Who will occupy the land of Israel in Paradise earth?

[PinSeeker]

I guess we disagree on a whole bunch of things. I thought for sure you'd believe everything I say by now. Just kidding!

Such a nice avoidance of the questions...

Really, though, the silence is deafening...

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

Such a nice avoidance of the questions...

Really, though, the silence is deafening...

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

I think a careful read of my posts will show I've pretty well laid out my case. I just didn't see the need to beat a dead horse to death.

But, if I had answered your questions one more time, would you have then believed everything I say? Did I miss my opportunity to bring you over to my side? Just kidding again!

 

[PinSeeker]

I think a careful read of my posts will show I've pretty well laid out my case. I just didn't see the need to beat a dead horse to death.

But, if I had answered your questions one more time...

I was not repeating an earlier question. Methinks it's you that should go back and reread carefully...

...would you have then believed everything I say?

It's not a matter of believing anything you might have said. I was asking you to comment on the explanation (Biblical explanation, at least in my mind) that I submitted to you, and if you disagreed, to possibly offer an alternative explanation. But you didn't do that, you just totally dropped it. Which speaks volumes to me, actually, but so be it.

Did I miss my opportunity to bring you over to my side? Just kidding again!

Well, again, you didn't respond and take any "side" at all. All kidding aside.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

I was not repeating an earlier question. Methinks it's you that should go back and reread carefully...


It's not a matter of believing anything you might have said. I was asking you to comment on the explanation (Biblical explanation, at least in my mind) that I submitted to you, and if you disagreed, to possibly offer an alternative explanation. But you didn't do that, you just totally dropped it. Which speaks volumes to me, actually, but so be it.


Well, again, you didn't respond and take any "side" at all. All kidding aside.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

I tried to graciously bow out of the conversation with a bit of humor. I suppose you are right that I didn't take any side, but it was a deliberate avoidance. It's just how I roll. A large part of my actions is that this stuff sure sucks up time (at least that's what my wife says, and I'm forced to agree with her - at least if I want dinner tonight! ) and I'm somewhat limited on time.

I think I've said more the once that I think you have a good grasp of the scriptures. If not, I'm saying it now. But we've seem to have come to the point of choking on gnats, so I just thought to stop doing that. Love you brother. I'm sure we'll discuss other matters down the road. Hope so anyway!

Having said that and risking my dinner tonight, I'll try to answer to what you said.

We are asked to believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Our very salvation depends on that belief.​

See, I disagree with you here, Rich.​

I was actually thinking of Rom 10:9,

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.​

So right out of the gate, I was, to put it nicely, baffled by the rest of your post. I don't know, maybe I misundrstood your denial of Romans 10:9, but I really didn't know what to make of it. Hence my reticence to reply.

According to 1 Cor 12, faith is not a gift given to some man and not to others. God would actually like all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but we all have free will. From Cor 12:7 we can ascertain that faith is a manifestation, not a gift. A manifestation is a manifestation. A gift is a gift. The gift is holy spirit (the crux of the new birth) and with that gift all Christians have the ability to operate not only the manifestation of faith, but all the other 8 manifestations as well. It's too bad the church has taught that only a select group can speak in tongues. There are many benefits to doing so. It's the same with all of the manifestations. It is precisely those manifestations that allow us to demonstrate the power of the invisible spirit into the material world. That's pretty much what the word "manifest" means.

But, like many words, the Greek word "pistis (faith)" has different meanings. That must be considered when rightly dividing God's word.

Rom 10:17,

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.​

​

That sounds like anybody who listens to the word of God will receive faith. I don't see any exceptions there. It also fits perfectly with God's stated desire in 1 Tim 2:4 that all me be saved. Of course not all are willing to listen, some of the Pharisees being a prime example of that.

But Romans 10 then goes on to say that Israel heard but didn't believe. But in the very next chapter it goes on to say that God will indeed save all Israel (Rom 11:26-27). The whole matter requires some mighty fine right dividing. But for sure, it'd be hard to replace Israel with the church in this section. I think Israel means Israel, like the actual descendants of Isaac, the people God led out of Egypt. They are not the Christian church and the Christian church is not them.

By the way, there is nothing that would have forbidden the Jews that Jesus said were not his sheep to later become so. Was there not a time in you life when you rejected Jesus? Maybe not in your case, but there certainly was in mine I can tell you. I hated Jesus and Jesus freaks. i wanted nothing to do with either one. Nobody is born Christian. Of course we have the Apostle Paul as an example of the possibility of changing one's heart. Man, he went from one extreme to the other.

I can only learn so much of the scriptures at one time. This is an area in progress for me. Maybe I'll figure it out before Jesus returns, maybe not. But I will when he does return!

 

[PinSeeker]

I tried to graciously bow out of the conversation with a bit of humor.

I can appreciate that. But what you said was:

"We are asked to believe God raised Jesus from the dead. Our salvation depends on that belief."

Now, maybe this is not what you mean to say in saying that, but what you're saying here ~ explicitly ~ is that our salvation depends on our having that belief, and by inference, that belief comes before faith. I'm not insinuating that having that belief is not important... or non-essential. But I asked you to clarify your belief regarding that; it was a very simple question;

"Which comes first in a person, belief or faith?

This question directly goes to what was being discussed, which was, what does it take to be saved? You said belief (that God raised Jesus), I said faith (the size of a mustard seed). The former depends on us, and the latter depends on God. This is the question.

I think I've said more the once that I think you have a good grasp of the scriptures. If not, I'm saying it now...

And again, thank you. I appreciate it, but flatter is just... well, thanks... Not needed.

But we've seem to have come to the point of choking on gnats...

Okay... I think it a very important point of clarification. Who does salvation belong to? Immensely important.

I was actually thinking of Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Very well, but the question above is directly relevant to what Paul states here. And you will note that this is part of a larger context of Paul's, specifically what he says from Romans 9 all the way through Romans 11. He's talking about God's purpose of election, and states in Romans 9:15 that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." In Romans 10, he's talking about God's message of salvation being to all, and yes, if anyone does what he says in Romans 10:9 ~ and regarding that verse specifically, a person can confess something with their mouth but not believe it in their heart ~ then they will be saved... He's referring directly to something one of the prophets of old said (he does that many times), here specifically the prophet Joel:

"And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls" (Joel 2:32).

The point is that the God's call of each member of His elect comes first, and the person is born again, with faith having been worked in his heart by the Holy Spirit. Then and only then can a person believe in Christ. It is God who gives sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, heals the lame, and makes the mute tongue sing for joy (Isaiah 35:10).

So right out of the gate, I was, to put it nicely, baffled by the rest of your post.

I can't imagine why, really. But okay.

I don't know, maybe I misundrstood your denial of Romans 10:9...

I didn't do any such thing.

According to 1 Cor 12, faith is not a gift given to some man and not to others.

Paul's letter to the Corinthians (both of them) is to the Church at Corinth, so to believers. And he's talking about spiritual gifts there, gifts given by the Spirit. And some are gifted in certain areas and some are not, but all are given according to the proportion assigned by God and for the good of all. Saving faith is one of those, and it is presumably (on Paul's part) given to all he is writing to, precisely because his letter is written to Christians. But some people have greater faith than others, even among Christians, and this is by God's design, according to His will. And it's for the good of all, in this case because Christians with stronger faith can encourage those struggling with faith. Paul is very clear in enunciating that.

But this is beyond the simple question I asked you. Even still, faith, no matter how small, is all that's needed.

God would actually like all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but we all have free will.

Ah, "free will"... You know, Rich, in a sense ~ the salvific sense ~ our wills are never free; we are either slaves to unrighteousness or slaves to righteousness, and there is no in-between. But we can be set free from unrighteousness... This is Romans 6. Yes, God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), but no one would if left to themselves, but God has mercy on some/many, while others He hardens (Romans 9:18). Paul wrote both of these verses. Did he contradict himself? I say no, absolutely not...

From Cor 12:7 we can ascertain that faith is a manifestation, not a gift.

Nope. A spiritual gift, worked in us by the Spirit. This same Paul wrote to the Ephesians and said, "by grace you have been saved through faith... (a)nd this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." (Ephesians 2:8)

The gift is holy spirit (the crux of the new birth)...

God dwells in us by His Spirit, who is a Person. Who gives us new birth, and in Whom we walk and with Whom we keep in step.

That's pretty much what the word "manifest" means.

LOL!

But, like many words, the Greek word "pistis (faith)" has different meanings.

Ah, well, maybe you mean that it conveys many ideas, all of which are valid, but that the English word 'faith' is only the closest we can get to that.

That must be considered when rightly dividing God's word.

Rom 10:17, So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

​

That sounds like anybody who listens to the word of God will receive faith.

But surely you would agree that's not true. Certainly faith comes by hearing, but that does not mean that everyone who hears will obtain faith. Surely, there are those who reject the Gospel. Again, as I said above, the Gospel message is for all in the sense that no one is ineligible, but some... well, we'll just say they will respond negatively, or at the very least not believe, and this is because they are of their father the Devil, as Jesus says to the Jews he is conversing with in John 10.

The whole matter requires some mighty fine right dividing.

Much agreed. But it's really not that hard.

But for sure, it'd be hard to replace Israel with the church in this section.

Right; I thought we agreed on that, that that's not the case at all.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

I think Israel means Israel, like the actual descendants of Isaac, the people God led out of Egypt. They are not the Christian church and the Christian church is not them.

This is in direct refutation to what Paul ~ the Jew of Jews ~ says regarding Israel and who true Jews really are in the latter part of Romans 2, specifically...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."​

And then in Romans 9...

"...not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring... even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles..."​

And then in Romans 11...

"...some of the branches were broken off, and you (Gentiles), although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree... "​

​

NOTE: Jesus is the true vine, you remember, and we are the branches... John 15)​

​

"...it is not you (Gentiles) who support the Root, but the Root that supports you (Gentiles)... "...you (Gentiles) will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in'... that is true.”​

​

AND SO...​

​

"...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."​

God's Israel, Rich, consists of far more than just ethnic Jews. God's Israel consists of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, all those who have been born again of the Spirit and are thus in Christ, and this is inclusive of all those who have shared in this first resurrection from Adam forward, but not inclusive of everyone. These are God's elect, and the ones who, when Jesus finally returns, will be resurrected to eternal life, while many others will be resurrected to judgment.

Nobody is born Christian.

Much agreed.

Of course we have the Apostle Paul as an example of the possibility of changing one's heart. Man, he went from one extreme to the other.

As did Abraham. It is possible that Moses, like David, was a Christian from birth, as he says in Psalm 22:9-10...

"Yet You are He who took me from the womb; You made me trust You at my mother’s breasts. On You was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb You have been my God."​

I can only learn so much of the scriptures at one time. This is an area in progress for me. Maybe I'll figure it out before Jesus returns, maybe not. But I will when he does return!

Understood.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

This is in direct refutation to what Paul ~ the Jew of Jews ~ says regarding Israel and who true Jews really are in the latter part of Romans 2, specifically...

"For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."​

And then in Romans 9...

"...not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring... even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles..."​

And then in Romans 11...

"...some of the branches were broken off, and you (Gentiles), although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree... "​

​

NOTE: Jesus is the true vine, you remember, and we are the branches... John 15)​

​

"...it is not you (Gentiles) who support the Root, but the Root that supports you (Gentiles)... "...you (Gentiles) will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in'... that is true.”​

​

AND SO...​

​

"...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."​

God's Israel, Rich, consists of far more than just ethnic Jews. God's Israel consists of people from every tongue, tribe, and nation, all those who have been born again of the Spirit and are thus in Christ, and this is inclusive of all those who have shared in this first resurrection from Adam forward, but not inclusive of everyone. These are God's elect, and the ones who, when Jesus finally returns, will be resurrected to eternal life, while many others will be resurrected to judgment.


Much agreed.


As did Abraham. It is possible that Moses, like David, was a Christian from birth, as he says in Psalm 22:9-10...

"Yet You are He who took me from the womb; You made me trust You at my mother’s breasts. On You was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb You have been my God."​

Understood.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

Well, I can understand that the idea of the church being Israel can be "derived" from the scriptures, but I think when taken as written, nothing could be farther than the actual truth. I fail to see how Romans 11 would have any meaning whatsoever if the church was actually Israel.

I guess I left out the part of Romans 10:9 about the belief being from the heart, but yes, it must be from the heart and that can only come from ultimately from the faith Jesus had which is conferred to us by the new birth. I think that is covered in Romans and Galatians:

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:​

​

Gal 2:16,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.​

​

I understand that to say that had not Jesus believed God, all the way to the cross, then our ability to carry out Romans 10:9 would not be possible. Is that what you are saying?

I think you are expecting me to expound on every single verse in the scriptures. Sorry, but no can do. There are many aspects to the subject we are discussing, but we need to pick those most relevant to the conversation (at least I do). Much of what I say is true, but instead of acknowledging that, you bring ever more verses into the conversation, none of which would actually dis-annul the parts I do bring up. I don't see the point.

I'm still not sure how you call the faith of Cor 12:9 a gift. Here's the context of that verse:

1 Cor 12:7-9,

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.​

​

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;​

​

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;​

​

None of them, with the exception of healing (but though called a "gift" there, that gift in nonetheless called a manifestation) is called a gift. I already laid out the negative consequences of taking the manifestations as gifts. It strips the believer of the knowledge that he or she can operate all of them. Interestingly enough, with the exception of tongues and interpretation of tongues, all of them describe exactly the works that Jesus did and assured us that we can do the same works and even more. Jesus didn't speak in tongues or interpret simply because those particular manifestations were were not available until day of Pentecost. Could those be part of the greater works he said we'd do? Could be.

Now as I said before, the word "faith," like many words, can have multiple meanings. Ever notice even dictionaries almost always give multiple definitions for one word? They do. But we are discussing the faith of 1 Cor 12:9 and I see that it is changing God's word to call that a gift.

Where do you see Christianity in Psalms 22:9 & 10? When do you think Christianity started? I say on the day of Pentecost. So while Moses and Abraham will be saved, they are in no way Christians. Do you understand that there will be different groups living and reigning with Jesus on the new earth? There will be others besides Christian. Many Jews and Gentiles who are judged righteous by the way they conducted their lives will also be there with Christians. The big advantage of being a Christian is that we can know beyond a shadow of doubt our final end. The rest will have to wait for Jesus to judge them. That is all covered in Revelation 20. That chapter has nothing to do with Christians. We will have been with Jesus for some time before he opens the book of life. That's all covered in 1 Thes 4:13 ff. But all of that is lost when we mix up the church, the Jew, and the Gentile, which seems to be the rule for many Christians. But that's just because of what they've been taught. Nonetheless, the actual truth has been there for 2,000 years. It just requires letting go of tradition and accepting the simplicity of the truth. I guess that can be a very difficult thing to do, but it can be done. I managed to do it, and I'm nothing particular special in that regard.

Are you an adherent to Calvinism? It sounds like maybe you are. I really can't pin it down. But if you are, then our discussion will lead nowhere. If Calvinism is true, then I really have no choice in believing what I believe despite your apparent attempts to change my belief. In fact if Calvinism is true then why say anything to anybody about God's word? If God meant for John or Jane Doe to be a Christian, then they will be a Christian with or without my persuading them. All we would have to do is sit back and watch God choose or reject people. Nothing I nor you could do or say would change God's choosing.

If your not an adherent to Calvin, forget the preceding paragraph. It'd by my mistake.

 

[Earburner]

I love those verses! We sure have a great God, don't we?

As far as the secret goes, there are actually a few secrets God mentions in the Bible, the one you mentioned being one of them. But I think the secret relevant to our discussion (the one I'm thinking of anyway), is the one that God kept secret until after Jesus died, the one had the devil known about would not have killed Jesus, leaving us in a still un-redeemed state. I mention that verse in a previous post. Now if John the Baptist had known that secret, then the devil would have known it also.

The secret I'm thinking of, and, again, the one most relavent to our discussion was in fact completely hid in God until He revealed it to Paul.

Rom 16:25-26,

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

​

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

When is that now? Well if we accept the simple meaning of the word, "now" we can ascertain that the secret was made manifest when Paul was writing.

When that secret is understood correctly the scriptural story can be outlined roughly as follows:

1. God made a promise to Israel to give them a land. He vowed it would happen.
2. When the king came to establish that land, they rejected him.
3. God put His dealing and as yet unfulfilled promise on hold.
4. In the meantime, God revealed something He had under His sleeve all along, i.e. the secret, namely that not only Jews could be saved but also Gentiles and that salvation would come by grace as opposed to law.
5. This age of grace ends when Jesus gathers all Christians together into the clouds
6. Not having forgotten His promise to Israel, God takes up their cause again, this time finally fulfilling that promise once and for all.

Put another way:

Read your Bible from Genesis to John to see God's dealing with Israel. The Gentiles were without God and without hope during this time (Eph 2:11). But at the end of John the promise was left unfulfilled. Israel still had no land in which they could enjoy life with the presence of God. From John jump directly to Revelation to see how God finally fulfilled the promise. All of that deals with Israel under law.

Acts to Jude, which the above reading schedule skipped, is God dealing, not with Israel alone, but with all men. That is the time of the mystery (secret) that God revealed to Paul. It is also the only time all men could be saved by grace without the works of the law. It was the first time it was available to have Christ dwell within (Col 1:27). Obviously prior to Acts nobody could be saved as per Roman 10:9, given that that verse says we must believe God raised (past tense there) Jesus from the dead. No way Moses could have done that.

I hear all of what you are saying. From your own perspective, you are not saying anything too different than what much of church-ianity holds to.
And of course, the promise was fulfilled through Jesus by the giving of the Gift of God, His Holy Spirit, made available to ALL people, which is still being fulfilled to this day.

The Promise to Israel HAS been fulfilled, with the inclusion for all people. Even in the KJV (only) Daniel 9:24-27 reveals it, when read in conjunction with Acts 2:17-18.
Dan. 9:24-27 has been terribly interpreted and extremely misunderstood.

So, you say that Israel and we of Christ's church, both Jew and Gentile, have received no "land" of promise as of yet.
On the contrary, in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, therefore all are equal in Him, and therefore shall receive the same inheritance, of what Jesus inherited in His Person, which is Eternal Life and Immortality.
"The kingdom of God is within you".

That is the "land" (we ourselves) in which God desires to dwell, "WHEREIN dwelleth [God and His] righteousness".

 

[Rich R]

As did Abraham. It is possible that Moses, like David, was a Christian from birth, as he says in Psalm 22:9-10...

​

You and I had a discussion about not answering questions. You even include a couple of moving gifs whose exact meaning escaped me, but I saw enough to know it was mocking in character. Not complaining, just saying. In that same vein, and I may have missed it, but I don't recall an answer from you regarding my question of what, if Moses could be a Christian and saved by grace instead of law, was the purpose of Jesus' death?

When answering, you may want to keep in mind the following:

John 1:17,

For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.​

​

Rom 3:20,

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.​

 

[Rich R]

I hear all of what you are saying. From your own perspective, you are not saying anything too different than what much of church-ianity holds to. And of course, the promise was fulfilled through Jesus by the giving of the Gift of God, His Holy Spirit, made available to ALL people, which is still being fulfilled to this day.

I've never heard of an orthodox church that would agree with what I said about God putting Israel on hold (during Acts to Jude) and then pick up with them again in Revelation. Most of them think Revelation is for Christians (more on that later). I think the scriptures say Revelation is for Jews (and somewhat for Gentiles) when God will fulfill His promise to Israel about an actual physical land, the kind Abraham saw with his own two eyes, the kind you and I stand on every day.

I also think few churches would agree with me that the actual New Testament doesn't begin until Acts. Most would say it began with Mathew, hence the big red letters that say, "The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ" in every Bible just before Matthew. Most don't understand that the Gospels are still Old Testament, including the requirement to follow the law. That didn't end until Jesus rose from the dead.

So I'm not sure why you would say that doctrine is not very different than the orthodox church, or as you call it church-anity. With regard to that insult, I might point out that nobody can go beyond what they are taught, and Paul made it clear that wrong teaching began while he was still alive. Tradition replaced truth in many areas and that's a hard thing to overcome. Don't be so hard on them. They do the best they can.

The Promise to Israel HAS been fulfilled, with the inclusion for all people. Even in the KJV (only) Daniel 9:24-27 reveals it, when read in conjunction with Acts 2:17-18.

Dan. 9:24-27 has been terribly interpreted and extremely misunderstood.​

​

I agree about Daniel being misunderstood. Even the prophets themselves had a hard time with it.

1 Pet 1:11,

Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.​

The reason they didn't know was because the secret of the future Christian church was hidden at that time. God kept it hidden. Had He revealed it to Daniel it would not have been hidden, the devil would have known about it, he would not have killed Jesus (1 Cor 2:7-8), and you and I would still be waiting for redemption. The bottom line is that the timeline in Daniel does not include the undetermined length of time of the age of the Christian church, the age of grace. Jesus didn't even know about the secret. Going by what he did know, which included Daniel, he said that some of those to whom he was speaking would witness the events of Revelation. Clearly none of them have witnessed the horrors of revelation. They'e been dead for 2,000 years and counting. Read Matthew 24. I don't think that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is what he was talking about. He said much worse things would happen. Things that have no comparison to the temple destruction at all. Matt 24:21 makes that crystal clear.

Matt 24:21,

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.​

So yes, few really understand Daniel. You may want to consider that you may be among them.

There is no Christian church in the OT whatsoever. Nothing, nada, nil, zip. That is why Paul said the secret of the Christian church was hidden in God until it was revealed to Paul. If that secret isn't about the Christian church, then what is it about? The crux of Christianity is, as the name itself implies, Christ in you (Col 1:27). In the Gospels, before the day of Pentecost (the birthday of the Christian church), their was one Christ in one place at a time. That was a big problem for the devil so he just though kill Jesus and it'd be over. But God has an ace up his sleeve and that would be the secret that it would be Christ wherever their would be a born again believer. The devil had not counted on that! Now he has to deal with billions of Christs all over the place. The joke was on him. That is precisely why God had to keep it secret until after Jesus rose from among the dead.

1 Cor 2:7-8,

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:​

​

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.​

So, you say that Israel and we of Christ's church, both Jew and Gentile, have received no "land" of promise as of yet.
On the contrary, in Christ, there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, therefore all are equal in Him, and therefore shall receive the same inheritance, of what Jesus inherited in His Person, which is Eternal Life and Immortality.
"The kingdom of God is within you".

I don't mean to say the church is Jew and Gentile. I said the church is something new that is composed of Jews and Gentiles, namely those that accept Jesus as the lord and believe God raised him from the dead. There are still Jews and Gentiles around and those are the people who are the subject of Revelation. As I said Revelation is mostly about Jews, but there is some stuff about Gentiles. In any case, Revelation does not deal with the Christian church. Our final end comes before Revelation begins.That's all in Thesellonias 4 and other places.

Ah, but you say, there are 7 letters written to the "church" in revelation and right you are. But let's dig into it a little deeper. The word "church" in Revelation is the Greek is "ekklesia" which simply means "assembly" or a group of people called out for a common cause. There is a record in Acts were a mob was called and ekklesia. Not all ekklesias are the Christian church, including the ones in Revelation. Those are Jewish assemblies. Revelation makes many many references to the OT while none are made to the Epistles. Everything about Revelation is thoroughly Jewish in nature.

That is the "land" (we ourselves) in which God desires to dwell, "WHEREIN dwelleth [God and His] righteousness".

God said Israel would build houses on the land, plant vineyards, raise animals and more on the land. I'm trying to picture that happening on top of me. Ouch! That doesn't sound like a good way to spend eternity! I don't know where you got all these ideas (tradition?), but you really need to dig a bit deeper.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well, I can understand that the idea of the church being Israel can be "derived" from the scriptures, but I think when taken as written, nothing could be farther than the actual truth.

I don't think you do understand (although it's far from difficult), and that's why you can't understand. Christ's Church consists of all of those in Christ and thus of God's Israel ~ backward in time from His crucifixion and resurrection and forward. Maybe it would be easier for you if you just thought of it as the congregation of the righteous that will stand before Him at the final Judgment (along with those on His left, who will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, as Psalm 1 says).

I'm still not sure how you call the faith of Cor 12:9 a gift. Here's the context of that verse:


1 Cor 12:7-9,

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.​

​

8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;​

​

9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;​

​

None of them, with the exception of healing (but though called a "gift" there, that gift in nonetheless called a manifestation) is called a gift.

Read it again, Rich. And again and again, no matter how many times it takes. I think ~ well, I think I know ~ that what you can't accept is that the Holy Spirit is and actual Person, the third Person of the triune Jehovah. And the gifts that are listed are given by the Holy Spirit (v.8), and that includes faith (v.9). Paul wrote also in Ephesians 2 that faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). If you were to acknowledge and accept that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not some "force" that you somehow muster up in yourself, then you would not be able to see it differently from what I am telling you. But you seem dead set against that, which... well, I'll leave it there.

I already laid out the negative consequences of taking the manifestations as gifts. It strips the believer of the knowledge that he or she can operate all of them.

With all due respect, this is silly. The manifestation spoken of in this passage is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in and through the person. "Not having the knowledge that he or she can operate all of them"... that's just silly. While we can "operate" any of them we choose, we will be more gifted in certain areas than others, and this is the will of God. And we are called to use ~ uh, "operate" ~ those gifts, especially our more dominate spiritual gifts. My goodness.

Are you an adherent to Calvinism? It sounds like maybe you are. I really can't pin it down. But if you are, then our discussion will lead nowhere.

Yes, and you probably think that because you have no real understanding of what Calvin believed, but only caricatures... if that.

If Calvinism is true, then I really have no choice in believing what I believe despite your apparent attempts to change my belief. In fact if Calvinism is true then why say anything to anybody about God's word? If God meant for John or Jane Doe to be a Christian, then they will be a Christian with or without my persuading them. All we would have to do is sit back and watch God choose or reject people. Nothing I nor you could do or say would change God's choosing.

You're assigning what's called "hyper-Calvinism" to true, historical Calvinism, Rich. You're not alone; most militant anti-Calvinists do this; they make Calvinism out to be something it is most certainly not. So be it.

You and I had a discussion about answering questions. I may have missed it, but I don't recall an answer from you regarding my question of what, if Moses could be a Christian and saved by grace instead of law, what was the purpose of Jesus' death?

Wow. Moses wrote Leviticus, Rich. Leviticus has been called "the ABCs of Redemption." Read it. Especially Leviticus 16, regarding atonement, and the lamb without blemish. Then maybe we can discuss. I'll just say this, that these sacrifices that the Israelites made... they knew of the coming Savior, Who would be the Lamb of God. Especially Moses, into whom God's Word was breathed and he wrote ~ he wrote of the coming Messiah, and he knew it. Jesus's sacrifice was effectual for him, too, and all believers in Old Testament times as well as for all believers in New Testament times.

John 1:17,

For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.​

Ah yes, but as the writer of Hebrews says, "For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God" (Hebrews 7:18-19). Believers of Old Testament times did have a different means of drawing near to God than we do now, but the law and the sacrifices were their "tutor" so that they could look on Christ, as Paul says in Galatians 3:24-27 ~ "the law was our tutor (some translations 'guardian') until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith, (b)ut now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (again, some translations 'guardian'), for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith, (f)or as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" ~ but that we have no need for now, because Christ has come. But you see, they put on Christ in Old Testament times, too, just in a different way, by keeping the law and making sacrifices. We put on Christ, too, but there is no need for these things anymore.

Rom 3:20,

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.​

Right; see above.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

 

[Rich R]

I don't think you do understand (although it's far from difficult), and that's why you can't understand. Christ's Church consists of all of those in Christ and thus of God's Israel ~ backward in time from His crucifixion and resurrection and forward. Maybe it would be easier for you if you just thought of it as the congregation of the righteous that will stand before Him at the final Judgment (along with those on His left, who will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, as Psalm 1 says).


Read it again, Rich. And again and again, no matter how many times it takes. I think ~ well, I think I know ~ that what you can't accept is that the Holy Spirit is and actual Person, the third Person of the triune Jehovah. And the gifts that are listed are given by the Holy Spirit (v.8), and that includes faith (v.9). Paul wrote also in Ephesians 2 that faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). If you were to acknowledge and accept that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not some "force" that you somehow muster up in yourself, then you would not be able to see it differently from what I am telling you. But you seem dead set against that, which... well, I'll leave it there.


With all due respect, this is silly. The manifestation spoken of in this passage is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in and through the person. "Not having the knowledge that he or she can operate all of them"... that's just silly. While we can "operate" any of them we choose, we will be more gifted in certain areas than others, and this is the will of God. And we are called to use ~ uh, "operate" ~ those gifts, especially our more dominate spiritual gifts. My goodness.


Yes, and you probably think that because you have no real understanding of what Calvin believed, but only caricatures... if that.


You're assigning what's called "hyper-Calvinism" to true, historical Calvinism, Rich. You're not alone; most militant anti-Calvinists do this; they make Calvinism out to be something it is most certainly not. So be it.


Wow. Moses wrote Leviticus, Rich. Leviticus has been called "the ABCs of Redemption." Read it. Especially Leviticus 16, regarding atonement, and the lamb without blemish. Then maybe we can discuss. I'll just say this, that these sacrifices that the Israelites made... they knew of the coming Savior, Who would be the Lamb of God. Especially Moses, into whom God's Word was breathed and he wrote ~ he wrote of the coming Messiah, and he knew it. Jesus's sacrifice was effectual for him, too, and all believers in Old Testament times as well as for all believers in New Testament times.


Ah yes, but as the writer of Hebrews says, "For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God" (Hebrews 7:18-19). Believers of Old Testament times did have a different means of drawing near to God than we do now, but the law and the sacrifices were their "tutor" so that they could look on Christ, as Paul says in Galatians 3:24-27 ~ "the law was our tutor (some translations 'guardian') until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith, (b)ut now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (again, some translations 'guardian'), for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith, (f)or as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" ~ but that we have no need for now, because Christ has come. But you see, they put on Christ in Old Testament times, too, just in a different way, by keeping the law and making sacrifices. We put on Christ, too, but there is no need for these things anymore.


Right; see above.

Grace and peace to you, Rich.

I have no idea how anybody can make sense out of God's revelation when taken as you take it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take the clear deceleration of 1 Cor 12:7 which says "manifestation" and turn it into a third God when the scriptures declare thar He, the Father, is the one God (1 Cor 8:6). Even Jesus said that very thing in the trinitarians mainstay gospel of John in an attempt to prove the unproven.

John 17:3,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.​

​

Another verse in John must also be deep-sixed for trinitarian doctrine.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Notice the order of the bold words in both verses: they are "the Son of God." How can that be twisted into "God the Son?"

Please don't bring up John 1:1. It doesn't say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." That flies in the face of the two verses from John I quoted above and many others in John as well, not to mention 1 Cor 8:6.

You suggested I read Leviticus over and over. I might suggest you do that with John 1:1. Adventully you should see it written as, "In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) with with God, and the word (logos) was God. If you can see it that way the next step would be to learn what John meant by the word "logos."

Doesn't the extra-Biblical trinity call Jesus "God the Son" and the supposed other person "God the Holy Spirit?" Yes it does. So even using the extra-BIblicl trinity doctrine, it still doesn't change the fact the only the Father is God. But let's nor forget that we don't see "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" anywhere in the scriptures. I can't figure out for the life of me why that means nothing to trinitarisns. I guess yet another example of tradition trumping scripture. Of course if you can change the "manifestation" into "God the Holy Spirit," instead of what they actually say the manifestations are (tongues, faith, etc), I guess you can make up anything you want, and that explains a lot of what you say.

God is the one person. He is a loving and very personal person. He's my Father, not my "essence". I have no desire to turn Him into an "essence" supposedly consisting of three "persons." God is not an "essence." I think calling Him that is an insult.

And Moses being a Christian from birth? That takes some imagination, an imagination I have no use for.

It's OK with me if you want to read such imaginations into the scriptures, but I'll never take them in a way even remotely like that. I like the scriptures to make logical sense. In that spirit, can we just end this exchange in a gracious manner? I hope so. They'll be others down the road.

 

[Earburner]

I have no idea how anybody can make sense out of God's revelation when taken as you take it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take the clear deceleration of 1 Cor 12:7 which says "manifestation" and turn it into a third God when the scriptures declare thar He, the Father, is the one God (1 Cor 8:6). Even Jesus said that very thing in the trinitarians mainstay gospel of John in an attempt to prove the unproven.

John 17:3,

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.​

​

Another verse in John must also be deep-sixed for trinitarian doctrine.

John 20:31,

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Notice the order of the bold words in both verses: they are "the Son of God." How can that be twisted into "God the Son?"

Please don't bring up John 1:1. It doesn't say, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." That flies in the face of the two verses from John I quoted above and many others in John as well, not to mention 1 Cor 8:6.

You suggested I read Leviticus over and over. I might suggest you do that with John 1:1. Adventully you should see it written as, "In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) with with God, and the word (logos) was God. If you can see it that way the next step would be to learn what John meant by the word "logos."

Doesn't the extra-Biblical trinity call Jesus "God the Son" and the supposed other person "God the Holy Spirit?" Yes it does. So even using the extra-BIblicl trinity doctrine, it still doesn't change the fact the only the Father is God. But let's nor forget that we don't see "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" anywhere in the scriptures. I can't figure out for the life of me why that means nothing to trinitarisns. I guess yet another example of tradition trumping scripture. Of course if you can change the "manifestation" in "God the Holy Spirit," I guess you can make up anything you want, and that explains a lot of what you say.

God is the one person. He is a loving and very personal person. He's my Father, not my substance. I have no desire to turn Him into a substance supposedly consisting of three "persons." God is not a "substance." I think calling Him that is an insult.

And Moses being a Christian from birth? That takes some imagination, an imagination I have no use for.

It's OK with me if you want to read such imaginations into the scriptures, but I'll never take them in a way even remotely like that. I like the scriptures to make logical sense. In that spirit, can we just end this exchange in a gracious manner? I hope so. They'll be others down the road.

This might help the contention between the two issues of argument (I have hi-lited in red the continuity of the words):

John 5
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

KJV Prov. 8:22-31
22] The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
[23] I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
[24] When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. (to verse 31)

Judges 13
[17] And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
[18] And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Rom. 16
[25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

"The angel of the LORD" is spoken of 50 times in the OT scriptures. But not once was His name ever revealed by
God the Father,
the angel of the LORD Himself,
other angels,
or men,
UNTIL.....
It was spoken to Joseph in a dream.
Mat. 1
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [the Spirit of God the Father].
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

"The angel of the Lord", who spoke to Joseph in a dream, was Jesus Himself.

Heb. 10
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

GOD is One.

 

[Rich R]

This might help the contention between the two issues of argument (I have hi-lited in red the continuity of the words):

John 5
[39] Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

KJV Prov. 8:22-31
22] The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
[23] I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
[24] When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. (to verse 31)

Judges 13
[17] And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
[18] And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?

Rom. 16
[25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

"The angel of the LORD" is spoken of 50 times in the OT scriptures. But not once was His name ever revealed by
God the Father,
the angel of the LORD Himself,
other angels,
or men,
UNTIL.....
It was spoken to Joseph in a dream.
Mat. 1
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost [the Spirit of God the Father].
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

"The angel of the Lord", who spoke to Joseph in a dream, was Jesus Himself.

Heb. 10
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

GOD is One.

Well, those are all good verses, although I'm not sure why you think the 50 angels you mentioned were Jesus. Could not those angels have been angels? That's what God called them. God certainly knew the word "Jesus" and He could have used that word if that's what He meant. I think He meant angels in all of those verses. That's precisely why He called them angels.

But let's say for arguments sake that all those angels were really Jesus. I still don't see God calling him God in any of them. I'm afraid you have a lot of preconceived ideas that you read into the scriptures.

The fact is that there is no clear declaration anywhere in the scriptures that say Jesus is God. Nor are there any verses that plainly call him a God-man, that he is 100% God and 100% man (which of course defies logic to the max and simply calling it a "mystery" does not justify such illogic). As opposed to a complete lack of clear verses that say such things, it is easy enough to find Jesus called the son of God. We should understand that a son is not his own father.

There are also several verses that explicitly call Jesus a man.

Rom 5:15,

But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

Acts 2:22,

​

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:​

Jesus was certainly approved of God, but that does not make him to actually be God. If Jesus were God, wouldn't you wonder about God "approving" Himself?. That's just plain weird.

Acts 17:31,

Because he (God) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man (Jesus) whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.​

​

God ordained God? Yet another weirdness.

1 Tim 2:5,

For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;​

John 4:29,

Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?​

Israel was looking for a man to redeem them. Nowhere is there a hint they were looking for a god-man.

John 8:40,

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.​

Those are Jesus' own words. I wouldn't want to disbelieve what he said. Plus God hearing words from God? That's pretty weird also.

1 Cor 15:21,

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.​

As opposed to all those simple verses, there is not one single verse that plainly says Jesus is God. But there are at least a couple that clearly say God is NOT a man.

Hos 11:9,

I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I [am] God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.​

Num 23:19,

God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?​

Besides Numbers saying God is NOT a man, it also says God is NOT the son of man. On the other hand Jesus himself said he IS the son of man some 30 times in Mathew alone. I would again ask why any Christian should not believe what Jesus himself said. Making him our Lord (Rom 10-9) certainly ought it include believing the things he said. And why would any Christian disbelieve what God so clearly said about Himself? Those are serious questions that all Christians ought to consider.

God is not a man. Jesus is a man. In any normal usage of words and logic (again I don't by justifying illogic by calling it a "mystery." That's a cop out), this precludes Jesus and God from being the same entity. It requires extreme twisting of words and concepts found outside of scripture to say otherwise, namely man made creeds formulated several hundreds of years after God raised Jesus from the dead. It also requires words that are never found in the actual scriptures, such as "essence" (I would really hate to think my heavenly Father is an "essence"), "incarnation," not to mention the very word "trinity"itself. Indeed, it requires the complete abandonment of the normal usage of language which makes communication impossible.

What's wrong with simply believing what John said?

John 20:30-31,

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:​

​

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Jesus is the Christ, the anointed one, and he is the son of God. That is what John would like us to believe. Of course, since God inspired John, we can conclude that that is what God Himself wants us to believe. Why go against His wishes?

As I've said many times, tradition is not an easy thing to shake. I've also said many times that nobody can go beyond what they are taught and the trinity has been taught for some 2,000 years now. But still, the scriptures have also been around for some 2,000 years now. They are there for anybody who wants to know.

Having said all of that, I think it's clear that you love the Lord Jesus Christ and his Father. That's a good thing!

By the way, are we getting of subject here? I think we are. Oh well, things can get easily out of hand in these forums, no matter how hard we try not to!

 

[PinSeeker]

I have no idea how anybody can make sense out of God's revelation when taken as you take it.

Yeah, you're just being terribly obstinate, Rich. Or... Well, I'll leave it there. A "third god." My stars... Yeah, just total obstinance, with a good dose of willful blindness mixed in... Whatever the case, you're certainly not alone; these forums are rife with these things. So be it.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Earburner]

Well, those are all good verses, although I'm not sure why you think the 50 angels you mentioned were Jesus. Could not those angels have been angels? That's what God called them. God certainly knew the word "Jesus" and He could have used that word if that's what He meant. I think He meant angels in all of those verses. That's precisely why He called them angels.

I think I explained it fairly well, revealing that ONLY one specific angel called "the angel of the LORD" said that HIS name was a secret. Yet throughout the Bible, OTHER angels have given their names.

Now, for that reasoning, I also revealed from numerous scriptures of who "THE angel of the LORD" REALLY WAS. But, because you choose to down play it, the name of Jesus will be just common to you, having no great importance, except to be a common man.

Anyone can know of Jesus historically, but few there be that KNOW HIM spiritually.
You may know of Him, but it could be that He doesn't know of you.
Mat. 7
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Rom. 8
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
It's not about what one does for Jesus, but rather what He has done for you, and will give to you.

No one can have God the Father without Jesus, and Jesus cannot have you or I without God the Father. Together, they are One.

God the Father in Jesus FIRST, then.... Jesus within us, who BRINGS the Father within Him, who then BOTH dwell within us AS ONE.
KJV John 14
[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE will come unto him, and make OUR abode with him.
Heb. 10
[20] By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

 

[Rich R]

I think I explained it fairly well, revealing that ONLY one specific angel called "the angel of the LORD" said that HIS name was a secret. Yet throughout the Bible, OTHER angels have given their names.

So the only possible conclusion is that this angel is Jesus? I'm thinking there is some other conclusion.

Now, for that reasoning, I also revealed from numerous scriptures of who "THE angel of the LORD" REALLY WAS. But, because you choose to down play it, the name of Jesus will be just common to you, having no great importance, except to be a common man.

Did I not send you the list that showed who Jesus is in every book of the Bible?

Maybe I sent it to a couple of other folks, so here it is again:

In Genesis he is the promised seed of the woman.
In Exodus he is the Passover lamb.
In Leviticus he is the High Priest.
In Numbers he is the star to rise out of Jacob.
In Deuteronomy he is the two laws: Love God and love your neighbor.
In Joshua he is the captain of the Lord of Hosts.
In Judges he is the covenant angel named Wonderful.
In Ruth he is the kinsman redeemer.
In Samuel he is the root and offspring of David.
In Kings he is the greater than the Temple.
In Chronicles he is the King's son.
In Ezra & Nehemiah he is the rebuilder.
In Esther he is the savior of God's people.
In Job he is the daysman.
In Psalms he is the song.
In Proverbs he is the wisdom of God.
In Ecclesiastes he is the one among a thousand.
In The Song of Solomon he is the bridegroom of the bride.
In Isaiah he is Jacob's branch.
In Jeremiah he is our righteousness.
In Lamentations he is the unbelievers' judgement.
In Ezekiel he is the true shepherd.
In Daniel he is the stone that became the head of the corner.
In Hosea he is the latter rain.
In Joel he is God's dwelling in Zion.
In Amos he is the raiser of David's tabernacle.
In Obadiah he is the deliverer on Mount Zion.
In Jonah he is our salvation.
In Micah he is the Lord of kings.
In Nahum he is the stronghold in the time of trouble.
In Habakkuk he is our joy and confidence.
In Zephaniah he is our mighty Lord.
In Haggai he is the desire of the nations.
In Zechariah he is our servant The Branch.
In Malachi he is the son of Righteousness.
In Matthew he is Jehovah's Messiah.
In Mark he is Jehovah's servant.
In Luke he is Jehovah's man.
In John he is Jehovah's Son.
In Acts he is the gift of holy spirit.
In Romans he is the believers' justification.
In Corinthians he is the believers' sanctification.
In Galatians he is the believers' righteousness.
In Ephesians he is the believers' heavenly standing.
In Philippians he is the believers' self adequacy.
In Colossians he is the believers' completeness.
In Thessalonians he is the believers' soon glorification.
In Timothy he is the faithful men.
In Titus he is the fellow-laborer.
In Philemon he is the love of a believer.
In Hebrews he is the High Priest for sin.
In James he is the royal law.
In Peter he is the pastor.
In John he is as we are.
In Jude he is the beloved.
In Revelation he is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

That list hardly describes a common man.

Anyone can know of Jesus historically, but few there be that KNOW HIM spiritually.

That's true. As John himself said, he wrote that we can know Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God. Why do you go behond that and make Jesus to be God the Son? I know perfectly well who Jesus is and I can back it up with one crystal clear verse after another. So far I've not seen one from you that supports your position. Not one single verse!

You may know of Him, but it could be that He doesn't know of you.
Mat. 7
[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Rom. 8
[8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
[9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
It's not about what one does for Jesus, but rather what He has done for you, and will give to you.

You think Jesus will tell me to depart from him? What a terrible accuasation to make to a brother! Shame on you!

No one can have God the Father without Jesus, and Jesus cannot have you or I without God the Father. Together, they are One.

I agree that Jesus is the way to the Father. But the road to Chicago is not Chicago.

God the Father in Jesus FIRST, then.... Jesus within us, who BRINGS the Father within Him, who then BOTH dwell within us AS ONE.

A bit misleading there.The scriptures t really say we will all be one with Jesus and God, just as Jesus is one with God. Whatever relationship Jesus has with God in that regard, we have the exact same relationship. If, based on Jesus being one with God makes him to be God, then you must also say you are God! Are you sure you don't want to reconsider what two or more people said to be one really means? I would strongly advise you do.

 

[Rich R]

Yeah, you're just being terribly obstinate, Rich. Or... Well, I'll leave it there.

You yourself may not be the obstinate one I take it? No possibility of that? It has to be me? OK. Yep...we'll leave it there alright.

A "third god." My stars...

Well, let's see about that. There is:

1. God the Father
2. God the Son
3. God the Holy Spirit

I numbered the list for clarity.

"Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God." ~ Athanasian Creed​

​

I count 3 Gods there. The latter part makes no sense. It goes 100% against the normal usage of words and concepts. There is huge difference between the numbers one and three. Merely declaring three to be one doesn't do it. Of course we could introduce a bunch of extra-biblical terms in a vain attempt to make it "work" (substance, essence, persons, et. al.), but that's treading on dangerous ground indeed. Certainly not anywhere I care to go. If Jesus said he is the son of man and God said he isn't, I'll just leave it at that.

If sticking to the simplicity of the scriptures instead of tradition means I'm obstinate, then I am exceptionaly glad to be obstinate. I thank God He has made me obstinate.

Yeah, just total obstinance, with a good dose of willful blindness mixed in... Whatever the case, you're certainly not alone; these forums are rife with these things. So be it.

Now I have a wilful dose of blindness in addition to obstinance? I'm starting to feel like Jesus standing before the chief priest listening to wild untrue accusations.

Sorry, but I had to answer just one more time. I'll read anything you might have to say in reply, but that'll be that. I'll exercise the utmost in self discipline this time despite my lack of that up til now. I'll be glad to let you have the final word.

God bless you Pinseaker. You're a good man!

 

[Earburner]

So the only possible conclusion is that this angel is Jesus? I'm thinking there is some other conclusion.

So, Jesus is everything on your list, of which I totally agree, BUT you are saying that He is not "the angel of the LORD", incognito to the OT saints, who were NOT ALLOWED to know His NAME, because it is SECRET???
Well, "shame on you", especially when I gave the numerous scriptures for support.

By the way, thank you for the list of how Jesus is not a common man.
I have known many of His "shadowed" characteristics, as I too have "searched the scriptures, that testify of Him", which also proves all that I have said, about His NAME being kept SECRET, until it was made known to Joseph, Mary's husband of promise, that Jesus would be His NAME.
Rich implies: "Yep! Nothing to see here folks".

That's true. As John himself said, he wrote that we can know Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God. Why do you go behond that and make Jesus to be God the Son? I know perfectly well who Jesus is and I can back it up with one crystal clear verse after another. So far I've not seen one from you that supports your position. Not one single verse!

Why God the Son? How about for starters KJV Gen. 1[26] And God said, Let US make man in  OUR image, after our likeness:.....
God the Father is NOT talking to the angels here, but rather Jesus who was with Him before the world was. Literal angels do not have creative ability to give life to anything or for anyone.

Historically, I am sure that you do know who Jesus is, and that you can back it all up with scripture. The "religionsts" do the same in their halls of church-ianity.
However, that's not the question to be answered.
It's this:
Do YOU personally KNOW Him? Has He come to the door of your being? Have you asked/invited His Being into your being?
KJV Rev. 3
[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

A bit misleading there.The scriptures t really say we will all be one with Jesus and God, just as Jesus is one with God. Whatever relationship Jesus has with God in that regard, we have the exact same relationship. If, based on Jesus being one with God makes him to be God, then you must also say you are God! Are you sure you don't want to reconsider what two or more people said to be one really means? I would strongly advise you do

Misleading? It's you who is jumping the tracks here on to a different route.
Without Jesus' Personal Spirit within us, we have no relationship or oneness with God the Father, who is Himself within Jesus.
(Jesus Himself IS His Father's House).
Please see Rom. 8:8-9 again, as well as Heb. 10:19-20.

 

[Rich R]

So, Jesus is everything on your list, of which I totally agree, BUT you are saying that He is not "the angel of the LORD", incognito to the OT saints, who were NOT ALLOWED to know His NAME, because it is SECRET???
Well, "shame on you", especially when I gave the numerous scriptures for support.

By the way, thank you for the list of how Jesus is not a common man.
I have known many of His "shadowed" characteristics, as I too have "searched the scriptures, that testify of Him", which also proves all that I have said, about His NAME being kept SECRET, until it was made known to Joseph, Mary's husband of promise, that Jesus would be His NAME.
Rich implies: "Yep! Nothing to see here folks".


Why God the Son? How about for starters KJV Gen. 1[26] And God said, Let US make man in  OUR image, after our likeness:.....
God the Father is NOT talking to the angels here, but rather Jesus who was with Him before the world was. Literal angels do not have creative ability to give life to anything or for anyone.

Historically, I am sure that you do know who Jesus is, and that you can back it all up with scripture. The "religionsts" do the same in their halls of church-ianity.
However, that's not the question to be answered.
It's this:
Do YOU personally KNOW Him? Has He come to the door of your being? Have you asked/invited His Being into your being?
KJV Rev. 3
[20] Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


Misleading? It's you who is jumping the tracks here on to a different route.
Without Jesus' Personal Spirit within us, we have no relationship or oneness with God the Father, who is Himself within Jesus.
(Jesus Himself IS His Father's House).
Please see Rom. 8:8-9 again, as well as Heb. 10:19-20.

I'm thinking we are not as far apart on things as I may have thought at first. But I do see some things differently. I'd like to discuss them, but I don't want to offend you in any way. I have to admit that I have been guilty of that with you, but I don't want to do it any more. I'll just try to tell you how I see things. If any of it is offensive, please let me know. With God's grace and help I'm confidant we can work it out. I don't want to elevate myself above anybody.

Although I've quoted 1 Cor 8:6 many times now, it has a context, namely the entire chapter. If you want to know what I'm thinking about our conversation, give it a read. It is the heart I try to have. I often fall short, but God forgives me (1 John1:8) and I start over.

I'll compose my thoughts on the "us" in Gen 1:26 and angels and get back to you.