What are we really dealing with here?

[Harvest 1874]

I'm sorry....you're referring to yourself as "the Church"? Not just a member of the church, but, when speaking to me, you are actually using the pronoun to imply you are the church? Let me just break it to you. You are not Paul. Paul wrote the majority of the NT. Paul was caught up to heaven and shown things most men cannot dream of. Paul was given direct instructions and visions from Christ himself. You are not Paul. And I would argue you are not even representative of the majority of "the Church". To speak like you speak with all of their authority...nay...their mind as one, is just...well, nuts. This is not the bible...this is a forum for conversation among people. Drop the 'we'.

As a fully consecrated believer, I consider myself a prospective member of the body of Christ, therefore a member of the Church, there is only one body, one church either you are a member of THE Church, the Church of Christ, the true church or you are a member of the professing church, the church nominal. There are only two choices.

As to my use of the term "we" sorry it offends you but I think I'll stick with it as it the scripturally correct term.

 

[Naomi25]

As a fully consecrated believer, I consider myself a prospective member of the body of Christ, therefore a member of the Church, there is only one body, one church either you are a member of THE Church, the Church of Christ, the true church or you are a member of the professing church, the church nominal. There are only two choices.

As to my use of the term "we" sorry it offends you but I think I'll stick with it as it the scripturally correct term.

Considering yourself a 'member' of the Church is not a problem. But speaking for her...making yourself a 'spokesperson' of her, along with Paul, is giving yourself the sort of authority that the bible does not afford it's members. You are essentially claiming to share the sort of experiences and responsibilities Paul had; that God placed upon him. It is akin to making yourself the Pope, I hope you realize.

 

[Jay Ross]

It seems to me, Harvest 1874, that you did not understand my post: -

Literally, the first covenant between God and mankind was not the Abrahamic Covenant. It is found in Genesis 2.

Genesis 2: 15-17 : - 15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

It can loosely be paraphrased as: - If you do not do well, in our relationship, then you will be a candidate for the second death.

This is a covenant of life and death for all of mankind.

Or I could have expressed my paraphrase this way and been in keeping with what was meant in the context of the genesis 2:17 verse: -

"because in the day that you of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will {also} die the second death."

When the person "dies the second death" is not indicated in this verse but in the context of what is recorded in the scriptures, the people who have been assigned to "die the second death" will do so at the end of the Millennium Age. If they have died the physical death, then they will be resurrected and then when their punishment is metered out to them, they will then die the second death.

A little different to what you are suggesting.

 

[Truth7t7]

It seems to me, Harvest 1874, that you did not understand my post: -


Or I could have expressed my paraphrase this way and been in keeping with what was meant in the context of the genesis 2:17 verse: -

"because in the day that you of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will {also} die the second death."

When the person "dies the second death" is not indicated in this verse but in the context of what is recorded in the scriptures, the people who have been assigned to "die the second death" will do so at the end of the Millennium Age. If they have died the physical death, then they will be resurrected and then when their punishment is metered out to them, they will then die the second death.

A little different to what you are suggesting.

100% In Love, No Need To Reply, Just My Views Concerning The Teaching Of A 1000 Year Kingdom On This Earth.

There will be no judgment and second death after after a Millennium, as a 1000 year kingdom on earth is not found in the holy scripture.

1. When Jesus returns, it will be in fire and "Final Judgment", dissolvong this earth by his fire, 2 Peter 3:10, Malachi 3:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8, Luke 17:29-30, Nahum 1:5

 

[Harvest 1874]

Considering yourself a 'member' of the Church is not a problem. But speaking for her...making yourself a 'spokesperson' of her, along with Paul, is giving yourself the sort of authority that the bible does not afford it's members. You are essentially claiming to share the sort of experiences and responsibilities Paul had; that God placed upon him. It is akin to making yourself the Pope, I hope you realize.

I probably should have worded things a little better, when I stated “we are the church” I was not implying that I alone am the church I was implying that every consecrated believer including those on this forum is a prospective members of the body of Christ, the “church of the first born”.

I was not speaking for the Church but as a member of the church.

When you first asked who we are I should have likewise included that “we” are Bible Students, not an organization or sect mind you, but a body of believers who share in similar beliefs. I was speaking primarily as a Bible Student and what we believe to be truth.

Now not all Bible Students believe exactly the same, this is our liberty in Christ, however upon the fundamentals, the first principle of the doctrines of Christ most are in harmony and agreement. It’s only when we start discussing the “deep things” of the word of God, specifically prophecy which has yet to have been fulfilled that differences arise, but this is to be expected as no prophecy can be certain until its fulfillment.

As members of the Church of Christ we are not only joined to our head, our Lord, but also to each other by that which every joint (in the body) supplies (and/or contributes not only in love for one another but in knowledge and understanding, i.e. personal study and experiences in trials) according to the effective workings (of the Holy Spirit, i.e. through its guidance) by which every part does its share (contributes), causing growth in the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Eph 4:15, 16)

 

[Naomi25]

I probably should have worded things a little better, when I stated “we are the church” I was not implying that I alone am the church I was implying that every consecrated believer including those on this forum is a prospective members of the body of Christ, the “church of the first born”.

I was not speaking for the Church but as a member of the church.

When you first asked who we are I should have likewise included that “we” are Bible Students, not an organization or sect mind you, but a body of believers who share in similar beliefs. I was speaking primarily as a Bible Student and what we believe to be truth.

Now not all Bible Students believe exactly the same, this is our liberty in Christ, however upon the fundamentals, the first principle of the doctrines of Christ most are in harmony and agreement. It’s only when we start discussing the “deep things” of the word of God, specifically prophecy which has yet to have been fulfilled that differences arise, but this is to be expected as no prophecy can be certain until its fulfillment.

As members of the Church of Christ we are not only joined to our head, our Lord, but also to each other by that which every joint (in the body) supplies (and/or contributes not only in love for one another but in knowledge and understanding, i.e. personal study and experiences in trials) according to the effective workings (of the Holy Spirit, i.e. through its guidance) by which every part does its share (contributes), causing growth in the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Eph 4:15, 16)

Oh...phew! That makes much more sense and is very relieving! Sorry to blow my top there, but it truly did sound like you were going biblical! Anyway, now we can put that aside I suppose and get back to our normal differences!

 

[Naomi25]

You state: The problem is, when we read the text, God is using both star and sand only in reference to examples of number, which means you are reading into the text something you want to be there, but is not, which sort of makes your whole point moot.

In Reply, of course this is only your opinion, viz. that “God is using both star and sand only in reference to examples of number.”

We however see this analogy of sand and stars as being applied in two senses, 1) in respects to numbers as you have suggested, and 2) in regards to the nature of the seeds produced.

And, of course, your view, is only your opinion also. The question becomes, whose opinion does the text seem to back more thoroughly? And I would ask, does the text mention types, or does it mention numbers, in regards to stars and sand? Does the text give you exegetical leave to insert types of seed? Or does it only indicate a promise to Abraham about the numbers of his seed, and the blessing that will come to the Nations because of him.
Anything else is reading things into the text which is simply not there. That's not opinion, it's clear. Show me the words, show me the types of decedent. You cannot. It is about numbers, pure and simple.

[/QUOTE]

Now there is no argument here that the analogy used viz. sand of the seashore and stars of the heavens implies a multitudinous number of these two different seeds.

On Several occasions the promise was reiterated in various forms, and with several additions. On the second occasion, in Gen 13:15, 16, the allusion to the “dust of the earth” is added.

“For all the land which thou sees, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.”

Just two chapters later, in Gen 15:5 the additional metaphor of “the stars of heaven” is also included.

“Look now toward heaven and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them; and He said unto him, so shall thy seed be.”

The question thus presents itself, were these allusions to “sand” and “stars” just to present the concept of a multitude, or was there a deeper reason?

[/QUOTE]
And again, in these verses we don't see a single mention of type, we only see reference to number. If you are pressing a point on type, you will need to show something far better than this to prove your point. There is nothing here to even suggest it. Sorry.

Once again we turn to Gal 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.”

But who is this Christ of whom Paul speaks? Certainly not Jesus, for he is an individual and the seed was to be uncountable. The term “Christ” merely means “the anointed,” and refers not to Jesus alone, but his followers as well. Note the testimony of 1 Cor 12:27.

“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

It is with this larger “Christ,” Head and Body, in mind that Paul continues his argument in Gal 3:29:

“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

In these passages, then, the Apostle Paul identifies not only Jesus Christ, but also all of his followers as the “seed of Abraham.”

Yet, speaking of this same class in Luke 12:32, Jesus speaks of them as a “little flock.” This is hardly a term that harmonizes well with the Genesis expression “if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.”

A careful examination of Gen 22:18, in fact, suggest that the ultimate size of this seed is “all the nations of the earth.”

Notice the implication: Paul, in Galatians, identifies the seed as the followers of Christ, who will share a heavenly inheritance with their bridegroom and Redeemer. Moses, in Genesis, on the other hand, suggests a seed large enough to encompass “all the nations of the earth.” These nations, as many texts show, are destined to inhabit a perfected earth.

Who is right: Paul or Moses? The obvious answer is, both, for the writings of both are in the Bible. But how? We suggest the answer lies in, Gen 22:17, which implies that the “seed of Abraham” would be divided into two portions. First, the followers of Christ, would be like “the stars of heaven,” a spiritual or heavenly class; and second, mankind, would be like “the sand which is upon the sea shore.”

How harmonious this is with Paul’s words in Eph 1:10:

“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.”

How fitting that Christians continue to pray, as Jesus commended in Matt 6:10: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”

Ah, no, it definitely means Christ! I'm sorry, but you're missing the point! Of course it means Christ! All the promises made to Abraham we're "yes and amen" in Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of promise and covenant. When Abraham was told 'seed' they indeed meant one...Jesus the Christ. We are all found in him, united in him in one body.
You are mistakenly finding something in a text that is not there (types in stars and sand) and then because of that mistake, totally missing Paul's point in Galatians!