant to say "This is not that bread....". According to CadyandZoe's logic, anyway. Which, obviously, is not logical at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Obviously you missed the interpretation:

You would no longer be a part of the church if God removed you from the church, and sent you to the LOF just because, for instance, you were an Amil, and God saw that as being like the Scribes and Pharisees.

You would have been of the church, but no longer the church, even if you convinced every soul in the LOF to call you a redeemed Christian.

For they are not all the church, which are of the church. They are in the LOF because God cut them off and discarded them into the LOF. That is how God viewd 21st century church members.

That would be what Paul would write if he lived today. Paul even said in chapter 11, that one cannot be secure in just the fact they were a wild branch grafted in. They could be cut off just the same as a natural branch.

You interpret it as Paul saying now we have a bunch of redeemed Gentiles who are Israel, but not of Israel.

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Your interpretation cannot work, because you missed the point Paul made in verse 3, just like Moses attempted on mount Sinai.

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:"

Paul was pointing out that many had been cut off from being Israel, the same theme as the branch removed.

The same with the point about Abraham's seed. Of course they were all Abraham's children. Yet Paul was saying Ishmael was not Abraham's child. He was not making a literal statement, but showing that God chose Isaac over Ishmael. Paul was showing God's choices; not physical offspring from Abraham. Ishmael was literally a son of Abraham just like Isaac, but not from God's perspective. Paul was saying from God's perspective not all of Israel can still claim the title. They have been cut off, just like Ishmael was cut off, and Isaac remained a son of Abraham.

I later pointed out, in another post, that God chose Jacob over Esua, Israel over Edom.

"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

You use this chapter to claim your rights as a spiritual Israel, but Paul said not to take that route, because it makes God look unrighteous.

"Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."

Paul was not talking about adding to Israel. Paul was talking about removing those from Israel, by His Sovereign Will, just like He removed Ishmael and Esau. Paul said it was prior to their birth that God arranged His perspective:

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth."

Paul never claimed they would never be able to repent and be redeemed by the blood of Christ. They were still part of the election, until they themselves chose not to be redeemed, and rejected the Atonement. Paul was only pointing out that God was picking and choosing through the generations who would be the forefather of Jesus.

The children of God were not to be confused with the children of the flesh at no time in human history. Seems like calling yourself an Israelite is only making yourself a title of the flesh. In fact you can still convert into the Law of Moses and be a bonified Israelite.

God could still cast you out of the physical and spiritual family, because that is what Paul was writing about.

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Paul is declaring that God has all the rights, and that humans literally have no rights at all. That is why many are no longer of Israel. They never had the right even as a physical born Israelite. But we don't become Israelites, we skip the middleman, and become directly sons of God. Even Israelites have to become sons of God, even though God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob over the rest of humanity. God chose it that way even before they were born. God still let sin and nature get in the way: Ishmael and Esau.

So, yes, even those of the church are not all the church. Now all the sons of God are the sons of God, because in Christ those of the church are the sons of God, but some of the church come in and are not part of us, but in every way act like us until they lead some or many astray. But only through Christ are we the actual seeds of the family of God, not through the title church.

I would still point out that in the symbolism of the olive tree, that is not Israel. That some of Israel is no longer Israel like Paul pointed out, as cut off. The olive tree is Christ. Israel was the natural branches, and literally many died and withered away. Some were literally cut off before death. Paul was saying that God did not allow the Gentiles to be natural branches by His Sovereign Will, although after the Cross, God was willing to graft them in and view them as equal with the branches. Nor does that rule out they could have always been grafted in, but God was longsuffering with thousands of years of wild trees nearly snuffing out the only good olive tree, before humans could grasp the full intent of even what it meant to be of Israel, much less of Christ. There were many Gentiles grafted into the olive tree in the OT. The Law of Moses allowed and even encouraged the adoption of Gentiles. Unfortunately like some of the church, Israel was even more like the world, and a lousy example of the power of God.

It's amazing that you said all of this and I can't understand a word you said. Can anyone else translate this for me?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You are the one claiming two Israels not me. Certainly one individual branch does not make an entire Israel.

Why did you refer to the branch (singular) being broken off when Paul talked about branches being broken off. Do you not have any interest in quoting Paul accurately?

You would have to have all those branches back into your second Israel.

What are you talking about? Any idea? I truly think that even you don't know what you're talking about at least half of the time.

You can't have 2 Israels either, but that is your claim.

Let's say there is one Israel as you believe. That would mean that Paul was saying they are not all the nation of Israel who are descended from the nation of Israel. What does that even mean if he's only talking about one Israel there? How can you descend from the nation of Israel but not be part of the nation of Israel? That makes no sense.

You have a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. You are the one claiming it happens because some branches were cut off. I was just sticking to your point. I agree your point does not make sense.

LOL. I, of course, never said that my own point does not make sense. You are a comedian. I can't take you seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well to meet Him and then proceed to the Earth to perform the Great White Throne Judgment.

This doesn't really answer my question. Why wouldn't we just meet Him on the earth instead of meeting Him in the air if we're just going to end up on the earth, anyway?

Where do think that takes place ? In the heavens or on the earth ? Im not dogmatic about it, however I believe that the Judgment begins at the Second Coming. What you think ?

Neither.

Revelation 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.

See the part I underlined there? That shows that this does not take place on earth or in the heavens. So, where does it take place then? It doesn't say. We can only speculate. I would say it probably takes place on the new earth.

I believe it will happen at the second coming as well, as evidenced by passages like Matthew 25:31-46.

 

[covenantee]

It's amazing that you said all of this and I can't understand a word you said. Can anyone else translate this for me?

Talk about an exercise in futility.

 

[Zao is life]

"It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Again, a reference to a child born from Abraham's own body. (Genesis 15:4)

Paul is referring to the fact that Jacob was born as a result of God's own working in His fulfillment of His promise to Abraham that Sarah would bear him descendants, as opposed to Abraham's attempt at the suggestion of Sarah to fulfill the promise of God himself.

Paul is referring only to the fact that God is capable of fulfilling, and will fulfill His promises Himself, by His own power. This is why God refused Abraham's request to have his offspring's inheritance reckoned by the child produced by human attempt at fulfilling the Word of God, instead reckoning the seed of inheritance by the child of the faith that Abraham had when he believed what God promised him at the time God made the promise.

You are choosing the inheritance to be reckoned by the slave-woman's son - not by Jacob, the seed of faith in the promise, thus defying what Paul is teaching you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

These couldn't. Do you think that you can?

Luke 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

This passage proves my point. Jesus is critical of these men because they didn't believe the prophets. His critical remarks are predicated on the fact that the OT is comprehensible. If these men needed the NT in order to understand the prophets. then it would be fair of Jesus to chastise them for disbelief. Jesus would never criticize a man for not believing what he couldn't understand. But these men could understand the prophets apart from the NT, which is why Jesus said what he did.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Paul is referring to the fact that Jacob was born as a result of God's own working in His fulfillment of His promise to Abraham that Sarah would bear him descendants, as opposed to Abraham's attempt at the suggestion of Sarah to fulfill the promise of God himself.

Paul is referring only to the fact that God is capable of fulfilling, and will fulfill His promises Himself, by His own power. This is why God refused Abraham's request to have his offspring's inheritance reckoned by the child produced by human attempt at fulfilling the Word of God, instead reckoning the seed of inheritance by the child of the faith that Abraham had when he believed what God promised him at the time God made the promise.

You are choosing the inheritance to be reckoned by the slave-woman's son - not by Jacob, the seed of faith in the promise, thus defying what Paul is teaching you.

I don't think I am doing what you say I am doing. I don't see how you got all that from what I said.

 

[brightfame52]

SP

This doesn't really answer my question. Why wouldn't we just meet Him on the earth instead of meeting Him in the air if we're just going to end up on the earth, anyway?

I did answer it, thats my answer, if you need something else keep searching and maybe someone else will answer it.

Neither.

Okay, but Im not sure, im leaning towards the earth, maybe the renewed earth