The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[CadyandZoe]

Her DNA, ancestry, and origins did not change.

She became a Gentile Israelite.

Contradiction in terms.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The points are irrefutable.

Circumcision has never saved anyone, and Israel outside of Christ is lost.

And no recognized historical Christian expositor espouses your artificial distinction between people and sons.

Well they should.

 

[CadyandZoe]

As Hebrews 8:6-13 makes clear Jeremiah was talking about the new covenant and all of God's people are saved under the new covenant because it was established long ago by the blood of Christ. That includes Gentile believers. You do not want to accept the fact that Gentile believers are FELLOWHEIRS with Israelite believers of God's promises even though that is EXPLICITLY taught in New Testament scripture (see Ephesians 2:11-3:6, for example). So, I can only conclude that you have no desire to accept what Paul and the other NT authors taught.

Excuse me?! Putting words in my mouth again.

No, this is not necessarily true. I disagree with Premillennialism in general, but I don't find it to be ridiculous to see the thousand years as following the second coming of Christ. That is what one will conclude if they believe what is described in Revelation 20 follows what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically. I don't believe Revelation 19 and 20 are meant to be interpreted that way, but I wouldn't say it is ridiculous to interpret it that way.


I have changed my mind on some things in the past. I used to be a Premil at one time. But, at this point, when it comes to these things we're discussing, my mind is made up. I have studied these things for a long time. At some point we should make up our minds on some of these things, and I have. But only after much study.


You have already tried many times. It's not going to happen. Ever.


Of course not. Claiming something doesn't make it so, obviously.


You just don't get it. Read Romans 11:1-7. Paul was speaking of Israelites specifically there and he said that God did not reject His people who He foreknew. And yet He did reject those Israelites who rejected His Son. The ones He did not reject were the remnant of believers who were saved by grace. He did reject the rest. So, this shows that "His people" were not all Israelites, but rather were only those who were believers. You are trying to include unbelievers among His people. That is not the case! Listen to Paul! His people are His children. Making a distinction between His people and His children is utterly ridiculous and baseless.

By the way, I did read your other posts as well, but I decided not to reply to those since I found almost everything you said to be complete nonsense and not worth responding to. Just being honest.

 

[n2thelight]

Transfiguration is about a physical change of the body not moving the body. Moving is a rapture/harpazo. There is nothing in the bible about Enoch or Elijah being physically changed.



Sure they did.





John was writing things down in a book he brought back with him so he was physically in heaven and other places to witness things.




No, all flesh doesn't just disappear. The living in Christ will change from mortal to immortal but only them. The unsaved will remain in mortal bodies.

Okay to everything you just said ,but you wrong.
So at this so called rapture you all going to heaven in flesh bodies ?

 

[n2thelight]

They did not go to Heaven at all!
Only one has entered Heaven and had the blood to do so!

Revelation 6:9 "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:"

Revelation 6:10 "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord [Master], holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth."

Revelation 6:11 "And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

Who may I ask are these people ?

 

[face2face]

Revelation 6:9 "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:"

Revelation 6:10 "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord [Master], holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth."

Revelation 6:11 "And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

Who may I ask are these people ?

Why is it, whenever I show the right understanding to a verse, 9 out of 10 times they run to the Revelation to try and force a preconceived point? It's a highly symbolic chapter and this thread / OP isnt about the Historial significance of Rev 6 (while I'd like to show you I've got too much going on in the forum at the moment sorry).

If you think the alter is literal you would be wrong.
If you think this is talking about an immaterial immortal divine essense wafting around under altars you would be absolutely wrong

About as clear as I can make it!

F2F

 

[covenantee]

Yes, of course. The point is, God makes covenants with sinners.

He breaks covenants with covenant-breakers.

Ask the 24,000 in Numbers 25.

 

[covenantee]

Contradiction in terms.

God was not and is not a racist.

 

[covenantee]

Well they should.

Right they didn't.

 

[Timtofly]

Notice verse 7. Paul indicated that they are not children (of God) because they are the natural seed of Abraham. This shows that the context of what Paul was talking about in Romans 9:6-8 is that he was contrasting natural descendants of Israel and Abraham with spiritual descendants and he was making the point that being a natural descendant didn't make someone a child of God, but rather being a spiritual descendant makes someone a child of God.

No one ever said they were in the olive tree because of Abraham. They were in the olive tree because of Israel when God changed Jacob's name. But not all those born to Jacob are still considered Israel, because they were removed. Not for the sake of the Gentiles, but because God cast them out.

Pretty sure that in keeping the law they were considered obedient children, even if they did not know they were doing it by faith, instead of just because they were born into a nation that were the caretakers of God's kingdom.

You are the one insisting a spiritual descendency over the physical descendency, hence a replacement strategy. That is why there was such a big discussion in the first century over works and faith, because they could not understand it either, and made it one way or the other. A wild branch is not a descendant of Abraham nor Israel. Not even by adoption, because converting into the Law never made one a descendant of Abraham, nor Israel.

Being a child of God is being a natural branch in the olive tree. You are going to have to argue with God, Paul, and Scripture why they claimed those of Israel were natural branches not having faith, but in keeping with the law, typified one who did have faith. A natural branch did mean those of Israel were all in God's family until they were removed and placed in sheol. Now you are trying to change the definition of a natural branch and implying all branches are wild?

I said that the point Paul was making that not all of Israel are Israel, meant, they had been removed. You keep saying that does not make sense, but that they were never part of the tree to begin with and outsiders grafted in. Those grafted in are still not of Abraham nor of Israel, so your Spiritual Jew or Israel term is contradicting God's Word. The tree is not Abraham nor Israel. They were just natural branches. Unless you are a descendant of Abraham or Israel you are not a natural branch of Abraham or Israel. All you are is a spiritual branch grafted into God's kingdom.

Now since the Cross, one may argue there are no natural branches any more, all have to be grafted in because there now is no difference between Israel and Gentile. But that did not change the dynamic of the Gentiles. That changed the dynamic of Israel being a natural branch. The church still did not replace Israel, but it certainly did not make wild branches all natural now. It meant the natural branches were no longer natural. The blindness in part removed the whole nation as a natural branch. Now Israel, being blind, is as wild as the Gentiles. That seems lost on many here, and they refuse to see God will remove that blindness, and make them as a nation a natural branch again in the future. But at that point even Gentiles will be natural, not removed, nor will they be considered wild. Salvation will not be an issue. Being disobedient, and instant removal from life will happen.

The church is not a natural branch that effects physical birth. You can argue that Israel could not be a natural branch either, except that is how those of Israel viewed themselves, or Paul would have not given us the metaphor. Sometimes in religious settings some people think that natural born children into a religion makes them an automatic part of God's kingdom. I don't think that is the same application Paul was implying. If that were the case even natural branches would have to be grafted in. The church is not a natural branch. Becoming part of the tree is still based on a personal decision to accept the second birth and be grafted in. God does not graft you in forcing you to accept Christ.

God never forced Israel to be obedient. Keeping the Law kept them natural branches. Disobedience removed them from the tree, thus no longer part of Israel either. It makes sense, because removal does not mean your physical status changes. Removal is only in effect after one is physically dead. No one has a physical ethnicity in Paradise. They are just all Adam's natural ethnicity at that point as sons of God. Whatever the condition would have been had Adam never disobeyed God. Physical ethnicity was not even a factor until after the tower of Babel, when God separated people by language. Then God called Abraham out, and changed Jacob's status to Israel.

Today most ethnicities are all being blended back in together, and no longer relevant, unless people attempt to hold on to the past, or try to keep change from happening. God is the one who created the ethnicities anyways. If God wants seperate ethnicities on the earth in the future, are you going to convince God that is wrong?

"And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it."

The word nations is plural, and all nations are considered saved and part of the same spiritual status. Even though the term "nations" implies seperate and diverse ethnicity.

 

[Timtofly]

I did explain it, but you're not understanding my explanation. Your view that God will one day do something for one nation in regards to salvation (save all of them) that He will not do for any other nation implies that you at least think that in the future one's nationality will be a factor in their salvation. So, that's where I came up with the impression that you believe "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children" or at least that you believe that will be the case at some point in the future. I think my explanation is not hard to understand at all, yet you still don't understand it. Oh well. There's nothing I can do about that.

The whole point is not about the future, but the past. You are assuming all people think like you do.

Between leaving Egypt and the giving of the Law as a Covenant was being born of Israel different than being born a Gentile?

Yes is was, because the Law did not remove one's physical ethnicity. The Law did not even make one righteous. As Paul pointed out the Law was a school master pointing out how sinful one was, even born of Israel. The Law was a type of remission of sin, but animal sacrifices could never remove sin.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

Only the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world could remove sin.

In keeping the Law, they did retain their Israel status from birth. In keeping the Law it was accounted for faith. We no longer have to keep the Law of continual animal sacrifices, to maintain faith. Maintaining faith is obedience to the Holy Spirit, and less giving in to the flesh.

So between the Law and the Cross one born into Israel physically were part of God's family by ethnicity and birth. They stopped being part of God's family when they stopped obeying God, and maintaining the Law. In fact, part of the Law was not even letting one's children grow up, but to literally end their physical existence, due to disobedience. That seems to imply physical death was better than being removed and living in sin, which would in essence make them a Gentile and no longer Israel. Since obviously by human standards killing children is barbaric, they just ended up all serving devils and offering up their offspring as human sacrifices any way, which was not as barbaric, just pagan. God still had mercy on the soul of a child either way, over an adult living in sin and having more offspring just as wicked and removed as they were.

So can God reserve the right to have physical offspring dedicated to His Law over the offspring of Gentiles? Once again, you are arguing the concept of what it means to be natural. All natural branches meant both physically and spiritually. You may disagree with God over that point, but you cannot change Scripture because you disagree with that point. A child could not opt in to obeying the Law. It was in their vary nature to obey the Law, until they were decieved by their own sinful desires. No one tends to preach that point, because it became moot after the Cross. You cannot change the past because it does not make sense or contradicts your personal theology.

Why would they not loose their ethnicity of Israel? Certainly many Asians and even native Americans if truth be told are ethnically Israel, but they lost that ethnicity, and are labeled under other ethnicities now. They are called the lost tribes. That is not just true of Europe, that is true of the entire earth, as the 10 tribes were literally scattered all over the earth even before the Indo-European migration. After Babylon and that captivity is when Europe and India became a melting pot. Greece was the original east meets west story. But centuries and generations after the 10 tribes were dispersed every where. The Chinese had trade routes with the ME, way before the Roman empire, because they were still closely part of the same family. Eventually all those routes disappeared. Trade routes had to be reinvented which led to Europe colonizing the earth later on.

Most people get stuck on 70AD and the Roman diaspora, which was only a subset called the Jews. Paul was correct to say not all of Israel was Israel. Most of Israel scattered across the earth became their own ethnicities no longer Israel. Since we have the Biblical record we see that Ishmael became Arabs, and were of Abraham. Esau became Edom and were of Isaac. No one kept record of all the other ethnicities out there that were once of Israel. Except God knows, and only God can bring them back as Israel.

 

[Timtofly]

His covenant faithfulness and commitment did not and do not extend to the sons of Satan.

They were no longer ethnically of Jacob, but of Satan. A branch cut off. No longer the caretakers of God's Vinyard.

Were they sons of Satan since birth? Jesus made that claim. Jesus never even gave them the benefit of being Gentile. They were lost since birth with no redemption left. Could they be forgiven and grafted into the olive tree? Sure, but the chances were slim. Paul was one who was grafted back in, who was no longer of Israel. His kinsmen after the flesh were those sons of Satan. Since you seem to take that as actual reality, that is the implication of first century life.

 

[Timtofly]

The moment Christ feet touch the ground all flesh will be gone , period . It then is the kingdom of Christ

I don't see how this is Scriptural. The coming to the Mount of Olives is at the 6th Seal.

Revelation 19 is not even close to Jerusalem nor the Mount of Olives. Revelation 19 is a battle setting at Har Megiddo.

Certainly after Armageddon none of Adam's dead corruptible flesh is still alive. But between the coming to the Mount of Olives at the 6th Seal and all that comes between that point and the 7th Trumpet, all 8 billion + souls on earth have to leave Adam's dead corruptible flesh one way or the other. All 8 billion do not show up at Armageddon.

Only those alive and changed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh will continue to live on earth in that everlasting Kingdom, as described in Revelation 11 at the 7th Trumpet.

 

[Timtofly]

To believe as you do would compromise too many doctrines concerning Christ, his reward for obedience and his ascension.

No, it does not compromise the Scripture concerning Christ.

But then again some doctrine of men certainly does contradict God's Word.

What God's Word states is what God means.

Flesh and blood does not rule out all physical bodies. Flesh and blood is Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Paul points out that in heaven, in Paradise, God gives us a permanent incorruptible physical body in place of Adam's dead temporal corruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5:1

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

The term "house" is used for both types, and is the physical body. So yes, human doctrine based on human understanding does contradict Scripture.

It is ok to say you don't know what happened to Elijah. It is wrong to then say he did not go to heaven in direct contradiction to Scripture.

Why do you use doctrine to limit God and what God declares in Scripture?

 

[covenantee]

They were no longer ethnically of Jacob, but of Satan.

John 8
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed...

Were they sons of Satan since birth? Jesus made that claim.

No He didn't.

 

[Keraz]

So many Christians have given up on natural Israel but little do they know God leaves no stone unturned!

God will refine and deliver!

You misinterpret my post about the new nation of Beulah. Isaiah 62:1-5
That prophecy refers to all the Christian peoples, only a few will be Jews.

The common Church teaching of a Jewish redemption, is wrong and made only to support the false 'rapture to heaven' theory.
Many Prophesies tell of the virtual demise of Judah, they still reject Jesus after 2000 years; what else can God do?

 

[Keraz]

Contradiction in terms.

A gentile Israelite is not a contradiction.
Israelite literally means an Overcomer for God. As Jacob was and as we Christians are today.
Proved by Galatians 3:26-29 and Galatians 6:14-16

 

[face2face]

No, it does not compromise the Scripture concerning Christ.

On what basis does any beside Christ ascend into Heaven?

“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own Blood He entered in once into the Holy place, HAVING OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION FOR US

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. John 3:13

Note the use of his title Son of Man (representative atonement)!

The Curtain only ripped one Tim!

But then again some doctrine of men certainly does contradict God's Word.

Which is what you have unfortuntely.

What God's Word states is what God means.

Flesh and blood does not rule out all physical bodies. Flesh and blood is Adam's dead corruptible flesh. Paul points out that in heaven, in Paradise, God gives us a permanent incorruptible physical body in place of Adam's dead temporal corruptible physical body. 2 Corinthians 5:1

Lets look at your verse!

because when (future) we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while (now) we are in this tent (sin;s flesh), we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling (putting on of immortality), so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

So this verse is teaching that in our current state where sin has dominion, we groan and are burdened by mortality and the weakness of the flesh. Future tense "when we will be clothed" to mean the putting on of immortality, post resurection and judgement! We shall then have this Heavenly Dwelling i.e Divine Nature!

Till then dust you are and dust you will return!

"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."

Yep, as Peter said it's coming! who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time 1 Peter 1:5

It's all about faith Tim!

The term "house" is used for both types, and is the physical body. So yes, human doctrine based on human understanding does contradict Scripture.

Correct there is a flesh body and a divine body - The one you have now needs to be clothed with immortality "put on"...you dont already have it and you dont go to Heaven as some ethereal wafting spirit....you go to the grave and remain there until its time for the voice of the Arch Angel to open the graves

It is ok to say you don't know what happened to Elijah. It is wrong to then say he did not go to heaven in direct contradiction to Scripture.

Why do you use doctrine to limit God and what God declares in Scripture?

Correct, like many who were taken by God, meaning he ended their lives we only know they were buried somewhere by an angel like all peoples who die in Adam...the Son of God included.

F2F

 

[face2face]

You misinterpret my post about the new nation of Beulah. Isaiah 62:1-5
That prophecy refers to all the Christian peoples, only a few will be Jews.

The common Church teaching of a Jewish redemption, is wrong and made only to support the false 'rapture to heaven' theory.
Many Prophesies tell of the virtual demise of Judah, they still reject Jesus after 2000 years; what else can God do?

It's the mystery of Romans 11:25 I am referring to Keraz,

Maybe you are yet to piece it together?

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part UNTIL the full number of the Gentiles has come in,

The bringing of the Jews into the New Covenant will come with mighty wonders and signs in the earth! He will refine them with a refiner’s fire and purge them like they have never been purged before and many will perish but those remining will be faithful and enter the body of Christ.

There are many prophecies that speak of this future time.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Most people get stuck on 70AD and the Roman diaspora, which was only a subset called the Jews. Paul was correct to say not all of Israel was Israel. Most of Israel scattered across the earth became their own ethnicities no longer Israel. Since we have the Biblical record we see that Ishmael became Arabs, and were of Abraham. Esau became Edom and were of Isaac. No one kept record of all the other ethnicities out there that were once of Israel. Except God knows, and only God can bring them back as Israel.

You lack imagination! You think it impossible for God to determine peoples origins? Watch and see!