Covenant Land?
Pastor Dave
The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent
of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most
explosive factors in world terrorism.
The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back
for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not
merely because of their historical presence, but also
because they believe it is their divine right.
Much support for the state of Israel comes from a genuine
and heartfelt belief among conservative, Bible believing
Christians that God made promises to the Jewish people
that are tied up in a piece of real estate on the
Mediterranean Sea. But where does this belief spring from?
It depends on who you ask. Evangelical Christians believe
that the Jews are God�s chosen people, and the land belongs
to them.
Many evangelicals have a eschatology, or the understanding
that the Bible teaches that God literally gave Jews the land
of Israel forever. Speaking to a group of Israelis,
Pat Robertson said "Ladies and Gentleman, evangelical
Christians support Israel because we believe that the words
of Moses and the ancient prophets of Israel were inspired
by God. We believe that the emergence of a Jewish state
in the land promised by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
was ordained by God. We believe that God has a plan for
this nation which He intends to be a blessing to all the
nations of the earth.".
The land is obviously a major theme in the Old Testament.
Primarily, we want to explore the essential Biblical
perspectives on the land that might shed light on the proper
or improper use of the Bible in addressing this question.
Most dispensational premillennialists believe the promise
is yet to be fulfilled. However God gave the land
(Josh 21:43).
Israel lived in the land - Josh 21:43-44.
"not a word failed...all came to pass"
- Josh 21:45; cf. 23:14.
Others say it was fulfilled, but that the land was to
be Israel's: "forever" - Gen 13:15. A majority of
fundamentalists believe that what happens in the
Middle East determines the fate of the world. For
the dispensationalist, what the rest of the world
does is irrelevant and meaningless because not
only are all prophetic eyes on Israel, but God�s
eyes are on Israel as well. Modern-day prophetic
theory is based on the false premise that God still
owes ethnic Jews the fulfillment of unfulfilled
covenant promises.
Let's look at some of the terms most commonly used
with regard to the land of Israel. The land at the center
of the dispute can be called Israel, the Holy Land,
or Palestine, depending on your perspective.
While the term "Holy Land" is clearly a Christian
perspective, expressing the connection of this area to the
life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,
the other two terms also represent valid designations from
different perspectives. "Israel" is the name of the ancient
kingdom that King David ruled over, once he united the
tribes. It also refers to the northern kingdom after the
death of Solomon (922 B.C.), which was distinct from
the southern kingdom, Judah. But the term also now
designates a modern state that the United Nations created
in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust and the outcome
of World War II.
Even a cursory reading of the Bible shows that God,
i.e., the God of Israel - Yahweh - promised a land to Abram,
the father of Judaism, as part of the covenant between them.
At God's direction, Abram sets out from his own homeland,
Ur of the Chaldeans, to journey to the land of Canaan.
But the text proceeds, "At that time the Canaanites were
in the land. Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said,
'To your offspring I will give this land'" (Gen 12:6b-7;
cf. 15:18-21; 17:5-8). God repeats this promise to Isaac
and Jacob, thus reaffirming to the great triumvirate of
patriarchs the promise of a land to this chosen people
(cf. Gen 26:3-4; 28:13-15; 50:24).
Heroes like Moses and Joshua are portrayed as leading the chosen
people to the "promised land" in fulfillment of God's covenant.
This land is sometimes described as flowing with "milk and
honey," signs of prosperity and peace (Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5). Some
belief is that since God gave the land
originally to Abraham's seed, this must mean that all Jews
throughout history - including modern Israelis - have an
unconditional right to that real estate.
What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
the promise to retain the land was conditional
(Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and
disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the
present divine right to the Land. Behind the blessing of the
land there is the grave warning that without righteousness
"the land will vomit you out for defiling it, as it vomited
out the nation that was before you" (Lev. 18:28).
Deuteronomy 28 is the famous chapter of the blessings
and curses. If Israel obeyed God, she would be blessed.
If she disobeyed, she would be cursed. Such blessings
and curses also applied to "the land which the Lord swore
to your fathers to give you" (vs. 11). If Israel followed
God, she would be blessed in that land, but if she disobeyed
God said, "you shall be plucked from off the land �
until you are destroyed" (verses 61,63). Thus Israel's
right to the land was conditional upon her relationship
with God.
God strongly reiterated the conditional nature of His
promises to Israel. Notice carefully. Under Joshua's
leadership many had faith and entered the land.
Yet as time went on, the majority departed from faith
and obedience to God's Law. Again the Lord warned,
"I will cast you out of this land" (Jeremiah 16:12,13)
unless things changed.
The Land Promise Was Conditional Joshua's farewell address
to Israel made clear that God would remove Israel from the
land he gave them if they disobeyed him, a refrain repeated
from the curses delivered by Moses, (Deuteronomy 28:21)
Clearly in the Old Testament, when Israel disobeyed God,
she lost her right to that land.
At the time the New Testament opens, Israel is back in the
land but under Roman rule. The Spiritual Promise Unveiled
while they look for a king to remove the Roman yoke,
Christ would have no part of it. Rather, he came to fulfill
the "spiritual" land promise of Abraham to his spiritual
descendants (Hebrews 11:8-10). This is where the world
in general makes the wrong turn in understanding God's
dealings with Israel and the Abrahamic promise.
Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the
patriarchs were in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves
as sojourners and strangers. They never claimed it as their
home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They died in faith, as strangers
and pilgrims in the land, looking for the land which God
promised them, 11:13-16.
For the ancient patriarchs the literal Promised Land is not
considered the ultimate "geographical" destiny of Israel.
That land was the "heavenly city" called the new Jerusalem
which equates with the church/kingdom of the living God
(Hebrews 11:16; 12:22-24).
Second, Jesus ties his own eschatological hopes not to the
earthly Promised Land. Though a king, he did not rule a
kingdom of "this world" (John 18:36) but, like other Jews,
to this new Creation the life of "the world to come". The
early Christians hope was not tied to the literal land but
simply for a new, heavenly Jerusalem. It was for a new
Creation. There is not one word in all the New Testament
that mentioned the hope for Israel returning to the land
forever.
The Hebrew word translated 'forever' and 'everlasting'
is "olam"
a. "meaning a very long time" - TCWD
b. "may cover a person's lifetime (Exo 21:6; 1 Sa 1:22)
- ibid.
c. "a period of many generations (Josh 24:2) - ibid.
d. "the time of the present created order" (Psa 73:12)
- ibid.
e. "The term 'forever,' for a perpetual possession, means
as long as the order of things to which it belongs
lasts." - Barnes f. "...to the end of the present
dispensation."
If 'everlasting' always meant lasting forever, then we
should still be observing: a. Circumcision - (Gen. 17:10-13)
The Passover - (Exo. 12:14) The Feast of Unleavened Bread
- (Exo 12:17) The priesthood of Aaron - (Exo 29:9 )
The Sabbath - (Exo. 31:16-17) The sacrifices, with their
portions for the priests - (Lev. 6:18; 7:34-36; 10:15)
Fasting and animal sacrifices on the Day of Atonement
- (Lev. 16:29-34) The Feast of Tabernacles
- (Lev. 23:39-42). ...and many other elements of
the Law described as 'everlasting ordinances.'
Both peoples, Israeli and Palestinians, will have to learn
to co-exist peacefully. The legal principle was this: that
the land belongs to God and that we are merely leasing
it (Leviticus 25:23).
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Most Christians testify to the truth that their
own lives were a hell until they placed their lives
in the hands of the Creator. Heaven for them is
being in the presence of that Creator and now their
lives are filled with a love and peace that was not
there before. They feel they have found a door out
of the Hell they were in and a responsibility to
show others where that door is. This often comes
across to the non-believer as "looking down" on
them, but as a wise man once said... 'We're just
beggars showing others where the bread is'.
- Eric Fisher
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
> may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
> in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
> chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
> their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
> the promise to retain the land was conditional
> (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
> was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining the
land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can indeed
ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land forever when they
come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed at
some point receive the land forever.
> Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the
> patriarchs were in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves
> as sojourners and strangers. They never claimed it as their
> home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They died in faith, as strangers
> and pilgrims in the land, looking for the land which God
> promised them, 11:13-16.
Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the fulfillment
of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the form of a
*nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single family he
believed God that this inheritance would take place in the future, and he
was, in fact, a sojourner.
The critical element here is that we are not to seek an inheritance in the
world *as it presently is,* with sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a
completely new creation, in which sin is completely expunged from this
world. That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God." This Kingdom
presently exists in our midst, in a spiritual sense, for wherever God
exists, there His authority exists as well. But the Kingdom is one day going
to include a place for God's people, where they will live on earth without
sin, forever and ever. We are indeed to look forward to and hope for this
"world."
> Second, Jesus ties his own eschatological hopes not to the
> earthly Promised Land. Though a king, he did not rule a
> kingdom of "this world" (John 18:36) but, like other Jews,
> to this new Creation the life of "the world to come"....
Jesus was already a king when he came to earth the first time. He just did
not exercise all of his authority as king. He could've immediately judged
the world. He could've destroyed it and all of its sinners within it. But he
didn't, because he wanted to give us an opportunity to find mercy.
So Jesus did indeed come into the world as a king, even though it is true he
has not yet fully brought to earth his Kingdom. When he does bring it to
earth, Israel's eternal inheritance will be fulfilled, along with all of
those who have joined with Israel in this hope. The hope is not just to
inherit the land of Canaan, but more, the entire earth. As Jesus said, "the
meek shall inherit the earth."
This does not mean that Jesus failed to fulfil David's hope to have an
eternal kingdom. It's just that the kingdom that would fulfil this eternal
kingdom would be different than that of all the kings who preceded the
Messiah. This kingdom would come with a divine Messiah, whose authority
would exceed a single kingdom. And Jesus' authority is indeed far beyond any
earthly kingdom, encompassing the entire universe and all that God rules
over. This kingdom is already in our midst spiritually, and attainable by
legal means. But we will not fully enjoy its comforts until God sends it in
His own time.
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:sqadnd9Kbpulq5LW...@wavecable.com...
[snip]
> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
> the land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the
> very giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them
> *forever.* So even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law,
> they can indeed ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new
> covenant. In fact the Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the
> land forever when they come under a new covenant.
NOT your New Covenant; THEIR New Covenant.
> So no matter what condition the Jews find themselves in today, even
> having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed at some point receive the
> land forever.
Yes, in the THIRD iteration of the prophecies.
But it's NOT the "Israel" you or he thinks it is: It will be OF that Israel
and OF this Israel, but neither, like a child is OF his or her father and
mother, but neither.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1s1tg5lb8c0i1lrqm...@4ax.com...
>
> The existence of Israel in the Middle East and the extent
> of her borders and her sovereignty are perhaps the most
> explosive factors in world terrorism.
Just as God intended, to make Jerusalem the stumblingblock of the nations.
> The Arab roots and the Jewish roots in this land go back
> for thousands of years. Both lay claim to the land not
> merely because of their historical presence, but also
> because they believe it is their divine right.
Because the Muslims corrupted scripture by reversing the roles of the
rejected and accepted sons.
> Much support for the state of Israel comes from a genuine
> and heartfelt belief among conservative, Bible believing
> Christians that God made promises to the Jewish people
> that are tied up in a piece of real estate on the
> Mediterranean Sea. But where does this belief spring from?
The Bible.
> It depends on who you ask.
No, the Bible.
> Evangelical Christians believe
> that the Jews are God's chosen people, and the land belongs
> to them.
Problem is "they are not Israel that are of Israel."
Nevertheless, no one belongs in Israel except Israel...EVER.
Now, who is and who is not Israel is another question altogether, but God
will have to sort that one out Himself.
> Many evangelicals have a eschatology, or the understanding
> that the Bible teaches that God literally gave Jews the land
> of Israel forever.
And He did.
YOU'RE the heretic claiming He DIDN'T, because God is in the way of your
ABOMINABLE PRIVATE AGENDA.
[snip]
> Both peoples, Israeli and Palestinians, will have to learn
> to co-exist peacefully.
Nope.
God is going to burn the Palestinians out of Israel...
Isa 14:29-32
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote
thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice,
and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent. And the firstborn of the poor
shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root
with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant.
Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for
there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his
appointed times.
What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation?
That the LORD hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust
in it.
Better they left now, then by dry roasted to a crackly crunch later; so IF
you knew the Word of God (which you don't) and IF you had any genuine
compassion for the Palestinians (which you don't), you would tell them to
"git the hell out of Dodge while the gittins' good."
Ike
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>
>> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
>> may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
>> in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
>> chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
>> their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>> the promise to retain the land was conditional
>> (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
>> was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>
>I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining the
>land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
>giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
>even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can indeed
>ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
>Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land forever when they
>come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
>themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed at
>some point receive the land forever.
That's your conjecture, not Scripture. And it ignores
quite a bit of Scripture.
>> Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the
>> patriarchs were in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves
>> as sojourners and strangers. They never claimed it as their
>> home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They died in faith, as strangers
>> and pilgrims in the land, looking for the land which God
>> promised them, 11:13-16.
>
>Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the fulfillment
>of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the form of a
>*nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single family he
>believed God that this inheritance would take place in the future, and he
>was, in fact, a sojourner.
You missed the point completely. You're just
reworking it to make your doctrine fit, but it
isn't supported in Scripture, which you add to.
>The critical element here is that we are not to seek an inheritance in the
>world *as it presently is,* with sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a
>completely new creation, in which sin is completely expunged from this
>world.
That's the Futurist claim, but Scripture does not
support it and that was the point being made.
>That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God." This Kingdom
>presently exists in our midst, in a spiritual sense
That claim is also not found anywhere in Scripture.
Jesus specifically said that it would not (note the
future tense) be seen with the eye and nowhere
did He say, "but later it will be", so your claim
contradicts Scripture and I'm not going to waste
my time on doctrine that adds and changes
whatever it wants in Scripture, to make it work.
Fact: God fulfilled His "land promise".
Fact: The Bible says that keeping the land
was conditioned upon a relationship
with God.
Fact: The Jews reject the Messiah and there
is only one way to God, according to
Jesus Himself and the ultimate fulfillment
is spiritual, not physical and while Futurists
pretend to be all about the spiritual, they
are hypocritically placing their faith in the
physical that they think is coming and if
they can't have that coming in the future,
then sadly, Christianity is of no use to them.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish He didn't trust me so much.
Doug
in article <sqadnd9Kbpulq5LW...@wavecable.com>:
> "Pastor Dave"
>> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer may surprise you.
>> There is an implicit acknowledgment in the Old Testament that the land
>> did not belong to God's chosen people because of their race, but as a
>> result from their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>> the promise to retain the land was conditional (Josh 23:15-16). The
>> promise to receive the land was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>
> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
> the land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the
> very giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them
> *forever.* So even though Israel could not retain the land under the
> Law, they can indeed ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new
> covenant.
The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will
write his law on our hearts and in our inward parts that will remember
our sin no more.
This was made possible by Christ, who established the covenant with his
disciples before his death. He said, as he gave them a cup of wine, "This
is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." [Mark 14:24]
The law of Moses said that there would be four period of "seven times" of
punishment, if the people broke the covenant. They are described in Lev.
26. In the last of these, it says:
Lev. 26:40-42
If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers,
with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they
have walked contrary unto me;
And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them
into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be
humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with
Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will
remember the land.
The covenant that God says he will remember, when his people humble
themselves, is the covenant with Abraham. Paul calls the promise given to
Abraham that in his seed all nations will be blessed the gospel, in Gal.
3:8.
The land that has been inheried by Christ is not just the territory
occupied by the Israelites, but the whole world.
Rom. 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness
of faith.
The land that the Israelites occupied under Joshua has a symbolic meaning
in the NT, and it is referred to as a "rest." In the days of Joshua the
people took possession of their inheritance, and had some measure of rest
from their wandering in the wilderness, and from warfare.
Joshua 1:13
Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you,
saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this
land.
The "rest" was only temporary. [Josh. 11:23; 14:15; 22:4; Jud. 3:11;
3:30; 5:31 etc.]
In the NT the land that is promised as our inheritance is the heavenly
city. Abraham, according to the author of Hebrews, looked for a "heavenly
country."
Heb. 11:16
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God
is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a
city.
> In fact the Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain
> the land forever when they come under a new covenant. So no matter what
> condition the Jews find themselves in today, even having failed under
> the Law, they *will* indeed at some point receive the land forever.
Jesus said,
Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul?
No matter how much land a person might inherit, it would be quite useless
if he did not also have life and health to enjoy it, and so the gospel is
about how we might obtain life. This applies to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
It is through Christ. All the promises, Paul said, are obtained through
Christ.
2 Cor. 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the
glory of God by us.
Those who are in Christ are the "circumcision," the true Israel, to whom
the New Covenant applies.
Phil. 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
>
>> Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the patriarchs were
>> in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves as sojourners and
>> strangers. They never claimed it as their home (Hebrews 11:9,10).
>> They died in faith, as strangers and pilgrims in the land, looking for
>> the land which God promised them, 11:13-16.
>
> Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the
> fulfillment of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the
> form of a *nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single
> family he believed God that this inheritance would take place in the
> future, and he was, in fact, a sojourner.
The law showed that not only would they inherit the land, but that they
would lose it, and experience the four periods of "seven times" of
punishment described in Lev. 26.
Lev. 26:43-45
43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths,
while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the
punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my
judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.
44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I
will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them
utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors,
whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the
heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.
The curse of the law, (Lev. 26) was poured out, when the Jews were in
Babylon, Dan. 9:11. The captivity in Babylon was the first of the four
periods of "7 times." The last three periods of "7 times" correspond to
the three sections of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24. The last of these is
the 70th week. In the 70th week, Christ confirms his covenant with his
church. It spans the entire time from the appearance of Christ to the
present, as Christ continues to confirm his covenant with the church.
--
Doug
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
>> So no matter what condition the Jews find
>>themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed
>>at
>>some point receive the land forever.
>
> That's your conjecture, not Scripture.
No, that's scripture...
Zec 2:12 And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and
shall choose Jerusalem again.
Zec 12:6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of
fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall
devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and
Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.
Act 1:6-8
When [the Disciples] therefore were come together, they asked of
[Jesus], saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the
seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power; but ye shall receive
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses
unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost part of the earth.
Notice NO DENIAL of the future RESTORATION from Jesus--just the statement
that it wasn't the Disciples business.
Again...
Mt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first
come, and restore all things.
That's FUTURE, and it hasn't yet happened.
> And it ignores
> quite a bit of Scripture.
YOU "ignore quite a bit of scripture."
Anything that COVERS THE DUALISM with which Jesus SPOKE, and proves your
silly eschatology wrong.
[snip]
> Fact: God fulfilled His "land promise".
Nope.
> Fact: The Bible says that keeping the land
> was conditioned upon a relationship
> with God.
Yep. And they WILL get it back when HE RESTORES THEIR RELATIONSHIP--after
the End of this Age.
> Fact: The Jews reject the Messiah and there
> is only one way to God...
Nope.
Two.
1) Be an Israelite indeed (whom God will parse AFTER the resurrection).
2) Be a Gentile believer (whom God will parse IN the resurrection).
"...for the gifts and callings of God ARE WITHOUT REPENTANCE."
Ike
Randy ®
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining the
>> >land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
>> >giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
>> >even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can indeed
>> >ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
>> >Scriptures indicate that they will*only* obtain the land forever when they
>> >come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
>> >themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they*will* indeed at
>> >some point receive the land forever.
> That's your conjecture, not Scripture. And it ignores
> quite a bit of Scripture.
Then you must be interpreting Jeremiah 33 - 40, and Romans
11:25ff. as applying to the church rather than Israel.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Doug
in article <sqadnd9Kbpulq5LW...@wavecable.com>:
> "Pastor Dave"
>> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer may surprise you.
>> There is an implicit acknowledgment in the Old Testament that the land
>> did not belong to God's chosen people because of their race, but as a
>> result from their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>> the promise to retain the land was conditional (Josh 23:15-16). The
>> promise to receive the land was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>
> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
> the land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the
> very giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them
> *forever.* So even though Israel could not retain the land under the
> Law, they can indeed ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new
> covenant.
The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will write
his law on our hearts and in our inward parts, and that He will remember
our sins no more.
This was made possible by Christ, who established the covenant with his
disciples before his death. He said, as he gave them a cup of wine, "This
is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." [Mark 14:24]
The law of Moses said that there would be four periods of "seven times" of
punishment, if the people broke the covenant. They are described in Lev.
26. In the last of these, it says:
Lev. 26:40-42
If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers,
with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they
have walked contrary unto me;
And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into
the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled,
and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I
remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also
my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
The covenant that God says he will remember, when his people humble
themselves, is the covenant with Abraham. Paul calls the promise given to
Abraham, that in his seed all nations will be blessed, the gospel, in Gal.
3:8.
The land that has been inherited by Christ is not just the territory
occupied by the Israelites, but the whole world.
Rom. 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of
faith.
The land that the Israelites occupied under Joshua has a symbolic meaning
in the NT, and it is referred to as a "rest." [Heb. 4:8] In the days of
Joshua, the people took possession of their inheritance, and had some
measure of rest from their wandering in the wilderness, and from warfare.
Joshua 1:13
Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you,
saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this
land.
The "rest" was only temporary. [Josh. 11:23; 14:15; 22:4; Jud. 3:11; 3:30;
5:31 etc.]
In the NT the land that is promised as our inheritance is the heavenly
city. Abraham, according to the author of Hebrews, looked for a "heavenly
country."
Heb. 11:16
But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God
is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a
city.
> In fact the Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land
> forever when they come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition
> the Jews find themselves in today, even having failed under the Law,
> they *will* indeed at some point receive the land forever.
Jesus said,
Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul?
No matter how much land a person might inherit, it would be quite useless
if he did not also have life and health to enjoy it, and so the gospel is
about how we might obtain life. This applies to everyone, Jew or Gentile.
It is through Christ. All the promises, Paul said, are obtained through
Christ.
2 Cor. 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the
glory of God by us.
Those who are in Christ are the "circumcision," the true Israel, to whom
the New Covenant applies.
Phil. 3:3
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice
in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
>> Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the patriarchs were
>> in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves as sojourners and
>> strangers. They never claimed it as their home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They
>> died in faith, as strangers and pilgrims in the land, looking for the
>> land which God promised them, 11:13-16.
>
> Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the
> fulfillment of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the
> form of a *nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single
> family he believed God that this inheritance would take place in the
> future, and he was, in fact, a sojourner.
The law showed that not only would they inherit the land, but that they
Bear
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:15:07 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote
>in article <sqadnd9Kbpulq5LW...@wavecable.com>:
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer may surprise you.
>>> There is an implicit acknowledgment in the Old Testament that the land
>>> did not belong to God's chosen people because of their race, but as a
>>> result from their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>>> the promise to retain the land was conditional (Josh 23:15-16). The
>>> promise to receive the land was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>>
>> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
>> the land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the
>> very giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them
>> *forever.* So even though Israel could not retain the land under the
>> Law, they can indeed ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new
>> covenant.
>
>The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will write
>his law on our hearts and in our inward parts, and that He will remember
>our sins no more.
>
What my responses to Doug's post are about, is his false accusations,
changing scripture to support his blasphemous doctrine, selectively
editing of materials to say what he wants them to say, quoting
scripture out of context and, his blatant lies. I can, and have,
proven that Doug is guilty of every one of these charges that I make.
I have made them numerous times and not once has Doug refuted them, or
even tried to. If anyone accused me of what I accuse Doug of, I would
definitely take it personally, unless, I could not prove the
accusations to be false. In that case, I would perhaps try some of
the tactics Doug tries, i.e. intimidation, ridicule, veiled threats
and ignoring anything that I had no answer for.
Multiple times I have offered to stop responding to Doug's post, if,
he would stop asserting scripture saying things that it plainly does
not say, he has refused every offer.
As illustrated below, I have stated quite clearly the reason for my
responding to his post.
"I know that Doug does not have the guts to answer my questions and/or
respond to the points made, and that is ok because the only reason
that I respond to his idiotic posts is to inform any one that is not
that familiar with scripture or his writings, that they should be
aware of his blasphemy of God's word and in actuality, promoting the
agenda of Satan, either consciously or unconsciously.
My suggestion for anyone reading Doug's assertions is to read the
scriptures that he quotes, to get the context and meaning and then see
if it matches what Doug proclaims. You will never find Doug
recommending that you do this for the simple reason he knows that most
will find that he is being misleading at best.
Bear
>
Fred A Stover
The information was their business, but the realization of the kingdom was
for later.
Not for them, but for the folks at the end. It is Peter who tells us of the
Day of the Lord (2Pet 3:10).
>
> Again...
>
> Mt 17:11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall
> first come, and restore all things.
>
> That's FUTURE, and it hasn't yet happened.
No that was the blindness of Israel, who saw no coming of the Lord Himself
before the Day of the Lord (Zech 14). It was the scribes who said Elijah
would come: "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes
that Elijah must first come?" (Matt 17:10).
Malachi prophesied the coming of LORD God [ELYH] before the day of the Lord
(Mal 4:5; Mal 3:23 in Tanakh) but the scribes read Elijah [ELYH].
The Lord had promised: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7), and He had
revealed both comings of the Lord, Himself, to the prophets.
--
His,
More @ www.selah-tx.net
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> ...So even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they
>> fact the Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land
>> forever when they come under a new covenant.
> NOT your New Covenant; THEIR New Covenant.
It is, rather, *our* new covenant.
> Yes, in the THIRD iteration of the prophecies.
Get off your *iterations!* ;) God doesn't stutter. He doesn't speak
nonsense. Can you imagine my talking to you right now speaking in three
"iterations?" Ridiculous!
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
>>the
>>land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
>>giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
>>even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can
>>indeed
>>ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
>>Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land forever when
>>they
>>come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
>>themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed
>>at
>>some point receive the land forever.
> That's your conjecture, not Scripture. And it ignores
> quite a bit of Scripture.
It's my conjecture, yes. But it is, in fact, based on Scriptures. I would
not believe what I believe about this unless I had read it in the
Scriptures!
>>Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the
>>fulfillment
>>of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the form of a
>>*nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single family he
>>believed God that this inheritance would take place in the future, and he
>>was, in fact, a sojourner.
> You missed the point completely. You're just
> reworking it to make your doctrine fit, but it
> isn't supported in Scripture, which you add to.
I didn't miss the point. But my point is that you can't use Abraham as a
"sojourner" in this world to prove that the Kingdom of Jesus will never
become a physical reality. Abraham was merely a sojourner looking forward to
this physical reality, that will one day come to pass.
My argument is that Jesus' kingdom is "in our midst," in a spiritual sense.
Jesus only used *limited* powers. Being the Son of God he had full access to
all of his divine powers, but chose not to use them for our sake. One day
Jesus will use his powers to bring final judgment to the world, and to
completely eradicate evil and sin from the world. Then a new physical
reality will take place in the world, for our sake.
>>The critical element here is that we are not to seek an inheritance in the
>>world *as it presently is,* with sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a
>>completely new creation, in which sin is completely expunged from this
>>world.
> That's the Futurist claim, but Scripture does not
> support it and that was the point being made.
It is based on the book of Revelation, in which the New Jerusalem is
depicted as coming down out of heaven from God, a place where God's people
will live forever, and a place in which no sin will be found.
>>That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God." This Kingdom
>>presently exists in our midst, in a spiritual sense
> That claim is also not found anywhere in Scripture.
> Jesus specifically said that it would not (note the
> future tense) be seen with the eye and nowhere
> did He say, "but later it will be", so your claim
> contradicts Scripture and I'm not going to waste
> my time on doctrine that adds and changes
> whatever it wants in Scripture, to make it work.
On the contrary, your denial that there is a future Kingdom is either a lack
of belief in what Jesus said, or a denial of what he said. How can you
dispute the fact Jesus said he is coming again? There are many, many
references to the coming kingdom of Messiah, and somehow you have to
rationalize it away, or somehow "reinvent" what it means.
> Fact: God fulfilled His "land promise".
Not completely. He promised it "forever." That "forever" has yet to be
fulfilled. It could not and did not take place under the Law.
> Fact: The Bible says that keeping the land
> was conditioned upon a relationship
> with God.
Fact no. 1 is wrong. Israel did not completely fulfil the promise, to
acquire the land "forever." And you can't retain what you haven't acquired
*forever.*
> Fact: The Jews reject the Messiah and there
> is only one way to God, according to
> Jesus Himself and the ultimate fulfillment
> is spiritual, not physical and while Futurists
> pretend to be all about the spiritual, they
> are hypocritically placing their faith in the
> physical that they think is coming and if
> they can't have that coming in the future,
> then sadly, Christianity is of no use to them.
Orthodox Christian belief believes in both a present spirituality and a
concrete future reality. We are spiritual in our relationship with God
today, and in fact, forever. But the world we live in is concrete and
physical, and it must be made all over again, to eliminate the problems
associated with evil and sin. This is Bible--not your spiritualistic
interpretation of what otherwise is the ordinary description of physical
realities, soon to be created by God.
randy
randy
"Doug"
randy
> The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will write
> his law on our hearts and in our inward parts, and that He will remember
> our sins no more.
> This was made possible by Christ, who established the covenant with his
> disciples before his death. He said, as he gave them a cup of wine, "This
> is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." [Mark 14:24]
Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his disciples,
and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus to include all
nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included. When Jeremiah spoke of the new
covenant in its application to Israel, he was not speaking of the time it
was initially introduced, but rather, of the time when Israel will
ultimately catch up with it.
It looks like this...
1) introduction of new covenant--at Jesus' first coming
2) fulfillment of the new covenant in Israel--when the gospel of Jesus
actually converts the nation Israel
No. 2 is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31.
Keep in mind the purpose of this new covenant is to fulfil the "forever"
aspect of God's promises to Israel. This promise of "forever" was not
fulfilled when Israel initially took over the Promised Land. It could never
have been fulfilled under the Law, which retained the curse of human
mortality. The promise of "forever" could only be realized after Jesus had
risen from the dead, and had distributed his spirit to his followers.
Therefore, "forever" began to be fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus. But
the "forever" promises given to Israel will only be fulfilled when Israel
receives the spirit of Jesus. That will take place when the nation Israel is
converted to Jesus.
> The law of Moses said that there would be four periods of "seven times" of
> punishment, if the people broke the covenant....
I think, rather, that the Law intended to judge Israel as a nation *every
time* it fell into gross sin and despicable idolatry. When Israel abandoned
their God and apostacized, God abandoned His marriage with Israel, His
contract with them under the Law, and turned them over to curses and exile.
Regardless, the Law could never have delivered Israel from the curse of
mortality.
> The land that has been inherited by Christ is not just the territory
> occupied by the Israelites, but the whole world.
I agree with that. But it will include the territory promised to Israel. And
that is the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel, that they would inherit
their "promised land," and they would ultimately inherit it "forever." This
will only be fulfilled when Christ returns to deliver the *whole world* to
his people, which will consist of all nations, encompassing all geographical
areas. The book of Revelation describes it as an enormous single city, the
"New Jerusalem." The measurements of this city is literally astronomical,
encompassing the entire Middle East and stretching up to space. It is to
house all of God's people, all nations, in a single place, in a single
society. That way we will all be related forever.
Beyond this, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about? Or perhaps
you're just expressing partial agreement?
randy
Ike E 11/23/9
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:mbSdnaxM3KjRI5LW...@sentex.net...
[snip]
> The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will
> write his law on our hearts and in our inward parts that will remember
> our sin no more.
Really?
Where did Jeremiah say "our?"
In fact, where did Jeremiah indicate that he was talking to anyone but the
house of Israel and the house of Judah?
[snip the rest of the idiot's b.s.]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will write
> his law on our hearts and in our inward parts, and that He will remember
> our sins no more.
Cite "our" from Jeremiah 31:31-34.
In fact, cite "our" from anywhere in Jeremiah where Jeremiah wasn't talking
to his present audience, the Israelites.
Are you a literal Israelite born into one of the twelve tribes of Israel?
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> ...So even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they
>>> can indeed ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant.
>>> In fact the Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land
>>> forever when they come under a new covenant.
>
>> NOT your New Covenant; THEIR New Covenant.
>
> It is, rather, *our* new covenant.
Not exactly.
Jeremiah's audience was primarily Israel, and it will be to Israel that the
"new" covenant will be coming (although it won't really be a "new" covenant
at all, but the first two covenants put together, starting with a dualistic
Remnant that will "sing the song of Moses AND the song of the Lamb, etc.
that will give rise to a new, THIRD Israel).
The Gospel to the Gentiles is simply an intermediate interaction between the
"was" and "is to come."
>> Yes, in the THIRD iteration of the prophecies.
>
> Get off your *iterations!* ;) God doesn't stutter.
No, He doesn't, does He...
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Temple #1 destroyed in 587 BC.
Temple #2 destroyed in 70 AD.
Temple #3 ?
And yet the REAL Temple of God, the body of Jesus Christ, has always been,
is now, and forever shall be with God in the Holy City of God, "New
Jerusalem" (which has ALSO always been, is now, and forever shall be with
God).
> He doesn't speak nonsense.
That He doesn't...
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past."
Just because YOU'RE too dumb to get it doesn't mean He didn't say it, and
isn't doing it.
> Can you imagine my talking to you right now speaking in three
> "iterations?"
You aren't cleaver enough.
God is.
> Ridiculous!
That you are.
Meanwhile, one would think you would get the point--you've been given enough
information.
Pentecost "was," "is," and "will be."
The resurrection "was," "is," and "will be."
Elijah "was," "is," and "will be."
The temple "was," "is," and "will be."
And so on, and so forth.
You really are quite slow, you know...
Ike
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>>> So no matter what condition the Jews find themselves
>>> in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will*
>>> indeed at some point receive the land forever.
>
>> That's your conjecture, not Scripture. And it ignores
>> quite a bit of Scripture.
>
> It's my conjecture, yes. But it is, in fact, based on Scriptures.
> I would not believe what I believe about this unless I had
> read it in the Scriptures!
Of course you would, since you do. And if it were
based on Scripture, then it wouldn't be conjecture.
>>> Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had
>>> yet to experience the fulfillment of the promise!
>>> The promise was that his descendants, in the
>>> form of a *nation,* would inherit Canaan. While
>>> he was still a single family he believed God that
>>> this inheritance would take place in the future,
>>> and he was, in fact, a sojourner.
>
>> You missed the point completely. You're just
>> reworking it to make your doctrine fit, but it
>> isn't supported in Scripture, which you add to.
>
> I didn't miss the point. But my point is that you
> can't use Abraham as a "sojourner" in this world
> to prove that the Kingdom of Jesus will never
> become a physical reality. Abraham was merely
> a sojourner looking forward to this physical reality,
> that will one day come to pass.
The fact is, that Abraham and the others considered
themselves to be strangers and sojourners in the land,
after they had received it from God as theirs. So why
would they be looking for a country, if they were
already in it, which they were? Because the Bible
says that the country that they sought was Heavenly
and that they considered themselves strangers on
THE EARTH.
So your claim that Abraham was looking forward to
"the physical reality" is not based on Scripture, but
on your desire and nowhere does Scripture say that
and in fact, it says the exact opposite.
Hebrews 11:13-16
13) These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off
and were persuaded of them, and embraced
them and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth.
14) For they that say such things declare plainly
that they seek a country.
15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that
country from whence they came out, they might
have had opportunity to have returned.
16) But now they desire a better country, that is,
an Heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to
be called their God: for he hath prepared for them
a city.
And what was that city?
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
innumerable company of angels." - Hebrews 12:22
And note, now that the church was under the
New Covenant, it says that they "ARE COME"
to the Heavenly Jerusalem.
> My argument is that Jesus' kingdom is "in our midst,"
> in a spiritual sense.
And that is what it will stay. Your argument.
Scripture does not say it.
> Jesus only used *limited* powers.
Right. So limit Jesus to make your doctrine work.
Translation: I don't like what Jesus said,
so it simply cannot be true!
Now why don't you just show us in the Bible,
WHERE JESUS HIMSELF SAID that His Kingdom
would be physical.
Not what you think someone else is saying and
not what you think you can twist His words into,
but JESUS HIMSELF saying exactly what you
have claimed!
I have Jesus specifically saying that it would NOT
be physical, speaking of the future tense to the
Pharisees, when they asked about the COMING
(future tense) Kingdom of God.
What do you have, FROM JESUS?
>>> The critical element here is that we are not to seek
>>> an inheritance in the world *as it presently is,* with
>>> sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a completely
>>> new creation, in which sin is completely expunged
>>> from this world.
>>
>> That's the Futurist claim, but Scripture does not
>> support it and that was the point being made.
>
> It is based on the book of Revelation, in which
> the New Jerusalem is depicted as coming down
> out of heaven from God, a place where God's
> people will live forever, and a place in which
> no sin will be found.
All they were waiting for, was the wedding, which
was to happen within that generation and is indeed
described in Revelation 21, which was the vision
of the new Jerusalem coming down and the verses
say that the new Jerusalem is the church, the bride
of Christ.
>>> That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God."
>>> This Kingdom presently exists in our midst,
>>> in a spiritual sense
>
>> That claim is also not found anywhere in Scripture.
>> Jesus specifically said that it would not (note the
>> future tense) be seen with the eye and nowhere
>> did He say, "but later it will be", so your claim
>> contradicts Scripture and I'm not going to waste
>> my time on doctrine that adds and changes
>> whatever it wants in Scripture, to make it work.
>
> On the contrary, your denial that there is a future
> Kingdom is either a lack of belief in what Jesus said,
> or a denial of what he said.
Jesus said that the Kingdom would NOT be seen.
You add to that.
> How can you dispute the fact Jesus said he is
> coming again?
I didn't dispute that and it is dishonest of you
to claim that disputing a physical kingdom is
the same as denying that Jesus said He would
return!
>> Fact: God fulfilled His "land promise".
>
> Not completely.
Fact: According to Scripture, He did.
Fact: God said that if they did not follow Him,
that they would be destroyed off the land.
The Bible says that God fulfilled His promises to them:
"There failed not ought of any good thing which
the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel;
all came to pass." - Joshua 21:45
Read the following very carefully:
Joshua 23:14-16
14) And, behold, this day I am going the way
of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts
and in all your souls, that not one thing hath
failed of all the good things which the Lord
your God spake concerning you; all are come
to pass unto you and not one thing hath failed
15) Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all
good things are come upon you, which the Lord
your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring
upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed
you from off this good land which the Lord your
God hath given you.
16) When ye have transgressed the covenant of
the Lord your God, which he commanded you
and have gone and served other gods and bowed
yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the
Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish
quickly from off the good land which he hath
given unto you.
> He promised it "forever."
If they followed Him. And if they didn't,
what would happen is listed above.
> That "forever" has yet to be fulfilled.
This is just you, trying to get around what
Scripture says.
>> Fact: The Bible says that keeping the land
>> was conditioned upon a relationship
>> with God.
>
> Fact no. 1 is wrong.
No, it isn't and you are ignoring the facts.
>> Fact: The Jews reject the Messiah and there
>> is only one way to God, according to
>> Jesus Himself and the ultimate fulfillment
>> is spiritual, not physical and while Futurists
>> pretend to be all about the spiritual, they
>> are hypocritically placing their faith in the
>> physical that they think is coming and if
>> they can't have that coming in the future,
>> then sadly, Christianity is of no use to them.
>
> Orthodox Christian belief believes in both a present
> spirituality and a concrete future reality.
Nice try at making yourself Christian and me some
fringe lunatic. But all that shows, is that you are
unable to deal with what Scripture says, as you
have thus far been unable to. You keep telling
me about what you want to believe, not backing
it up Scripture and all the while, ignoring what
Scripture says, which I have shown you.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Money isn't everything. But it keeps the kids in touch.
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his disciples,
> and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus to include
> all nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included.
Gee, how white of you to include Israel in something that is "Israel" at its
root.
Now, if only you weren't turning the story around backwards, or dropping the
third part...
[snip]
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> It's my conjecture, yes. But it is, in fact, based on Scriptures.
> ...And if it were based on Scripture, then it wouldn't be conjecture.
Not true. We all conjecture, forming a theological perspective based on what
Scripture literally says. We mull, we think, we meditate, and then we form
opinions. What is crystal clear, we believe. What is less clear, we seek to
understand better in God's own time.
>> I didn't miss the point. But my point is that you
>> can't use Abraham as a "sojourner" in this world
>> to prove that the Kingdom of Jesus will never
>> become a physical reality...
> The fact is, that Abraham and the others considered
> themselves to be strangers and sojourners in the land,
> after they had received it from God as theirs. So why
> would they be looking for a country, if they were
> already in it, which they were? Because the Bible
> says that the country that they sought was Heavenly
> and that they considered themselves strangers on
> THE EARTH.
I was referring primarily to your reference to Abraham. He did not yet
possess all of Canaan, and the descendants who were to possess it had yet to
even be born! He was a "sojourner" in Canaan, and that is why he is
identified as such. Others, who actually came to possess Canaan, continued
to exercise the kind of discipline Abraham had, not placing all their stock
in a *temporary* inheritance. As a temporary inhabitant of Canaan, they were
no better off than Abraham was, as a sojourner!
When the Scriptures refer to the *heavenly* Kingdom, they were not excluding
the earth and physical realities. On the contrary, heavenly realities are
what can turn our temporal world into a concrete, eternal reality. We look
to heaven because we look to God's seat of power, to His authority to be
able to remake our world into an everlasting habitation for men. Right now
it is just our temporary dwelling, because we are mortal. But in the future,
God will make earth into our eternal home, if we have chosen Christ as our
guide.
> "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
> of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
> innumerable company of angels." - Hebrews 12:22
> And note, now that the church was under the
> New Covenant, it says that they "ARE COME"
> to the Heavenly Jerusalem.
We have already received our spiritual endowment. That means we already have
an *everlasting life.* That means our spiritual life cannot be affected by
death. The life we now live in a spiritual sense overcomes death, cannot be
defeated by death. And so we have already "come" to our eternal endowment,
well before we actually overcome death.
>> My argument is that Jesus' kingdom is "in our midst,"
>> in a spiritual sense.
> And that is what it will stay. Your argument.
> Scripture does not say it.
On the contrary, Jesus said a day will come when the dead will rise. And
those who remain alive will be caught up to be transformed into immortal
creatures. Our eternal fellowship with God will be dignified by our
receiving eternal bodies so that we will live forever on a new earth.
>> Jesus only used *limited* powers.
> Right. So limit Jesus to make your doctrine work.
Not the point. When Jesus gave us his spirit, he saved us from death. But he
reserves the experience of our resurrection to the future. We continue to
live in mortal bodies. But we will have immortal bodies later, because we
have received eternal life today. Have to go.
randy
Doug
in article <DM6dndMqRM1x1o3W...@wavecable.com>:
> "Doug"
> randy
>
>> The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah in Jer. 31:31-34 says God will
>> write his law on our hearts and in our inward parts, and that He will
>> remember our sins no more.
>> This was made possible by Christ, who established the covenant with his
>> disciples before his death. He said, as he gave them a cup of wine,
>> "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." [Mark
>> 14:24]
>
> Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his
> disciples, and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus
> to include all nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included.
That's like saying "Ultimately, Jesus will be included." Why? because the
name "Israel" was given to Jacob, who was a prophet, and he is included,
along with Abraham, Isaac, and all the prophets, in the church's
foundation! That's what Paul says in Eph. 2:20.
Eph. 2:19-20
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens
with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Both the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ are all included in the
church. And one of those prophets was Jacob, who was renamed Israel. He
is included too. And all the prophets of the OT. The church, in Heb.
12:22, is called Zion, (or Sion), and the heavenly Jerusalem, and "the
general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in
heaven." Those whose names are "written in heaven" in the book of life,
are included in the church. It includes those who Daniel refers to, in
Dan 12:1, (thy people) whose names are "written in the book," who are in
the resurrection of the saints.
Saying "Ultimately, Israel will be included" is nonsense! Israel is
included, because the church *is* the true Israel of God, the holy city
of the saints. Jews who reject Christ are branches broken off, but they
can be grafted back in, "if they abide not still in unbelief." [Rom.
11:23]
No, the law specified what would happen if they broke the covenant. The
four periods of "seven times" of the curse would come upon them. And that
is what Daniel 9:11 refers to. Daniel said,
11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that
they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and
the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because
we have sinned against him.
12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and
against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for
under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon
Jerusalem.
The curse was "poured out" upon Israel, Daniel said. This was the first
of four periods of "seven times." The others are revealed in the three
sections of the 70 weeks. The units of "times" vary in the various
sections. We are in the last of those "seven times" now, which is the
70th week.
There are no gaps in the 70 weeks, as that would imply a pause in the
curse, and would mean the Jews were temporarily reconciled to God, which
of course has not happened.
> Regardless, the Law could never have delivered Israel
> from the curse of mortality.
>
>> The land that has been inherited by Christ is not just the territory
>> occupied by the Israelites, but the whole world.
>
> I agree with that. But it will include the territory promised to Israel.
> And that is the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel, that they would
> inherit their "promised land," and they would ultimately inherit it
> "forever." This will only be fulfilled when Christ returns to deliver
> the *whole world* to his people,
The heathen are to be made Christ's footstool. [Psa. 110:1]
> which will consist of all nations,
> encompassing all geographical areas. The book of Revelation describes it
> as an enormous single city, the "New Jerusalem."
This is identified as the church in Heb. 12:22.
Rev. 21:24-27
24 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.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall
be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth,
neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which
are written in the Lamb's book of life.
> The measurements of
> this city is literally astronomical, encompassing the entire Middle East
> and stretching up to space.
Of course, the description given is symbolic. The 12 gates are said to be
each a single pearl! Thus, we are to think of the parable of Jesus, about
the man seeking goodly pearls, who when he found one of great price, sold
all he had, and bought it. The point being, that seeking entry into the
kingdom of God is a wise investment, even if it costs all our worldly
possessions.
And the city is called "the bride, the Lamb's wife." [Rev. 21:9] So it
consists of people, those whose names are in the book of life. The
numbers in the measurements are symbolic. The names of the 12 tribes of
Israel, and the 12 Apostles, are in it.
> It is to house all of God's people, all
> nations, in a single place, in a single society. That way we will all be
> related forever.
>
> Beyond this, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about? Or
> perhaps you're just expressing partial agreement? randy
I hope that has been answered above.
--
Doug
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> It is, rather, *our* new covenant.
> Not exactly. Jeremiah's audience was primarily Israel, and it will be to
> Israel that the "new" covenant will be coming...
The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with the
full intent that it will expand internationally. The new covenant was
therefore given by Jesus to *all.* Jeremiah addressed Israel because he was
concerned to let Hebrews know when the new covenant will result in full
national conversion to it. Since it didn't happen in Jesus' time, and hasn't
happened in our time, my assumption is that it is still future.
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his
>> disciples, and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus
>> to include all nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included.
> Gee, how white of you to include Israel in something that is "Israel" at
> its root.
There isn't an ounce of prejudice in my Christian spirituality. The
Christian nature that I allow to rule in me loves all equally.
randy
randy
"Doug"
randy
>> Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his
>> disciples, and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus
>> to include all nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included.
> That's like saying "Ultimately, Jesus will be included."...
I don't get that. I'm not saying anything remotely like that.
> ....Why? because the
> name "Israel" was given to Jacob, who was a prophet, and he is included,
> along with Abraham, Isaac, and all the prophets, in the church's
> foundation! That's what Paul says in Eph. 2:20.
The original apostles were all Jews. That doesn't mean national Israel was
converted to Christianity. The church does include remnants of all nations,
including a Jewish remnant. And the church was founded on Jews called to be
apostles. But the conversion of national Israel remains future.
> Saying "Ultimately, Israel will be included" is nonsense!...
Not at all. If you believe that nations were called to be Christian,
including Israel, then you have to recognize that there have been times when
nations were not Christian, and times when they became Christian nations.
For example, Gaul was at one time not a Christian territory. But then the
Franks became Christians, and their monarchs began to rule as Christian
monarchs.
I believe the same thing is true of Israel. Today Israel is not Christian.
But tomorrow Israel will be converted as a nation to be a Christian nation.
That's what Jeremiah prophesied, I believe. It has nothing whatsoever to do
with what foundation the church was built upon. Even though the Church was
built upon the foundation of Jewish apostles, national Israel has yet to be
converted to Christianity!
>> The measurements of
>> this city is literally astronomical, encompassing the entire Middle East
>> and stretching up to space.
> Of course, the description given is symbolic. The 12 gates are said to be
> each a single pearl! Thus, we are to think of the parable of Jesus, about
> the man seeking goodly pearls, who when he found one of great price, sold
> all he had, and bought it. The point being, that seeking entry into the
> kingdom of God is a wise investment, even if it costs all our worldly
> possessions.
To be honest, I think this prophecy is as real as it is symbolic! But your
guess is as good as mine. The important thing for me is that we believe it's
coming.
randy
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
I don't want to hear your "they were not excluding what
I want to believe" arguments, which is all they are!
They were not excluding pink elephants! That doesn't
mean they were saying they are real!
And furthermore, you prove that your belief is nothing
more than what you want to believe, when you have
to turn to arguments like "they were not excluding..."!
Why do you keep claiming to base your beliefs on Scripture
and then snipping the Scripture that proves you wrong?
Here it is again:
So your claim that Abraham was looking forward to
"the physical reality" is not based on Scripture, but
on your desire and nowhere does Scripture say that
and in fact, it says the exact opposite.
Hebrews 11:13-16
13) These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off
and were persuaded of them, and embraced
them and confessed that they were strangers
and pilgrims on the earth.
14) For they that say such things declare plainly
that they seek a country.
15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that
country from whence they came out, they might
have had opportunity to have returned.
16) But now they desire a better country, that is,
an Heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to
be called their God: for he hath prepared for them
a city.
>> "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
>> of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
>> innumerable company of angels." - Hebrews 12:22
>
>> And note, now that the church was under the
>> New Covenant, it says that they "ARE COME"
>> to the Heavenly Jerusalem.
>
>We have already received our spiritual endowment.
It does not say that the physical comes later. It says
that it came first. But what is clear, is that you place
your hope in the physical and not the spiritual.
>>> My argument is that Jesus' kingdom is "in our midst,"
>>> in a spiritual sense.
>
>> And that is what it will stay. Your argument.
>> Scripture does not say it.
>
>On the contrary, Jesus said a day will come when the dead will rise. And
>those who remain alive will be caught up to be transformed into immortal
>creatures. Our eternal fellowship with God will be dignified by our
>receiving eternal bodies so that we will live forever on a new earth.
It does not say that is a physical event and it does not
say that we will live forever here on Earth and we are
specifically speaking of the Kingdom of God and not
another subject. But thank you for confirming that
Futurism doesn't even think that Heaven is good enough,
since you think that everyone will leave it, including God,
to come live on Earth.
>>> Jesus only used *limited* powers.
>
>> Right. So limit Jesus to make your doctrine work.
>
>Not the point.
It is the point, since it's what you did.
And why did you snip the rest? Oh, that's right,
because you couldn't deal with it! Especially
the Scriptures that showed that God did fulfill
His land promise and that if they did not follow
Him, that they would be "destroyed off the land",
nor could you deal with the request that you
show me the Scripture in which Jesus Himself
says that the Kingdom of God would be physical,
which you cannot do and you hate the fact that
He did specifically say that it would not be.
You are dishonest and you don't care what
the Bible actually says. You have your doctrine
that says that you get to live forever in your
physical body and that's what important to you!
You don't want to die physically and if the truth
means that you will die physically and stay dead
physically, then you don't want any part of it!
Your hope is in the physical, not the spiritual,
even though Scripture constantly teaches
the opposite! Yea, what a great doctrine! (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"All concepts are Godliness to the twister of words."
- Unknown
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> It is, rather, *our* new covenant.
>
>> Not exactly. Jeremiah's audience was primarily Israel, and it will be to
>> Israel that the "new" covenant will be coming...
>
> The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with the
> full intent that it will expand internationally.
Which wasn't exactly what Jeremiah was talking about.
> The new covenant was therefore given by Jesus to *all.* Jeremiah
> addressed Israel because he was concerned to let Hebrews know when the new
> covenant will result in full national conversion to it. Since it didn't
> happen in Jesus' time, and hasn't happened in our time, my assumption is
> that it is still future.
It will occur in the restoration, starting with the THIRD Israel, which is
what Jeremiah was REALLY talking about.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> Yes, I believe Jesus' initiated the new covenant first with his
>>> disciples, and with the new church. This church was determined by Jesus
>>> to include all nations. Ultimately, Israel will be included.
>
>> Gee, how white of you to include Israel in something that is "Israel" at
>> its root.
>
> There isn't an ounce of prejudice in my Christian spirituality.
LOL
You just DISPLAYED your prejudice by saying "Christian spirituality," as if
Israel will be joined to Christianity, when the believing Gentiles will be
GRAFTED INTO THE ROOT OF ISRAEL, and NOT the other way around.
You keep treating Israel as the "also" when THE GENTILE BELIEVERS are the
"also."
Like I said, how "white" of you to include Israel in something that is
"Israel" at its root.
<chuckle and snip>
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> So your claim that Abraham was looking forward to
> "the physical reality" is not based on Scripture, but
> on your desire and nowhere does Scripture say that
> and in fact, it says the exact opposite.
>
> Hebrews 11:13-16
LOL
The Satanic book of Hebrews is the origin of your Satanic replacement
theology...
"Hebrews" was written as a direct assault on John's "Revelation" to turn
Christian eschatology and theology into Essene/Gnostic eschatology and
theology (as the author was probably an Ebionite, which was a Jewish
"Christian" sect that seemed to have derived its doctrines from the earlier
apocalyptic cults).
Watch...
Revelation/Hebrews parallels.
On the surface, it looks like the author of Hebrews is supporting John's
Revelation. But note that the author hardly EVER quotes John word for word.
And, as we'll find in a moment, the author of Hebrews insidiously changes
John's Revelation...
1) "But call to remembrance the former days, in which after ye were
illuminated ye endured a great fight of afflictions" (Heb.10:32) compared to
"Remember from whence thou art fallen...will remove thy lampstands
(illumination) ....I know thy works and thy labour" (Rev 2:1-7).
2) "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love, which ye showed
towards his name" (Heb.6:10) compared to "I know thy works and thy labour
and thy patience" (Rev 2:2).
3) "...that ye wax not weary fainting in your souls" (Heb.12:3) compared to
"...and hast borne, and hast patience and for my names sake hast laboured
and hast not fainted" (Rev 2:3).
4) "That no man fall after the same example of disobedience" (Heb.4:11)
compared to "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen" (Rev 2:5).
5) ".how much more shall we not escape, who turn away from him that warneth
from heaven"(Heb.12:26) compared to the fact that Revelation is the only
message from Jesus spoken from heaven to the churches.
6) "And this word, yet once more signifieth the removing of those things
that are shaken" (Heb.12: 27) compared to "I will remove thy lampstand.."
(Rev 2:5, in terms of the Spirit's gifts & dependence on the Temple).
7) The word of God (Heb 4:12) compared to The word of God (Rev 19:13). (Only
John ever directly used the term "the Word of God" as a Name for Jesus.)
8) .."is sharper than a two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12) compared to "with a
sharp two-edged sword (Rev 1:16; 19:15).
9) "The city which hath (the: RV) foundations, whose builder and maker is
God" (Heb 11:10) compared to "The wall of the city (of God) had 12
foundations" (Rev 21:14).
And this whole sequence from Hebrews chapter 12:
10) "Mount Zion" compared to "The Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1)."
11) "Heavenly Jerusalem" compared to "New Jerusalem" out of heaven (Rev
21:2).
12) "The city of the living God" compared to "The God of the living
creatures" (Rev 4:6).
13) "An innumerable company of angels" compared to "The voice of many
angels" (Rev 5:11).
14) "The general assembly" compared to "The 144,000 sealed out of Israel"
(Rev ch.7&14).
15) "Written in heaven" compared to "Written in the Lamb's book of life"
(Rev 13:8; 21:27).
16) "God the judge of all" compared to "The dead standing before God to be
judged" (Rev 20:12).
17) "Jesus the mediator of a new covenant" compared to "A Lamb as it had
been slain" (Rev 5:5, 6).
18) "The blood of sprinkling" compared to "Thou hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood" (Rev 5:9).
19) "Let us serve God" compared to "They serve him day and night in his
Temple" (7:15)
That's 19 paraphrases of Revelation statements in Hebrews, but not ONE
MENTION of the source, and hardly a direct quote in the bunch.
WHY?
First, it tells us that Hebrews was written AFTER JOHN WROTE REVELATION,
sometime in the second century.
But WHY doesn't the author acknowledge John, and why does he keep CHANGING
John's statements?
Simple: the author is SPECIFICALLY REVERSING REVELATION THEOLOGY and
ESCHATOLOGY (and, likewise, Gospel and Epistle theology) into ESSENE/GNOSTIC
theology and eschatology.
1) The author of Hebrews draws a distinction between man and angel that
neither Jesus, Paul, nor John drew. In fact, one of the functions of
Revelation is to CONNECT man to angel (and subsequently, demons) through the
"star = angel = ministers of the Word" trichotomy. This is specifically
clarified when the last angel of the Bible DECLARES that he was 1) a
fellowservant, 2) a brother in tribulation, and 3) of those who kept the
sayings of the book, i.e. A MARTYR. In other words, he was a MAN before he
was an "angel."
Who taught a distinction between man and angel, right down to their
creation?
The Essenes "Sons of Light" cult.
Hmmmmm.
2) The author of Hebrews teaches REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, saying that the Old
Testament is "passed away," when Jesus, Paul, and John specifically said
otherwise.
Jesus SAID the all the law and the prophets would stand until the end of
heaven and earth.
Paul said, in terms of Israel as it was, wrote "for the gifts and callings
of God are WITHOUT REPENTANCE. Paul ALSO said that the law would be the
basis for the judgment of the world.
John taught dualism in a coming Remnant that will "keep the commandments of
God AND have the faith of Jesus" that will arise in the End of the Age. (Ah,
but the author of Hebrews REMOVES the 144,000 from his story.)
THIS is a BIGGIE.
Who taught that Judaism had passed away, and only they were the "true
remnant" of the old Israel?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
3) The author of Hebrews changes the concept of a COVENANT (i.e. a TWO-PARTY
AGREEMENT) into the concept of A WILL (i.e. a one-party agreement). A
Covenant is binding on both parties, and both parties have responsibilities
in a Covenant. A will is only binding on one party, and only one party has
any responsibilities.
Haven't quite figured out how this one fits into the Essene picture.
Hmmmmm.
4) The author of Hebrews SKIPS the Millennium and jumps to the End of the
World, whereas Jesus, Paul, and John all treated the End of the Age and the
End of the World as TWO SEPARATE EVENTS (filled by the "happy kingdom"
prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah et al).
Who taught the imminent "End of the World" war between the righteous and
wicked, the angels and demons, and God and Satan?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
5) Hebrews teaches the traditional seven-literal-days-past creation account
[ch 4], but John's Revelation says that creation is still ongoing (i.e. "for
you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were
created"), which means the seven days of creation are Macrocosmic (creation
days), not Microcosmic (literal days).
Who was an ultra-tradition faction of Judaism that taught strict biblical
literalism?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
6) Hebrews 6 & 12 speaks of striving for perfection in the flesh by works
and laws, which was Asceticism, i.e. the concept that we are saved for sins
past by the Gospel (or, in the case of the Essenes, ritual baptism and
cleansing), but NOT sins future.
There's those Essenes again.
Hmmmmm.
********
Now, there are many good observations in Hebrews, but someone was playing it
fast and loose with their eschatological and theological claims, and it is
especially disturbing that whoever the author insinuated that he was Paul,
and copied from Paul's writings, too, when Paul was martyred before the
temple was destroyed, and Revelation was written soon afterward, with this
book coming up a distant third.
Ike
Sam taylor
>
> "Pastor Dave"
> > What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
> > may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
> > in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
> > chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
> > their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
> > the promise to retain the land was conditional
> > (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
> > was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>
Randy RULE1 in LOGIC
"just because You believe something does NOT make it so".
truth is an does not depend on Your acceptance to exist.
It is what Does G-D believe, not what You believe.
Sam
> I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining
the
> land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
> giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
> even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can
indeed
> ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
> Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land forever when
they
> come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
> themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed
at
> some point receive the land forever.
>
> > Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the
> > patriarchs were in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves
> > as sojourners and strangers. They never claimed it as their
> > home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They died in faith, as strangers
> > and pilgrims in the land, looking for the land which God
> > promised them, 11:13-16.
>
> Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the
fulfillment
> of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the form of a
> *nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single family he
> believed God that this inheritance would take place in the future, and he
> was, in fact, a sojourner.
>
> The critical element here is that we are not to seek an inheritance in the
> world *as it presently is,* with sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a
> completely new creation, in which sin is completely expunged from this
> world. That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God." This Kingdom
> presently exists in our midst, in a spiritual sense, for wherever God
> exists, there His authority exists as well. But the Kingdom is one day
going
> to include a place for God's people, where they will live on earth without
> sin, forever and ever. We are indeed to look forward to and hope for this
> "world."
>
> > Second, Jesus ties his own eschatological hopes not to the
> > earthly Promised Land. Though a king, he did not rule a
> > kingdom of "this world" (John 18:36) but, like other Jews,
> > to this new Creation the life of "the world to come"....
>
> Jesus was already a king when he came to earth the first time. He just did
> not exercise all of his authority as king. He could've immediately judged
> the world. He could've destroyed it and all of its sinners within it. But
he
> didn't, because he wanted to give us an opportunity to find mercy.
>
> So Jesus did indeed come into the world as a king, even though it is true
he
> has not yet fully brought to earth his Kingdom. When he does bring it to
> earth, Israel's eternal inheritance will be fulfilled, along with all of
> those who have joined with Israel in this hope. The hope is not just to
> inherit the land of Canaan, but more, the entire earth. As Jesus said,
"the
> meek shall inherit the earth."
>
> This does not mean that Jesus failed to fulfil David's hope to have an
> eternal kingdom. It's just that the kingdom that would fulfil this eternal
> kingdom would be different than that of all the kings who preceded the
> Messiah. This kingdom would come with a divine Messiah, whose authority
> would exceed a single kingdom. And Jesus' authority is indeed far beyond
any
> earthly kingdom, encompassing the entire universe and all that God rules
> over. This kingdom is already in our midst spiritually, and attainable by
> legal means. But we will not fully enjoy its comforts until God sends it
in
> His own time.
> randy
>
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with the
>> full intent that it will expand internationally.
> Which wasn't exactly what Jeremiah was talking about.
I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
> It will occur in the restoration, starting with the THIRD Israel, which is
> what Jeremiah was REALLY talking about.
Jeremiah is not talking in duplicate communications. That is not how
language works.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>When the Scriptures refer to the *heavenly* Kingdom, they were not
>>excluding
>>the earth and physical realities. On the contrary, heavenly realities are
>>what can turn our temporal world into a concrete, eternal reality. We look
>>to heaven because we look to God's seat of power, to His authority to be
>>able to remake our world into an everlasting habitation for men. Right now
>>it is just our temporary dwelling, because we are mortal. But in the
>>future,
>>God will make earth into our eternal home, if we have chosen Christ as our
>>guide.
> I don't want to hear your "they were not excluding what
> I want to believe" arguments, which is all they are!
> They were not excluding pink elephants! That doesn't
> mean they were saying they are real!
> And furthermore, you prove that your belief is nothing
> more than what you want to believe, when you have
> to turn to arguments like "they were not excluding..."!
> Why do you keep claiming to base your beliefs on Scripture
> and then snipping the Scripture that proves you wrong?
I snip Scriptures you refer to after I've already addressed them. They do
not prove me wrong. They do include the physical earth and physical
realities. Your point is that use of the word "heaven" necessarily excludes
the earth. It does not. Heaven is just a reference to God, who remakes the
physical earth.
> Here it is again...
> Hebrews 11:13-16
> 13) These all died in faith, not having received
> the promises, but having seen them afar off
> and were persuaded of them, and embraced
> them and confessed that they were strangers
> and pilgrims on the earth.
> 14) For they that say such things declare plainly
> that they seek a country.
> 15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that
> country from whence they came out, they might
> have had opportunity to have returned.
> 16) But now they desire a better country, that is,
> an Heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to
> be called their God: for he hath prepared for them
> a city.
I've already addressed that. Like Abraham they were mere sojourners on
earth. It isn't as if their hope was in heaven, and not on a renewed earth.
All of the promises they hoped in involved a renewed physical earth.
My point was that Abraham and his descendants were focused upon an *eternal*
inheritance on the earth. When they took possession of the land of Canaan
temporarily, it did not indicate that their hope was to be in a nonphysical
earth. On the contrary, it was to be hope in a *renewed* physical earth that
endures forever.
>>We have already received our spiritual endowment.
> It does not say that the physical comes later. It says
> that it came first. But what is clear, is that you place
> your hope in the physical and not the spiritual.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The resurrection of Christ, his
*physical* resurrection, has already taken place. Our spiritual endowment
has already taken place as well. We already possess the Holy Spirit as a
downpayment on our eternal inheritance. Inheriting the earth *forever* has
yet to take place, when the earth is physically renewed. But we already own
a stake in it.
>>On the contrary, Jesus said a day will come when the dead will rise. And
>>those who remain alive will be caught up to be transformed into immortal
>>creatures. Our eternal fellowship with God will be dignified by our
>>receiving eternal bodies so that we will live forever on a new earth.
> It does not say that is a physical event and it does not
> say that we will live forever here on Earth...
When the earth is referred to, you have to assume that is what is being
idenitfied, and not some kind of "spiritual" rendition of heaven. The
Kingdom of God is viewed as descending from heaven in the book of
Revelation. The New Jerusalem is viewed as coming down "out of heaven" from
God in the future. And if it comes down "out of heaven," then obviously
we're talking about the earth!
Elsewhere, the Scriptures speak of the earth being man's eternal habitation.
The presence of sin on earth has to be dealt with, however. So technically,
the earth will be "changed."
> Your hope is in the physical, not the spiritual,
> even though Scripture constantly teaches
> the opposite!...
The Scriptures connect spiritual values with earthly realities. If you
don't, you're living an artificial existence. Scriptures are rooted in
concrete realities--not just in theoretical concepts.
randy
randy
"Sam taylor"
randy
>> "Pastor Dave"
>> > What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
>> > may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
>> > in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
>> > chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
>> > their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>> > the promise to retain the land was conditional
>> > (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
>> > was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
> Randy RULE1 in LOGIC
> "just because You believe something does NOT make it so".
> truth is an does not depend on Your acceptance to exist.
> It is what Does G-D believe, not what You believe.
Sam, you quoted Pastor Dave, and then addressed me as if I said it.
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
> You just DISPLAYED your prejudice by saying "Christian spirituality," as
> if Israel will be joined to Christianity, when the believing Gentiles will
> be GRAFTED INTO THE ROOT OF ISRAEL, and NOT the other way around.
The root of Israel is "Israel's God." We, the Gentile nations, are not
granfted into national Israel. We are grafted into Israel's inheritance,
into the God of Israel. And national Israel has yet to be restored to their
God by accepting His Son, which Gentile nations have already accepted. None
of this has anything to do with prejudice. Israelis are just as welcome to
accept Christ as Gentiles have been down through the ages.
randy
Sam taylor
but let me add that Abraham married a 3rd woman
Keturah... a Kottish (black) woman whom bore Him
Sons and Daughters. these to inherited the Abrahamic blessings. as much as
ALL his seed.
you impute that multiple blessing as a blessing to ONE,
but in fact it is also a Blessing to ALL his seed.
along with the blessing of 1
Many nations could be abrahams seed not just Muslims and us Jews.
Sam taylor
Even before the Tribe of Levi even had a low priest
let alone a high priest moses ran into jethro a high
priest of YHWH, and later married his daughter
YHWH was going to kill Aaron, and Miriam for being Racist, but moses
interviened on their behalf.
but YHWH still afflicted them for it for awhile.
Who seed was Jethro?
I kinda think it was Abraham's seed through Keturah the Kottish Woman.
(note Kottish not scottish)
Then Abraham taught her Son's and daughters about
the Worship of YHWH, before the 12 tribes in the Wilderness, and Even moses
himself before
the Exodus.
"Sam taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:OSzRm.62651$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
vince garcia
>
> Randy,
> Even before the Tribe of Levi even had a low priest
> let alone a high priest moses ran into jethro a high
> priest of YHWH,
Uh, you have that way way wrong. He was a Midianite priest, and they
horrible idolators.
see Mekhilta Yitro, 1 for some jewish observations on this
But he did convert, yes
and later married his daughter
> YHWH was going to kill Aaron, and Miriam for being Racist, but moses
> interviened on their behalf.
> but YHWH still afflicted them for it for awhile.
> Who seed was Jethro?
> I kinda think it was Abraham's seed through Keturah the Kottish Woman.
> (note Kottish not scottish)
That's nice. Judges 1:16 says he was a kenite
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with the
>>> full intent that it will expand internationally.
>
>> Which wasn't exactly what Jeremiah was talking about.
>
> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant "is
to come."
First "Israel:" Israelites of the Old Testament.
Second "Israel:" Christianity.
Third "Israel:" Yet to come, starting with God's dualistic Remnant.
>> It will occur in the restoration, starting with the THIRD Israel, which
>> is what Jeremiah was REALLY talking about.
>
> Jeremiah is not talking in duplicate communications. That is not how
> language works.
It's how prophecy works, moron, and therein lies the crux of your problem...
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The
temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Now, this prophecy meant one thing to Jeremiah, but it means something
ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT in the grand scheme of things...
There was a temple that "was" until 587 BC: It was NOT the Temple of the
Lord.
There was a temple that "is" until 70 AD: It was NOT the Temple of the Lord,
EITHER.
And there will be a temple that "will be:" It won't be the Temple of the
Lord anymore than the FIRST two were: JESUS' BODY is the "Temple of the
Lord," and the believers are His "New Jerusalem."
That's why John can quote Jeremiah (and pretty much every other prophet of
the Bible) in a new context as if the OLD contexts NEVER OCCURRED--but they
DID occur (twice actually) which is why HISTORICISM is a FAILED APPROACH TO
PROPHECY.
But you, being the clueless one, have to equate prophecy with human
"language" when it is DEVINE language, and its sayings mean much more than
your pithy one-dimensional thinking can handle.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>
>> You just DISPLAYED your prejudice by saying "Christian spirituality," as
>> if Israel will be joined to Christianity, when the believing Gentiles
>> will be GRAFTED INTO THE ROOT OF ISRAEL, and NOT the other way around.
>
> The root of Israel is "Israel's God." We, the Gentile nations, are not
> granfted into national Israel.
The hell they're not.
Isa 66:5-11
Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word:
Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake,
said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they
shall be ashamed.
A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD
that rendereth recompense to his enemies:
Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was
delivered of a man child.
Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be
made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once?
For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the
LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.
Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her:
rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her, that ye may suck, and
be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and
be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
Your displaying your SATANIC REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY AGAIN.
> We are grafted into Israel's inheritance, into the God of Israel.
BULLSHIT.
THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, Satan...
Rom 11:13-24
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the
Gentiles, I magnify mine office, if by any means I may provoke to emulation
them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be
holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and THOU, being A WILD OLIVE
TREE, wert GRAFFED IN AMONG THEM, and with them partakest of the root and
fatness of the olive tree, boast not against the branches. But if thou
boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by
faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the NATURAL
BRANCHES, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell,
severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still
in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and
wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall
these, which be the natural branches, be graffed INTO THEIR OWN olive tree?
YOU BLASPHEME GOD WITH YOUR SATANIC COVENANTALISM, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OF
HISTORICISM.
THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GUESTS IN THE "OLIVE TREE" OF ISRAEL. THEY DON'T
"REPLACE" ISRAEL; THEY BECOME IT.
> And national Israel has yet to be restored to their God by accepting His
> Son, which Gentile nations have already accepted.
Time is totally irrelevant.
> None of this has anything to do with prejudice.
NO, IT'S YOUR PREJUDICE, YOU NAZI REPLACEMENT THEOLOGIST.
IN FACT, MOST OF THE HUMILIATIONS OF THE JEWS THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH AGE WERE
A DIRECT RESULT OF YOUR FALSE DOCTRINES, Satan.
> Israelis are just as welcome to accept Christ as Gentiles have been down
> through the ages.
How fucking "white" of you to invite Israel to its own party.
Thanks for proving that Historicism and Covenantalism were two of the
greatest mistakes in the history of the churches.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snip]
> Randy, I did that as I agree with Dave!
> but let me add that Abraham married a 3rd woman
> Keturah... a Kottish (black) woman whom bore Him
> Sons and Daughters. these to inherited the Abrahamic blessings.
WRONG.
The blessings of Abraham were through the children of Abraham BY Sarah, NOT
by Hagar or any other woman.
Ga 4:22-31
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the
other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the
flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise: Which things are an allegory:
for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar: For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia,
and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her
children; but Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
all.
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth
and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children
than she which hath an husband.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise; but as then
he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the
Spirit, even so it is now.
Nevertheless what saith the scripture?
Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall
not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free.
SARAH was the gateway to the promises of Abraham, NOT ANY OF HIS OTHER
WIVES.
[snippeth]
Ike
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> I snip Scriptures you refer to after I've already
> addressed them.
That's a lie.
>> Here it is again...
>> Hebrews 11:13-16
>> 13) These all died in faith, not having received
>> the promises, but having seen them afar off
>> and were persuaded of them, and embraced
>> them and confessed that they were strangers
>> and pilgrims on the earth.
>> 14) For they that say such things declare plainly
>> that they seek a country.
>> 15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that
>> country from whence they came out, they might
>> have had opportunity to have returned.
>> 16) But now they desire a better country, that is,
>> an Heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to
>> be called their God: for he hath prepared for them
>> a city.
>
> I've already addressed that.
No, you've said what you wish were true,
while ignoring the Scripture.
> Like Abraham they were mere sojourners
> on earth. It isn't as if their hope was in
> heaven, and not on a renewed earth.
> All of the promises they hoped in involved
> a renewed physical earth.
>
> My point was that Abraham and his descendants
> were focused upon an *eternal* inheritance on
> the earth.
That's a lie as well. It clearly says that their hope
was in a Heavenly city, not a physical place and
it says it right in the passages quoted above and
in the following:
"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
innumerable company of angels" - Hebrews 12:22
The truth is, you don't care what Scripture says.
You are only concerned with your human existence.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Ever has it been, that love does not know its own depth,
until the pain of separation.
Sam taylor
"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hf7n8q$bbd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Sam taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote in message
> news:OSzRm.62651$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Randy, I did that as I agree with Dave!
> > but let me add that Abraham married a 3rd woman
> > Keturah... a Kottish (black) woman whom bore Him
> > Sons and Daughters. these to inherited the Abrahamic blessings.
>
> WRONG.
>
> The blessings of Abraham were through the children of Abraham BY Sarah,
NOT
> by Hagar or any other woman.
Abraham blessed ALL his Children by ALL 3
Women We know bore Him Children!
ABRAHAM NEVER CURSED ANY OF HIS CHILDREN!
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
> Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant "is
> to come."
I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications. ;)
Frankly, you're missing the point. Jeremiah spoke of when the new covenant
would take place for the nation Israel. That event takes place *long after*
Jesus initially established the new covenant, at the time of his death.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> My point was that Abraham and his descendants
>> were focused upon an *eternal* inheritance on
>> the earth.
> That's a lie as well. It clearly says that their hope
> was in a Heavenly city, not a physical place and
> it says it right in the passages quoted above and
> in the following:
> "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
> of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
> innumerable company of angels" - Hebrews 12:22
You've ignored my point. What I said in that post was that heavenly
references do not exclude earthly realities. Identifying a heavenly Kingdom
is not excluding the physical earth. It is rather pointing out the *origin*
of the new earth, which is to come from heaven!
When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem as coming down from heaven,
the obvious indication is that it will be set up *on the earth.* Otherwise,
you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> The root of Israel is "Israel's God." We, the Gentile nations, are not
>> granfted into national Israel.
> The hell they're not.
> Isa 66:5-11...
Isa 66 does not say otherwise. Gentile nations are *never* grafted onto the
Israeli nation, biblically. We are joined together mystically through our
mutual union in Christ. But nations by definition remain distinct. As long
as there are nations, the Israeli nation will be distinct from the Gentile
nations.
>> We are grafted into Israel's inheritance, into the God of Israel.
> BULLSHIT. THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, Satan... Rom
> 11:13-24...
That passage does not say Gentile believers are grafted into Israel. In
Paul's theology we are grafted into their *spiritual tradition*--not into
their *nation!* Nations have always remained distinct. To deny that is the
height of absurdity!
In Paul's theology we are united in Christ spiritually--no matter what
nation we belong to. There is one new man in Christianity, the man Jesus
Christ, because he is the exclusive source of our spirituality--no matter
what nation we come from. We are not joined into a single Jewish nation. On
the contrary, we have become a new "nation," in a sense, a new united people
without national distinctions. None of this has anything to do with national
distinctions that continue to exist on earth. There is still an Israeli
nation, and there are still Christian nations distinct from Israel.
> How fucking "white" of you to invite Israel to its own party.
If we can't discuss things without using crude language, we should call it
quits.
randy
randy
"Sam taylor"
randy
>> Sam, you quoted Pastor Dave, and then addressed me as if I said it.
> Randy, I did that as I agree with Dave!
Doing that, Sam, I'm unable to understand what your particular argument is.
You quote nothing that *I said* that you disagree with. So how am I to
address that?
> but let me add that Abraham married a 3rd woman
> Keturah... a Kottish (black) woman whom bore Him
> Sons and Daughters. these to inherited the Abrahamic blessings. as much as
> ALL his seed.
> you impute that multiple blessing as a blessing to ONE,
> but in fact it is also a Blessing to ALL his seed.
> along with the blessing of 1
> Many nations could be abrahams seed not just Muslims and us Jews.
I'm not clear as to what your argument is, since I'm a little slow getting
back to this discussion. But I can discuss where I disagree with the quote
you cited from Dave. He said...
"There is an implicit acknowledgment in the Old Testament that the land did
not belong to God's chosen people because of their race, but as a result
from their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words, the promise
to retain the land was conditional (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive
the land was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5."
I don't agree with this because God promised Abraham a *biologically-based*
inheritance. His biological children, counted through his biological son
Isaac, would inherit a nation in the land of Canaan. If this is not *race* I
don't know what is!
At the same time I do agree with Dave that the covenant was based on a
"covenant relationship." The Law was given for this specific purpose, to
determine who qualified under covenant conditions, and who did not. Those
who disqualified themselves from the covenant, even if it involved the whole
nation, were exiled. And clearly, that is what happened during the
Babylonian Captivity. The entire nation was excluded!
But that didn't mean that Israel failed to receive their inheritance. A new
covenant was established by which this inheritance could be completed, even
if it didn't succeed under the Law. The new covenant of Christ was given for
precisely this reason, so that what wasn't fulfilled under the Law could now
be fulfilled by Christ. The reason being, only Christ could raise from the
dead and grant immortality to Israel. The Law was never intended to do
anything more than prepare Israel for this eternal inheritance.
The other point I disagreed with Dave on concerned the fact Israel did *not*
obtain their eternal inheritance when they initially inherited Canaan. That
was merely a *temporary* inheritance, since it eventually became clear that
Israel could never obtain their land permanently under conditions of the
Sinaitic covenant.
randy
duke
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
>news:qYudnW6ocqMZOYvW...@wavecable.com...
>>
>> "Ike E 11/23/9"
>> randy
>>>> The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with the
>>>> full intent that it will expand internationally.
>>
>>> Which wasn't exactly what Jeremiah was talking about.
>>
>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
>
>Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant "is
>to come."
>First "Israel:" Israelites of the Old Testament.
>Second "Israel:" Christianity.
>Third "Israel:" Yet to come, starting with God's dualistic Remnant.
I've asked you this before, herman, and you foolishly ran away.
What is the "covenant to come" and when?
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Ah, even the dreams must be literal.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Ike E 11/23/9"
>randy
>>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
>
>> Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant "is
>> to come."
>
>I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications. ;)
It's no worse than you adding words into Revelation
and stating doctrines as truth, that can't be found
and stating a delay of thousands of years, while
admitting that you do indeed add to and/or change
Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
***************************************************************************************
PD: The real difference between our beliefs, is that
when I show someone the words of Jesus and
they do show what He said about the "when",
you must come up with ways to reword what
He said and you add to it, to try to make it say
the opposite, telling me "what Jesus really meant",
as if He somehow was not capable of saying what
He actually meant.
RANDY: I don't deny that.
***************************************************************************************
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
1 Corinthians 1:7-8
7) So that *YE* come behind in no gift;
WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that *YE* may be blameless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hf7n8q$bbd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Sam taylor" <cyg...@cncnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:OSzRm.62651$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Randy, I did that as I agree with Dave!
>> > but let me add that Abraham married a 3rd woman
>> > Keturah... a Kottish (black) woman whom bore Him
>> > Sons and Daughters. these to inherited the Abrahamic blessings.
>>
>> WRONG.
>>
>> The blessings of Abraham were through the children of Abraham BY Sarah,
> NOT
>> by Hagar or any other woman.
> WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!
Better go back and read your Bible again.
> Abraham blessed ALL his Children by ALL 3
> Women We know bore Him Children!
> ABRAHAM NEVER CURSED ANY OF HIS CHILDREN!
Maybe, but GOD didn't...
NOTICE NO RESPONSE TO THE PLAIN SCRIPTURAL FACTS CITED ABOVE.
Ike
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> My point was that Abraham and his descendants
>>> were focused upon an *eternal* inheritance on
>>> the earth.
>>
>> That's a lie as well. It clearly says that their hope
>> was in a Heavenly city, not a physical place and
>> it says it right in the passages quoted above and
>> in the following:
>>
>> "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city
>> of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an
>> innumerable company of angels" - Hebrews 12:22
>
> You've ignored my point.
No, I dealt with it and I tossed it out as the garbage
that it was and did so in detail.
> What I said in that post was that heavenly references
> do not exclude earthly realities.
No, you said that the spiritual came first and then
the physical. The opposite is true according to
the passages from Scripture. Scripture teaches
us to look to the spiritual. You want us to look
to the physical.
Furthermore, you are now trying to pretend that
a proper Scriptural argument is to say that what
you want to believe is true, because when the
Bible says something is a certain way, that doesn't
mean that the opposite is excluded. That's ridiculous!
The fact is, when the Bible says that first came
the physical and that those people were in the
land they were promised and yet, considered
themselves to be "strangers and sojourners"
in that same land, specifically because what
they were looking for/toward, was a Heavenly
city, then yes, that does mean that the opposite
is not the case! That's exactly what it means
and trying to argue that whatever you want
to believe is true, because it isn't excluded
(which is wrong anyway), is not a proper
Scriptural argument and we both know it.
If you want to play that game, then I can believe
that God used pink elephants to do most of the
work of His creation, while He ordered them to
do what He wanted. After all, just because the
Bible says that God created it all, that doesn't
exclude the belief that He used them to help.
If you want to play that game, why don't we all
believe in evolution? After all, believing that God
created it all, doesn't exclude evolution, right?
The problem is, that it does and when one examines
the order of creation, one sees that they cannot both
be true. Especially since evolution has the Sun being
made before the Earth and the Bible has the Earth
being created before the Sun. And in the same way,
the physical first and then the spiritual, which is what
the Bible says, as I proved, does exclude the spiritual
first and then the physical! They cannot both be true!
And that's the point. One does exclude the other!
And if there's one thing that is completely certain in
the Scriptures, it's that the physical came first for us,
in "shadows and types" which represented the spiritual.
And that rules out your desire to make it all about the
physical, because your focus is in the Earth, instead
of in Heaven, which is where those in the passages
were properly placing their focus (in Heaven).
> Identifying a heavenly Kingdom is not excluding
> the physical earth. It is rather pointing out the
> *origin* of the new earth, which is to come from
> heaven!
No, sorry. Not when Jesus specifically said that
His Kingdom would NOT be seen with the eye
and could NOT be pointed at!
Luke 17:20-21
20) And when He was demanded of the Pharisees,
when the Kingdom of God should come, He answered
them and said; The Kingdom of God cometh NOT
with observation:
21) NEITHER shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there!
For, behold, the Kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU.
He said they WOULD NOT (future tense) be able
to point at it and say, "There it is!". And that
most definitely excludes the physical, since if it
were physical, one could most definitely point
at it and say, "There it is!".
Sorry, you lose and your, "It doesn't exclude it"
argument is lame and fails on its face!
> When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem
> as coming down from heaven, the obvious indication
> is that it will be set up *on the earth.* Otherwise,
> you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
The city is not a literal, physical city and the Bible
says that it is something else.
You Futurists take what even Futurists admit is
the most symbolic book in the Bible and then
try to make it all literal! How lame can you get?!
But before looking at the passages, let us recognize
two Scriptural facts...
1) The Lamb is Christ.
2) The bride of Christ is the church.
Now let's take a look at the passages and see what
they actually tell us:
Revelation 21:9-10
2) Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as
a bride adorned for her husband.
9) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls
filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked
with me, saying, Come, I will show you the bride, the
Lamb�s wife.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and
high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy
Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God
Now let's look at what the above passages say...
1) The angel tells John that he will show John
"the bride, the Lamb's wife" (v9).
2) The Lamb is Christ. Therefore, the angel
is going to show John the bride of Christ.
3) The bride of Christ, as we know, is the church.
4) The angel shows John the New Jerusalem (v10).
5) Conclusion: The New Jerusalem is the church
and not a literal city, since the angel was showing
John the bride of Christ and showed him the
New Jerusalem.
Now after reading these passages, having been shown
these facts, what do we do with the belief that it is a
physically literal city? Should we hang on to it? Or
should we abandon it?
Well, that depends on whether Scripture determines
if our doctrine is correct, or if we would rather filter
Scripture through our doctrine and don't care if our
doctrine is in contradiction to Scripture, because our
doctrine is the most important thing to us.
Shouldn't we admit to ourselves that Revelation has
explained the symbolism of this "New Jerusalem"
and that Revelation itself tells us clearly that this
New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, which we know
is the church and therefore, cannot be a literal city?
Or should we insist that Christ married a literal city,
because we do not want to give up our doctrine? (:
Those are our only two options.
The fact is, that the text clearly says that it is
a symbolic representation of the bride being
wed to the Lamb and as we all know, the bride
is the church and the Lamb is Christ.
Now unless you want to claim that Jesus marries
a physical city, you have nothing! And oddly
enough, some Futurists are so desperate to
hang on to their doctrine, that they will actually
say yes, when I show them what it actually says!
This is very simple stuff! The new Jerusalem represents
the church and the new Jerusalem coming down from
Heaven represents the wedding of the bride (the church)
to the Lamb (Christ). It's that simple. And it's that simple,
because that's what the Bible says it is!
It isn't a physical city that comes down. It is the Kingdom
of God being established after the old Mosaic temple is
taken out of the way.
Hebrews also tells us this, when it says that it is about
a new covenant being established when the old one
is completely removed and it tells us this in the very
same verse that Futurists think is about the destruction
of the planet:
"In that he saith; A new COVENANT, he hath made
the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth
old is READY to vanish away." - Hebrews 8:13
It was about a new COVENANT replacing the old,
not a new planet replacing the old! And as Hebrews
also says, it was READY to vanish! And that's because
as Hebrews also says, they were in the last days THEN!
The following was written in the 1st century, not the 21st!
Hebrews 1:1-2
1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2) Hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken unto us by
His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds.
Sorry pal, you're out of gas and all you keep doing,
is snipping out more and more Scripture and telling
us your belief "isn't excluded"! Puhlease! Pathetic!
When all you can do is snip Scripture and say, "Is too!",
then you have no argument! And that is why what we
don't see from you, is Scripture, but rather, just you
desperately trying to cling to your doctrine! Sad! (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Weakness of faith ought not be mistaken for falseness
of promise." - Unknown
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
>
>> Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant
>> "is to come."
>
> I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications.
Then you're not interested in what GOD says, only what YOU say (which has
been the problem all along).
> ;)
> Frankly, you're missing the point.
No, YOU are.
Jeremiah prophesied for his day (or so he thought). If a version of his
prophecies had not come true, THE JEWS WOULD HAVE STONED HIM AS A FALSE
PROPHET, AND DISREGARDED HIS PROPHECIES.
And yet JOHN quotes Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER THE FACT, as if HIS
PROPHECIES HADN'T BEEN FULFILLED AT ALL.
Why is that?
MULTIPLICITY.
[snip the rest of the fools Historicist nonsense]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
Moron: Everything in the last three chapters of Revelation is METAPHOR for
that which is ETERNAL.
Idiot.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b9iqh599hpipu43fp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:09:27 -0600, "Ike E 11/23/9"
> <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
>>news:qYudnW6ocqMZOYvW...@wavecable.com...
>>>
>>> "Ike E 11/23/9"
>>> randy
>>>>> The new covenant was initiated by Jesus and given to the church with
>>>>> the
>>>>> full intent that it will expand internationally.
>>>
>>>> Which wasn't exactly what Jeremiah was talking about.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
>>
>>Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant "is
>>to come."
>
>>First "Israel:" Israelites of the Old Testament.
>>Second "Israel:" Christianity.
>>Third "Israel:" Yet to come, starting with God's dualistic Remnant.
>
> I've asked you this before, herman, and you foolishly ran away.
>
> What is the "covenant to come" and when?
Your question is what's foolish, moron.
Mr 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
It'll come when it comes. But it WILL come.
Ike
Sam taylor
G-D made a Covenate with Abraham
that ALL his seed would Be a Blessing
to the world, NOT JUST ISRAEL.
yes ISRAEL has a preminate Blessing Over and above
the Others
BUT ALL ABRAHAMS CHILDREN WERE BLESSED BY YHWH!
that means all 3 women We know bore him children
sons and daughters.news:S5mdneGo7e6zkYDW...@wavecable.com...
Ike E 11/23/9
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> The root of Israel is "Israel's God." We, the Gentile nations, are not
>>> granfted into national Israel.
>
>> The hell they're not.
>
>> Isa 66:5-11...
>
> Isa 66 does not say otherwise. Gentile nations are *never* grafted onto
> the Israeli nation, biblically.
Bullshit.
That's what the THIRD Israel will be all about...
> We are joined together mystically through our mutual union in Christ.
Once again, the lies of your Nazi Covenantalism rear their ugly heads.
What God speaks of the ultimate "Israel," He speaks LITERALLY,
INTELLECTUALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY AT THE SAME TIME, beast.
> But nations by definition remain distinct. As long as there are nations,
> the Israeli nation will be distinct from the Gentile nations.
"You say."
The Word doesn't.
The three-part mission of the Remnant:
Rev 14:6-12
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to EVERY
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear
God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and
worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of
waters.
And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen,
that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath
of her fornication.
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in
his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is
poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in
the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for
ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast
and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
A sq plus B sq = C sq.
>>> We are grafted into Israel's inheritance, into the God of Israel.
>
>> BULLSHIT. THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, Satan... Rom
>> 11:13-24...
>
> That passage does not say Gentile believers are grafted into Israel.
IT DOES TO, Satan.
> In Paul's theology we are grafted into their *spiritual tradition*--not
> into their *nation!*
BULLSHIT.
THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL,
PHYSICALLY, INTELLECTUALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY.
See, it's YOUR COVENANTALISM LIES that lead to you to BLASPHEME GOD WITH
YOUR WORDS, Satan.
[snip the rest of the moron's attempts to ALLEGORIZE the LITERAL]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9jrh5d1fajdm172m...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:39:47 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Ike E 11/23/9"
>>randy
>>>> I'm talking about the new covenant in general--not just in the sense
>>>> Jeremiah applied it to national Israel.
>>
>>> Which is your error: A covenant "was," a covenant "is," and a covenant
>>> "is
>>> to come."
>>
>>I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications. ;)
>
> It's no worse than you adding words into Revelation
> and stating doctrines as truth, that can't be found
> and stating a delay of thousands of years, while
> admitting that you do indeed add to and/or change
> Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
How can something that's "right" be "worse."
Just because you two are too stupid to see what God is doing doesn't mean
everyone else is.
"That which has been is now, and that which is to be has already become, and
God requires that which is past."
[snippeth]
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
> Randy
> G-D made a Covenate with Abraham
> that ALL his seed would Be a Blessing
> to the world, NOT JUST ISRAEL.
Yes. Through SARAH.
Ga 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and
her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the
freewoman.
The ONLY heirs of the promise were THROUGH THE LINE OF ABRAHAM BY SARAH.
Any extension to the Gentiles beyond that is THROUGH CHRISTIANITY.
The other women are irrelevant.
Ike
Ike E 11/23/9
[snippeth]
> No, sorry. Not when Jesus specifically said that
> His Kingdom would NOT be seen with the eye
> and could NOT be pointed at!
In His delivery to the Sanhedrin, NOT in His delivery to the DISCIPLES.
But, of course, you ignore the fact that Luke SPLIT the conversation along
TWO lines...
<chuckleth and snippeth>
Ike
Sam taylor
Sarah/hagaar?& Keturah
all His children were blessed by YHWH
and by Abraham.
your Doctrins are unscriptual
"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfo9vg$o97$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ike E 11/23/9
> ABRAHAM HAD 3 who bore Him Children
> Sarah/hagaar?& Keturah
> all His children were blessed by YHWH
> and by Abraham.
> your Doctrins are unscriptual
One more time for the dolt...
Romans 9:6-13
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not
all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: but, IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. That
is, They which are the children of the flesh, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF
GOD: BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara
shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac--For the children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth--It was said unto her,
The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
The OTHER children of Abraham were THE INFILTRATORS WHO CORRUPTED ISRAEL
THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
In fact, by the time Jesus came, there were ALMOST NO "ISRAELITES" LEFT
because of INFILTRATORS.
Hence, it's YOUR doctrines WHICH ARE UNSCRIPTURAL, infiltrator: THERE IS NO
OTHER "SEED OF ABRAHAM" APART FROM THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM AND SARAH (and,
by extension, the Gentile believers).
In fact, Paul even says ONLY their children ARE THE CHILDREN OF God--the
OTHERS are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL, just like Jesus said.
Ike
Sam taylor
Abraham was the Father of MANY Nations not just 1
but by those NATIONS were given Blessing of YHWH
"Ike E 11/23/9" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfp555$rk3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ike E 11/23/9
>I did NOT SAY they were all Israel!!!
> Abraham was the Father of MANY Nations not just 1
> but by those NATIONS were given Blessing of YHWH
Once again for the dolt...
Romans 9:6-13
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not
all Israel, which are of Israel, neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: but, IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. That
is, They which are the children of the flesh, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF
GOD: BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara
shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac--For the children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth--it was said unto her,
The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.
The OTHER children of Abraham were THE INFILTRATORS WHO CORRUPTED ISRAEL
THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
In fact, by the time Jesus came, there were ALMOST NO "ISRAELITES" LEFT
because of INFILTRATORS.
Hence, it's YOUR doctrines WHICH ARE UNSCRIPTURAL, infiltrator: THERE IS NO
OTHER "SEED OF ABRAHAM" APART FROM THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM AND SARAH (and,
by extension, the Gentile believers). In fact, Paul even says ONLY their
children ARE THE CHILDREN OF God--the OTHERS are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL, just
like Jesus said.
So your intention is to promote the children of the Devil?
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications. ;)
> It's no worse than you adding words into Revelation
> and stating doctrines as truth, that can't be found
> and stating a delay of thousands of years, while
> admitting that you do indeed add to and/or change
> Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
I'm not adding anything into Revelation. Revelation makes reference to the
salvation of a remnant of Israel. *All* Israel is represented in this
reference to a remnant from *all* tribes in Israel. It is a clear indication
that the entire nation of Israel is to be saved, at the end of the age.
Rev 7:2 Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the
seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels
who had been given power to harm earth and sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the
earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God
upon their foreheads." 4 And I heard the number of the sealed, a hundred and
forty-four thousand sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel...
As to the idea that national salvation for Israel is separated from the time
of Jesus, I think both Jesus made that clear and the OT prophets made that
clear. In the prophets we read that judgment upon Israel can last for a
long, long time...
Hosea 3:4 For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or
prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward
the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David
their king; and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in
the latter days.
And Jesus clearly recognized the import of what his apostles asked of him...
Acts 1:6 So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at
this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them, "It is not for
you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own
authority. 8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon
you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria
and to the end of the earth."
It therefore seems clear that Jesus expected the nation Israel to be
recovered as a direct result of the ministry of his gospel. When the message
has been fully communicated on earth, the nation Israel will be gathered
together again, in fulfillment of what the prophets predicted. First
righteousness has to be established among the peoples. And then the nation
can properly be reconstituted along righteous principles.
randy
randy
"duke"
randy
>>When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem as coming down from heaven,
>>the obvious indication is that it will be set up *on the earth.*
>>Otherwise,
>>you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
> Ah, even the dreams must be literal.
If you literally dream something, obviously you're literally dreaming. If
you have a prophetic dream, the dream suggests something that is literally
going to happen. John had a number of visions. The visions were literal, and
the realities they foretold will literally come to pass, yes. Get on board
the ship, Duke! ;)
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> You've ignored my point.
> No, I dealt with it and I tossed it out as the garbage
> that it was and did so in detail.
That's a little hypocritical of you, Dave, when you spend a large percentage
of your time railing against how I snip up your conversations! I do the very
same thing. I snip out repetitious or excessively emotional material, and
facts I consider irrelevant or diversionary.
>> What I said in that post was that heavenly references
>> do not exclude earthly realities.
> No, you said that the spiritual came first and then
> the physical. The opposite is true according to
> the passages from Scripture. Scripture teaches
> us to look to the spiritual. You want us to look
> to the physical.
Once again, I said heavenly references do not exclude earthly realities. The
temporary inheritance of Canaan by Israel was not the eternal inheritance
that was promised by God. It was only a partial fulfillment of what God
meant ultimately to be permanent. The heavenly Kingdom is therefore meant to
be, in some sense, a physical inheritance in all cases, whether in a
temporary form or in its eternal form.
> The fact is, when the Bible says that first came
> the physical and that those people were in the
> land they were promised and yet, considered
> themselves to be "strangers and sojourners"
> in that same land, specifically because what
> they were looking for/toward, was a Heavenly
> city, then yes, that does mean that the opposite
> is not the case! That's exactly what it means
> and trying to argue that whatever you want
> to believe is true, because it isn't excluded
> (which is wrong anyway), is not a proper
> Scriptural argument and we both know it.
I already answered this. Israel was initially given a temporary inheritance,
but a *physical* inheritance. This did not mean they were to inherit the
opposite, a nonphysical inheritance. On the contrary, what was initially
temporal was destined to become eternal, and in all cases *physical!*
Once again, the identification of the eternal city as "heavenly" does not
mean it was nonphysical. It only means its origin is from heaven, from the
eternal God. As I said, the Scriptures indicate it is to "come down from
heaven," which means its destination is *on the earth!* There is no other
way you can have it. If it descends out of heaven, then it is *no longer in
heaven!* It is rather *on the earth!*
>> Identifying a heavenly Kingdom is not excluding
>> the physical earth. It is rather pointing out the
>> *origin* of the new earth, which is to come from
>> heaven!
> No, sorry. Not when Jesus specifically said that
> His Kingdom would NOT be seen with the eye
> and could NOT be pointed at!
The Kingdom of heaven initially dwelt with Israel in both a spiritual and a
physical way. It indwelt a physical ark and a physical temple. And it
indwelt a physical Davidic monarchy. However, Jesus referred to the
*eternal* Kingdom of heaven, which would inherit a physical kingdom
*forever.* This could never have been physically observed on earth as long
as the earth remained sinful and temporal. It would always be subject to
corruption.
But the Kingdom of God has always hovered over and within the physical
kingdoms of men, in one sense or another. It just will not take its eternal
position on earth until the earth has been transformed into immortality,
free of sin.
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> Isa 66 does not say otherwise. Gentile nations are *never* grafted onto
>> the Israeli nation, biblically.
> Bullshit. That's what the THIRD Israel will be all about...
There is no "third Israel."
>> In Paul's theology we are grafted into their *spiritual tradition*--not
>> into their *nation!*
> BULLSHIT. THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, LOCK, STOCK, AND
> BARREL, PHYSICALLY, INTELLECTUALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY.
That's massively confusing. It's like saying Great Britain is integrated
into the United States and becomes the United States, even though it is
still Israel. Bad theology.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>>>I'm not interested in your "ingenius" triplicate communications. ;)
>
>> It's no worse than you adding words into Revelation
>> and stating doctrines as truth, that can't be found
>> and stating a delay of thousands of years, while
>> admitting that you do indeed add to and/or change
>> Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
>
> I'm not adding anything into Revelation. Revelation makes reference to the
> salvation of a remnant of Israel. *All* Israel is represented in this
> reference to a remnant from *all* tribes in Israel. It is a clear
> indication that the entire nation of Israel is to be saved, at the end of
> the age.
Wrong again.
First, the Remnant will preach to both the Jews AND the Gentiles in a new,
FULLY dualistic economy...
Re 14:6-12
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every
nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear
God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and
worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of
waters.
And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen,
that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath
of her fornication.
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in
his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is
poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in
the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for
ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast
and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Second, you'll note above that part of the Remnant's three-part mission will
be to tell everyone to STAY OUT of the temple and away from the A of D,
INCLUDING the Pharisaical Jews who will agree to install it in the FIRST
PLACE (just as there were traitors during the Maccabean Era who went along
with the traitorous priests, Jason and Menelaus).
So, no, NOT everyone who CALLS themselves "Jews who are Jews, and are not,
but do lie" will be saved, but those who HEED the Word and CALL UPON THE
NAME OF THE LORD, just like the prophets said...
Ps 50:15 ...call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and
thou shalt glorify me.
Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of
the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the LORD hath said, AND IN THE REMNANT THAT WHOM THE LORD
SHALL CALL.
Your mistake, like all the Dispensationalists, is thinking that these
children of the Pharisees in Israel now are Jews, when most are not, and
they'll prove it with their idolatry and wicked ways.
[snip]
> It therefore seems clear that Jesus expected the nation Israel to be
> recovered as a direct result of the ministry of his gospel. When the
> message has been fully communicated on earth, the nation Israel will be
> gathered together again, in fulfillment of what the prophets predicted.
> First righteousness has to be established among the peoples. And then the
> nation can properly be reconstituted along righteous principles.
Not exactly: What "is to come" is an entirely new "Israel" altogether, born
of its "father" and "mother," but neither.
Ike
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> Isa 66 does not say otherwise. Gentile nations are *never* grafted onto
>>> the Israeli nation, biblically.
>
>> Bullshit. That's what the THIRD Israel will be all about...
>
> There is no "third Israel."
Thanks for yet again demonstrating your ignorance...
Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall call
himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe with his hand
unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
There will be THREE parts to whole "Israel," not two.
1) The Remnant.
2) The Israelites of Old.
3) The Christians.
>>> In Paul's theology we are grafted into their *spiritual tradition*--not
>>> into their *nation!*
>
>> BULLSHIT. THE GENTILE BELIEVERS ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, LOCK, STOCK, AND
>> BARREL, PHYSICALLY, INTELLECTUALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY.
>
> That's massively confusing.
Only to you, because of your Nazi Covanantal, anti-Semitic Replacement
Theology.
> It's like saying Great Britain is integrated into the United States and
> becomes the United States, even though it is still Israel. Bad theology.
Notice how the fraud argues from "he thinks," not "God says."
God says ALL the nations SHALL COME UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD AT THE
SECOND COMING...
Rev 11:17-18 [ed]
...We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and
art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast
reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of
the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward
unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy
name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
And why will the nations be angry?
BECAUSE GOD WILL BRING ALL THE NATIONS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF "ISRAEL."
"...and He shall rule THE NATIONS with A ROD OF IRON."
This brings us right back to the point: The GENTILE BELIEVERS, a.k.a.
Christians, will be GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL, and NOT the OTHER WAY AROUND.
Try paying attention to scripture sometime.
Ike
randy
"Sam taylor"
randy
> Randy
> G-D made a Covenate with Abraham
> that ALL his seed would Be a Blessing
> to the world, NOT JUST ISRAEL....
I have never said that God's promises were only to Israel, to the exclusion
of the rest of the world! My argument with Dave concerned whether Israel
obtained their eternal inheritance in Canaan or not. They did not. They
obtained a temporary fulfillment of the promise, the full promise requiring
an *eternal* inheritance. That inheritance has yet to take place. And this
promise does not concern all of the nations of the world, but primarily
Israel.
But the promise to Israel of inheriting the *world* does involve the other
nations of the world. Israel cannot inherit the whole world unless they do
so through the Gentile nations who inherit their own portions of the world.
Israel's promise to inherit the world is not the same as the promise that
they inherit Canaan. Their promise to inherit the whole world involves the
promise that they inherit the Gentiles themselves. Abraham was promised to
become the father of *many nations*--not just the father of Israel. Abraham
was to be both the father of Israel and the father of many nations. Israel
was to inherit Canaan, and then Israel would also take possession of all the
Gentile nations, in terms of becoming a single world-wide family. There
would be one God and one spiritual inheritance, with all nations taking part
*equally.*
randy
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> I'm not adding anything into Revelation. Revelation makes reference to
>> the salvation of a remnant of Israel. *All* Israel is represented in this
>> reference to a remnant from *all* tribes in Israel. It is a clear
>> indication that the entire nation of Israel is to be saved, at the end of
>> the age.
> Wrong again.
> First, the Remnant will preach to both the Jews AND the Gentiles in a new,
> FULLY dualistic economy...
Not at all. I don't even see the remnant of Israel, the 144,000, preaching
at all!
> Re 14:6-12 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
> everlasting gospel to preach...
That is an *angel* preaching--not the 144,000!
> Second, you'll note above that part of the Remnant's three-part mission...
The 144,000 do not have a three-part mission at all. They are just
Christians who serve along with all Christians, from all nations. That is
why they are mentioned first in Rev 7, and then follows reference to the
great multitude from all nations. They are all part of the same Christian
church.
Rev 7:2 Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the
seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels
who had been given power to harm earth and sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the
earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God
upon their foreheads." 4 And I heard the number of the sealed, a hundred and
forty-four thousand sealed, out of every tribe of the sons of Israel...
Nothing here about a three-part mission.
Rev 14: 1 Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him
a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father's name
written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound
of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was
like the sound of harpers playing on their harps, 3 and they sing a new song
before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the
elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four
thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 It is these who have not
defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow
the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first
fruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they
are spotless.
Again, no three-part mission. They sang a new song. They had not defiled
themselves with women. They followed Christ, the Lamb. They didn't lie. They
were pure and righteous. Where is the mission you speak of? They are not
preaching. They are a testimony to righteousness.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> I'm not adding anything into Revelation. Revelation makes reference to
>>> the salvation of a remnant of Israel. *All* Israel is represented in
>>> this reference to a remnant from *all* tribes in Israel. It is a clear
>>> indication that the entire nation of Israel is to be saved, at the end
>>> of the age.
>
>> Wrong again.
>
>> First, the Remnant will preach to both the Jews AND the Gentiles in a
>> new, FULLY dualistic economy...
>
> Not at all.
There you go, putting "YOU SAY" before THE WORD SAYS again.
> I don't even see the remnant of Israel, the 144,000, preaching at all!
Better go read Revelation 14 again--that's what it's ALL ABOUT.
>
>> Re 14:6-12 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the
>> everlasting gospel to preach...
>
> That is an *angel* preaching--not the 144,000!
Such a moron: The angels are the DRIVING SPIRITS behind their preaching, but
THE REMNANT will be the ones doing the preaching, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAST
LINE IS ALL ABOUT.
>> Second, you'll note above that part of the Remnant's three-part
>> mission...
>
> The 144,000 do not have a three-part mission at all.
Prevaricating bastard: THE PASSAGE STARTS WITH THE REMNANT and it ENDS WITH
THE REMNANT...
The BEGINNING...
14:1 � And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him
an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in
their foreheads.
The END...
14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
That's what the entire section is about, you ass.
> They are just Christians who serve along with all Christians,
One more time for the bullshit artist...
14:1 � And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him
AN HUNDRED AND FORTY FOUR THOUSAND, having his Father's name written in
their foreheads.
And what's the rest of the section about?
THEM AND THEIR MISSION.
[snip]
> Again, no three-part mission.
[snip]
Thanks for demonstrating yet again that YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
PROPHECY.
Ike
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> You've ignored my point.
>
>> No, I dealt with it and I tossed it out as the garbage
>> that it was and did so in detail.
>
> That's a little hypocritical of you, Dave, when you spend
> a large percentage of your time railing against how I snip
> up your conversations!
You forgot the part where I said that I dealt with yours
in detail. You just snip and ignore and then when I say
that you did it, you snip that and try to pretend that what
I said was never written and deny that you did snip it,
even though I quote back to you what you snipped,
which you also snip. So don't try to feign outrage
with me pal, because it won't work. You cannot feign
your outrage with the guy you're doing it to. Duh!
Not only are you so perverse that would do what I said
above, but now you even think that you look honest
when you try to lie to me about doing it! You need
help in a seriously bad way, dude! <chuckle>
> I do the very same thing. I snip out repetitious
> or excessively emotional material, and facts
> I consider irrelevant or diversionary.
No liar, you snip out my entire response, because
I proved you wrong about something. We could
be looking at a white wall and you would claim
that it's black and when I show you the picture,
you would snip that and then claim that it is white.
And then, when I showed you the picture again
and note that you snipped it, you would snip that
and the entire context and pretend that the whole
conversation never happened and then claim that
I avoided your point, just like now you are trying
to pretend that you actually respond to what I say
in response to your posts when you don't and that
I just snipped your statements without responding
to them, when I clearly stated and the history of
the thread shows that I did respond, in detail to
what you claimed.
And all of this means that you are just flat out
dishonest in every way possible. <chuckle>
And btw, I wouldn't have to "spend a large percentage
of my time" talking about how you snipped what I said,
if you didn't keep snipping what I said without even
dealing with it.
But that is something that you will also snip and pretend
that you never saw and that it was never said. <chuckle>
>>> What I said in that post was that heavenly references
>>> do not exclude earthly realities.
>
>> No, you said that the spiritual came first and then
>> the physical. The opposite is true according to
>> the passages from Scripture. Scripture teaches
>> us to look to the spiritual. You want us to look
>> to the physical.
>
> Once again, I said heavenly references do not exclude
> earthly realities.
Once again, you said that the spiritual came first
and then the Heavenly comes and I quoted you
saying that. But thanks for proving my point
about what you do, liar and the history of our
messages back and forth prove who is telling
the truth and who is lying.
Fact: The physical came first.
Fact: You claim it is all about the physical coming.
Fact: You kept snipping the passages I quoted
that say the opposite of what you claim.
Fact: Even though those mentioned in the passages
lived as "strangers and sojourners" in the land
and even though it says that it was specifically
because they looked for the Heavenly, you want
to claim that the opposite is true.
Fact: As the Bible says, God set up the physical to be
symbolism of the Heavenly that was to come and
you claim that in the end, it is about the physical
and that would mean that God set up the physical
to be a symbol of the Heavenly, so that later He
could set up the physical. <chuckle>
Now I'm not going to go back and forth with you
snipping whatever proves your doctrine wrong,
while you pretend to have dealt with all of what
I said. The fact is, that you said exactly what
I stated and I will leave it up to those interested,
to look back at the messages and see for themselves
who is indeed being true and honest about what
has transpired here.
And with that, you can go and lie to yourself,
since I am done wasting my time talking about
something with you, when you will just snip it
intentionally anyway and intentionally avoid it.
What would be the point of letting you keep
sucking me into your imaginary world?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
When blondes have more fun, do they know it?
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "duke"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem
>>> as coming down from heaven, the obvious indication
>>> is that it will be set up *on the earth.* Otherwise,
>>> you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
>
>> Ah, even the dreams must be literal.
>
> If you literally dream something, obviously you're
> literally dreaming.
Hey, I like your logic! It means that if tonight I dream
that I'm a millionaire, then I will be one, since after all;
"If you literally dream something, then obviously you're
literally dreaming"!
That's great, man! Thanks, Randy! I mean, because
you know, they say that if you sit there and think about
something hard enough, then you'll end up dreaming
about it, so now I can look forward to being a millionaire
tomorrow and retire! Cool, man!!! :)
Fact: You Futurists sit there in church and in Bible studies
and say how Revelation is the most symbolic book in
the Bible, but when it comes time to apply those words,
you don't! You try to make it physically literal and
willingly ignore every verse that proves it isn't.
Fact: Scripture says that Jesus is "the Lamb".
Fact: John said that the city is the bride of Christ.
Now, even though calling it a wedding is symbolism
and even though John says that the city is symbolic
of the Lamb marrying the bride, which is the church,
you want us to believe that it is all physically literal.
Now what it being physically literal does that mean?
What does it mean when it is taken literally, as you
claim it should be taken?
Well, that's very simple! It means that:
1) Jesus marries a physical city, since you claim
the opposite of what John did about the city.
2) That Jesus is actually a lamb and not a human.
3) That all of the Scriptures that say that Jesus
"weds the church" actually prove that He will
be an adulterer and a bigamist, since that
would indeed be two wives (the New Jerusalem
and the church).
But hey, who cares what your claim does to Scripture,
as long as you get to snip all of this and pretend it was
never said and hang onto your doctrine, right Randy?
Don't bother. I'm not going to entertain your evil
by responding to your snipped version and posting
again what was said, which you will again snip and
lie and pretend was also never done. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Worry is interest paid on trouble before it is due."
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
May God bless all through this information here
and may we all place God first and our doctrine
in the trash, if it doesn't line up with His word!
> "duke"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem
>>> as coming down from heaven, the obvious indication
>>> is that it will be set up *on the earth.* Otherwise,
>>> you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
>
>> Ah, even the dreams must be literal.
>
> If you literally dream something, obviously you're
> literally dreaming.
Hey, I like your logic! It means that if tonight I dream
that I'm a millionaire, then I will be one, since after all;
"If you literally dream something, then obviously you're
literally dreaming"!
That's great, man! Thanks, Randy! I mean, because
you know, they say that if you sit there and think about
something hard enough, then you'll end up dreaming
about it, so now I can look forward to being a millionaire
tomorrow and retire! Cool, man!!! :)
You Futurists sit there in church and in Bible studies
and say how Revelation is the most symbolic book in
the Bible, but when it comes time to apply those words,
you don't do it! You try to make it physically literal and
willingly ignore every verse that proves it isn't. Why?
John specifically showed that this city is simply a symbolic
representation of the church being wed to Christ and no,
just claiming, "But that doesn't mean it isn't also literal!"
won't work, since that's exactly what it means. It says
that it isn't a city, but a representation of the wedding
and it does not say, "and it's physical", so to make that
claim, is simply a weak attempt to hang onto a doctrine,
while thumbing your nose at the Scriptures! And very
simply, what it says is:
But before looking at the passages, let us recognize
two very simple and clearly stated Scriptural facts:
1) The Lamb is Christ.
2) The bride of Christ is the church.
And now let's take a look at the passages
and see what they actually tell us:
Revelation 21:9-10
2) Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from God, prepared
as a bride adorned for her husband.
9) Then one of the seven angels who had the seven
bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me
and talked with me, saying, COME, I WILL SHOW YOU
THE BRIDE, THE LAMB'S WIFE.
10) And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great
and high mountain, and SHOWED ME THE GREAT
CITY, THE HOLY JERUSALEM, descending out of
heaven from God.
Now let's look at what the above passages say...
1) The angel tells John that he will show him
(John) "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (v9).
2) The Lamb is Christ. Therefore, the angel
is going to show John the bride of Christ.
3) The bride of Christ, as we know, is the church.
4) The angel shows John the New Jerusalem (v10).
5) Conclusion: The New Jerusalem is the church
and not a literal city, since the angel was showing
John the bride of Christ and showed him the
New Jerusalem and he (the angel) called it,
"the bride of the Lamb".
Now, even though calling it a wedding is symbolism
and even though John says that the city is symbolic
of the Lamb marrying the bride, which is the church,
you want us to believe that it is all physically literal.
Now what it being physically literal does that mean?
What does it mean if we all take it as being physically
literal, as you claim it should be taken, Randy?
Well, that's very simple! It means that:
1) Jesus marries a physical city, since you claim
the opposite of what John did about the city.
2) That Jesus is actually a lamb and not a human.
3) That all of the Scriptures that say that Jesus
"weds the church" actually prove that He will
be an adulterer and a bigamist, since that
would indeed be two wives (the New Jerusalem
and the church).
But hey, who cares what your claim does to Scripture,
as long as you get to snip all of this and pretend it was
never said and hang onto your doctrine, right Randy?
Don't bother. I'm not going to entertain your evil
by responding to your snipped version and posting
again what was said, which you will again snip and
lie and pretend was also never done.
But hey, go with God, right Randy?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Fantasy abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters."
- Francis Goya
Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>> It's no worse than you adding words into Revelation
>> and stating doctrines as truth, that can't be found
>> and stating a delay of thousands of years, while
>> admitting that you do indeed add to and/or change
>> Jesus' words to suit your doctrine.
>
> I'm not adding anything into Revelation.
You added words. And one of them was "antichrist".
And when I pointed out to you that that word is not
found anywhere in Revelation, your "defense" was:
"There are many Greek words not found in the book
of Revelation."
...which was an admission that you knew it wasn't
there in the original language and you were trying
to excuse your belief, because you being so ignorant
of the Bible, did not even realize that it isn't there
in English either.
The bottom line here, is that it isn't there in either
language and you claimed that it was and that
simply means that you tried to add a word and
John said that people who do that would have
the plagues in the book added to them and that
means that what you did is sin that you don't
even have the integrity to confess to and drop
to your knees over and ask God for forgiveness!
But what else would we expect from you?
***************************************************************************************
PD: The real difference between our beliefs, is that
when I show someone the words of Jesus and
they do show what He said about the "when",
you must come up with ways to reword what
He said and you add to it, to try to make it say
the opposite, telling me "what Jesus really meant",
as if He somehow was not capable of saying what
He actually meant.
RANDY: I don't deny that.
***************************************************************************************
You have your doctrine and you don't care what
the Bible actually says, nor do you want to know,
because you know it always interferes with your
condemned doctrine and that's why you always
lie about what you have and have not done,
just like you did in this message about when you
added words to Revelation (there was more than
just this one word "antichrist" that you tried to add).
Now respond to yourself, because I'm not going
to let you bait me, by snipping it and pretending
this didn't just happen. People saw this message
and will know you're lying and that's all I need
for others to know about you, since liars and twisters
of God's word, should be loudly and clearly revealed
as such evil men.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
God sends us meat, the Devil sends us cooks.
Ike E 12/10/2009
[snippeth]
> You have your doctrine and you don't care what
> the Bible actually says, nor do you want to know,
> because you know it always interferes with your
> condemned doctrine...
Now that's rich: Preterism is CONDEMNED by EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN
DENOMINATION. There has never been A SINGLE CHURCH THAT TAUGHT IT. Hell,
even the Roman Catholic Church took one look at what the monk Alcazar wrote
when he created Preterism, and tossed it out immediately as heretical--it's
just too plain stupid.
Then you people went sifting through the Catholic Church's garbage cans,
looking for a way to substantiate your Dominionist agenda.
Go figure.
[snippeth]
Ike
Ike E 12/10/2009
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:26:36 -0800, "randy"
> <rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> May God bless all through this information here
> and may we all place God first and our doctrine
> in the trash, if it doesn't line up with His word!
You better call and have a dumpster delivered.
[snip]
Ike
I
> [snip]
<snip>
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen? - William Blake
NAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Your uneducated EISEGESIS is not exegesis. This is what happens when you
refuse to use your God-given mind as directed by Jesus in the Greatest
Commandment.
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>> I don't even see the remnant of Israel, the 144,000, preaching at all!
> Better go read Revelation 14 again--that's what it's ALL ABOUT.
I quoted the passages.
>> That is an *angel* preaching--not the 144,000!
> Such a moron: The angels are the DRIVING SPIRITS behind their preaching,
> but THE REMNANT will be the ones doing the preaching, WHICH IS WHAT THE
> LAST LINE IS ALL ABOUT.
You're reading that into the passage. The passage doesn't say that.
>> The 144,000 do not have a three-part mission at all.
> Prevaricating bastard: THE PASSAGE STARTS WITH THE REMNANT and it ENDS
> WITH THE REMNANT...
You neglected to provide evidence of a three-part mission. I can begin by
playing on the piano a number from Bach, and I can end by playing on the
piano a number from Bach. But that doesn't mean I had a "three-part
mission!"
> Thanks for demonstrating yet again that YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
> PROPHECY.
I don't agree with somebody who adds to the word of the prophecy of that
book, as the book commands me.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I'm not adding anything into Revelation.
> You added words. And one of them was "antichrist"....
The prohibition in the book is against adding false theology to the
book--not a prohibition on the words we use to explain what is written in
the book. I can interpret what is written in Greek using English words. That
is not "adding" to the words of the Revelation! ;)
Using the word "antichrist" is not "adding to the book" either. The word
"antichrist" is just a synonym for the person mentioned in Daniel 7 and
commonly described as such. John himself described him as "the antichrist"
in his first epistle. The book of Revelation clearly mentions the person we
often describe as "the antichrist." You can read all about him in Rev 13.
randy
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
> Jeremiah prophesied for his day (or so he thought). If a version of his
> prophecies had not come true, THE JEWS WOULD HAVE STONED HIM AS A FALSE
> PROPHET, AND DISREGARDED HIS PROPHECIES.
> And yet JOHN quotes Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER THE FACT, as if HIS
> PROPHECIES HADN'T BEEN FULFILLED AT ALL. Why is that? MULTIPLICITY.
No, the prophets spoke in the context of an eternal covenant. Events they
predicted to happen in their own generation took place in the broader
context of Israel's eternal hope. So many of the things they foretold had an
allusion to a greater fulfillment that would achieve eternal significance.
Many of the prophecies of Christ's coming were given to provide hope in the
immediate historical context, but also were a clear allusion to the actual
coming of Christ many years in the future.
None of this is "multiplicity," as you term it. It is just the way the
prophets operated. When Jeremiah predicted the restoration of Israel
following the Babylonian Captivity he also predicted a brand new covenant to
come, many years off in the future. The new covenant was established by
Christ at the point of his death. But the ancient prophets spoke of a new
covenant that has not really borne fruit for Israel even yet. Jeremiah's
prediction of a new covenant for Israel has yet to be fulfilled, even in our
time, because Israel has not yet come under the Christian covenant.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> If you literally dream something, obviously you're
>> literally dreaming.
> Hey, I like your logic! It means that if tonight I dream
> that I'm a millionaire, then I will be one, since after all;
You don't understand my logic.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>>> I'm not adding anything into Revelation.
>
>> You added words. And one of them was "antichrist"....
>
> The prohibition in the book is against adding
> false theology to the book
You said you didn't add ANYTHING. That was a LIE!
And what it says is:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words
of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues
that are written in this book." - Revelation 22:18
Furthermore, you just added more words that
aren't there (false theology) and thereby, added
a false theology to it as well.
> using the word antichrist is not adding to the book
It is when the word isn't there.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
1 Corinthians 1:7-8
7) So that *YE* come behind in no gift;
WAITING FOR THE COMING OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST:
8) Who shall also confirm YOU unto the end,
that *YE* may be blameless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>>> I don't even see the remnant of Israel, the 144,000, preaching at all!
>
>> Better go read Revelation 14 again--that's what it's ALL ABOUT.
>
> I quoted the passages.
And you quoted them OUT OF CONTEXT.
Revelation 14A BEGINS with a discussion of the mission of the 144,000, and
Revelation 14A ENDS with the 144,000.
THAT'S WHAT THE SECTION IS ALL ABOUT.
>>> That is an *angel* preaching--not the 144,000!
>
>> Such a moron: The angels are the DRIVING SPIRITS behind their preaching,
>> but THE REMNANT will be the ones doing the preaching, WHICH IS WHAT THE
>> LAST LINE IS ALL ABOUT.
>
> You're reading that into the passage. The passage doesn't say that.
What an asshole: The SECTION BEGINS WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE 144,000, AND IT
ENDS WITH THE 144,000.
AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN IS ABOUT THE 144,000.
ARE YOU DAFT?
>>> The 144,000 do not have a three-part mission at all.
>
>> Prevaricating bastard: THE PASSAGE STARTS WITH THE REMNANT and it ENDS
>> WITH THE REMNANT...
>
> You neglected to provide evidence of a three-part mission.
You're a nit-wit.
[snip]
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Once again, I said heavenly references do not exclude
>> earthly realities.
> Once again, you said that the spiritual came first
> and then the Heavenly comes and I quoted you
> saying that....
> Fact: The physical came first.
This is ambiguous.
> Fact: You claim it is all about the physical coming.
This is ambiguous.
> Fact: Even though those mentioned in the passages
> lived as "strangers and sojourners" in the land
> and even though it says that it was specifically
> because they looked for the Heavenly, you want
> to claim that the opposite is true.
I answered this.
> Fact: As the Bible says, God set up the physical to be
> symbolism of the Heavenly that was to come and
> you claim that in the end, it is about the physical
> and that would mean that God set up the physical
> to be a symbol of the Heavenly, so that later He
> could set up the physical. <chuckle>
I answered this. If you want to reduce your arguments to ambiguous
very-generalized "facts" you just don't want to discuss it at all.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>
>> Jeremiah prophesied for his day (or so he thought). If a version of his
>> prophecies had not come true, THE JEWS WOULD HAVE STONED HIM AS A FALSE
>> PROPHET, AND DISREGARDED HIS PROPHECIES.
>
>> And yet JOHN quotes Jeremiah c. 600 years AFTER THE FACT, as if HIS
>> PROPHECIES HADN'T BEEN FULFILLED AT ALL. Why is that? MULTIPLICITY.
>
Yes, asshole.
[snip]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 11/23/9"
randy
>> When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem as coming down from
>> heaven, the obvious indication is that it will be set up *on the earth.*
>> Otherwise, you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
> Moron: Everything in the last three chapters of Revelation is METAPHOR for
> that which is ETERNAL. Idiot.
The discussion here does not concern the use of legitimate metaphors.
Rather, it concerns how we are to interpret those metaphors. The reference
to the New Jerusalem describes a literal congregation of people gathered at
a literal place on earth. The words "the New Jerusalem" do not describe a
theoretical group of people, but an actual group of people. The use of
metaphors enhance this truth. They do not obscure this truth.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
"I suck" <I@backagain00000000007> wrote...
...nothing of any particular significance to anyone with a lick of common
sense.
[snip]
Ike
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 11/23/9"
> randy
>>> When the Scriptures describe the New Jerusalem as coming down from
>>> heaven, the obvious indication is that it will be set up *on the earth.*
>>> Otherwise, you haven't come down from heaven, have you?
>
>> Moron: Everything in the last three chapters of Revelation is METAPHOR
>> for that which is ETERNAL. Idiot.
>
> The discussion here does not concern the use of legitimate metaphors.
> Rather, it concerns how we are to interpret those metaphors. The reference
> to the New Jerusalem describes a literal congregation of people gathered
> at a literal place on earth.
LOL
Do you specialize in getting everything in the Bible ASS BACKWARD?
"New Jerusalem" ISN'T A PLACE ON EARTH: THERE WON'T BE ANY "EARTH" BY
THEN--IT'S DESTROYED BEFORE THE VISION STARTS.
> The words "the New Jerusalem"
Hey, moron: "Jerusalem which is above," i.e. "New Jerusalem," has always
been, is now, and forever shall be with God, EVEN THOUGH IT HASN'T COME INTO
EXISTENCE YET (according to the temporal perspective).
That's how Paul could refer to something THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET as though IT
ALREADY EXISTED...BECAUSE IT DOES, EVEN THOUGH IT HASN'T COME INTO EXISTENCE
YET.
Idiot.
> do not describe a theoretical group of people, but an actual group of
> people. The use of metaphors enhance this truth. They do not obscure this
> truth.
What a moron: When Jesus speaks literally, you allegorize. When Jesus speaks
allegorically, you literalize.
It's a wonder you can tie your own shoes.
Or do you do that BEFORE you put them on?
<chuckle>
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
> There will be THREE parts to whole "Israel," not two. 1) The Remnant.
> 2) The Israelites of Old.
> 3) The Christians.
No, there are Christians among the Israelites, but many Christians are *not*
Israelites. Every nation, including Israel, has Christians. Even Israel, a
Jewish nation, has some Christians.
Describing Israel as a metaphorical nation encompassing *all* Christians is
crazy. It's like saying Great Britain encompasses the United States such
that the distinction between Great Britain and the United States no longer
exists. Every nation has its own identity. But every nation has its own
group of Christians.
Abraham was promised a fatherhood over *all* nations. He was guaranteed
Christians in *all* of these nations, including Israel. It's just that he
was also initially promised a biological posterity, carried on by Israel,
but which also has been carried on by other nations directly descended from
him, which we know today includes Arab countries. But Israel was the
*promised* nation promised to Abraham as a biologically-determined nation.
It was to hold special significance in testifying to what God was like and
how He would unfold His plan of universal redemption.
Israel continues to be distinct from other nations today, even though God
has finished His plan of redemption in principle. Israel no longer has a
preeminent place over other nations, although it should still be recognized
that God loves this nation for the sake of Abraham. And we should also still
recognize the historical significance that Israel has had in history and
still has for the prophetic future.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>
>> There will be THREE parts to whole "Israel," not two. 1) The Remnant.
>> 2) The Israelites of Old.
>> 3) The Christians.
>
There you go, putting "you say" before GOD SAYS again....
Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall call
himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe with his hand
unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
That's THREE parts.
1 = Jesus' entourage, the REMNANT, i.e. "the firstfruits unto God and the
Lamb."
2 = The Israelites of Old.
3 = The Christians.
AND THE SAME THREE ARE REPRESENTED IN "NEW JERUSALEM."
- The foundation stones are named for the 12 Apostles of the Lamb.
- The gates are named for the 12 Tribes of Israel.
- THE WALL IS "144 CUBITS" THICK (where "cubits" represent "of thousands"),
ASSIGNED FOR THE 144,000 OF THE REMNANT.
So the WORD says THERE ARE THREE PARTS IN WHOLE "ISRAEL."
ANYTHING YOU SAY AFTER THIS IS "YOU SAY," NOT GOD SAYS.
(Now let's see if the asshole is dumb enough to BLASPHEME GOD AGAIN.)
[snippeth]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
> Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall call
> himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe with his
> hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel. That's
> THREE parts.
No, that's not three parts. That's just Israel, the historic nation
biologically descended from Abraham and called to bring forth the Law and
the Messiah. Gentiles were granted the right to emigrate to the land of
Israel and join in with the Israelites by worshipping their God and by
marrying their people.
None of this has to do in the least with other nations that are distinct
from Israel. For example, in America many nations emigrate to the United
States and become members of the U.S. But that doesn't mean the *nations*
they came from *become* the United States! The nations immigrants come from
remain distinct nations, and are to remain distinguished from the United
States.
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
>
> "Ike E 12/10/2009"
> randy
>
>> Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall call
>> himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe with his
>> hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel. That's
>> THREE parts.
>
> No, that's not three parts.
You're a moron.
"One..."
"Another..."
"Another..."
THAT'S THREE PARTS, you blithering idiot.
[snip]
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>>> Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall call
>>> himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe with his
>>> hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel. That's
>>> THREE parts.
>> No, that's not three parts.
> "One..." "Another..." "Another..."
Ah, you can count to three! Now, if you could only understand the argument I
was making! I was challenging whether Isaiah 44 was presenting three
different Israels, or Israel in three different senses. He wasn't. He simply
pointed out that foreigners could join Israel, just as immigrants join the
United States today. Silly man!
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
What a moron.
Three parts is three parts.
Part I: Israel as it "was."
Part II: Israel as it "is."
Part III: Israel as it "is to come," starting with Jesus and the Remnant of
BOTH faiths, but neither, who will "keep the commandments of God AND have
the testimony of Jesus Christ," etc, etc, etc, IN THE NEXT AGE.
Ike
randy
"Ike E 12/10/2009"
randy
>>>>> Isa 44:5 [1] One shall say, I am the LORD'S; and [2] another shall
>>>>> call himself by the name of Jacob; and [3] another shall subscribe
>>>>> with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of
>>>>> Israel. That's THREE parts.
>>>> No, that's not three parts.
> Three parts is three parts. Part I: Israel as it "was."
> Part II: Israel as it "is."
> Part III: Israel as it "is to come," starting with Jesus and the Remnant
> of BOTH faiths, but neither, who will "keep the commandments of God AND
> have the testimony of Jesus Christ," etc, etc, etc, IN THE NEXT AGE.
You think it's profound to say that Israel was, is, and is to be? Things do
tend to have a past, present, and a future. So what?
randy
Ike E 12/10/2009
It is the way God did it: A part joined to an unrelated part to make a new
whole, LIKE A MARRIAGE.
> Things do tend to have a past, present, and a future. So what?
Note how the fraud, having been confronted with the facts, now has to try to
find a way to mitigate those facts.
Nevertheless, the fraud DECLARED ("he said") that there are only TWO parts
to the assembly of God when God ("He said") clearly reveals THREE, as stated
above, and in John's "Revelation," in which all THREE parts of whole Israel
are represented in the final figure.
The 12 foundation stones named for the Apostles.
The 12 gates named for the tribes of Israel.
AND THE WALL of 144 "cubits" ("of thousands") THICK to hold it all together
(as Jesus and His entourage will be the judges to the "kings" of Israel and
the "priests" of Christianity).
(This is why John mentions the believers being kings and priests unto God in
the introduction, but there is no mention of the vital third element,
judges--it's not a position anyone can attain, but one to which one must be
appointed, and the positions HAVE already been appointed--to the 144,000.)
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>> Once again, you said that the spiritual came first
>> and then the Heavenly comes and I quoted you
>> saying that....
>>
>> Fact: The physical came first.
>
> This is ambiguous.
What you actually said was that the spiritual
came first and then the physical comes,
which is obviously ridiculous, since here
we are and the Jews had already gotten
their physical land.
>> Fact: You claim it is all about the physical coming.
>
> This is ambiguous.
Play your games with someone else.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes."
-Norman Douglas
bear
<ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:15:07 -0800, "randy"
><rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave"
>>
>>> What does the Old Testament really say? The answer
>>> may surprise you. There is an implicit acknowledgment
>>> in the Old Testament that the land did not belong to God's
>>> chosen people because of their race, but as a result from
>>> their covenant relationship with Yahweh. In other words,
>>> the promise to retain the land was conditional
>>> (Josh 23:15-16). The promise to receive the land
>>> was unconditional - cf. Deu. 9:5.
>>
>>I have a different perspective on it. I believe receiving and retaining the
>>land at one time did take place under the Law. But ultimately, the very
>>giving of the Law implied that God wanted to give it to them *forever.* So
>>even though Israel could not retain the land under the Law, they can indeed
>>ultimately obtain it forever, if even under a new covenant. In fact the
>>Scriptures indicate that they will *only* obtain the land forever when they
>>come under a new covenant. So no matter what condition the Jews find
>>themselves in today, even having failed under the Law, they *will* indeed at
>>some point receive the land forever.
>
>That's your conjecture, not Scripture. And it ignores
>quite a bit of Scripture.
>
Oh, that is quite interesting Dave, do you mean like you ignoring
scriptures like the following.
Zechariah 8:3 "Thus says the Lord, 'I will return to Zion and will
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the
City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts will be called
the Holy Mountain.'
How about that, the Lord says that He "will return to Zion and will
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem", yet the replacement theologist
assert the Lord is not interested in "a piece of dirt".
When has Jerusalem ever been "called the City of Truth"? The
preterist proclaim that all prophecy is history, so perhaps they could
furnish some documentation that would prove verse 3 as history.
Zechariah 8:7 "Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'Behold, I am going to
save My people from the land of the east and from the land of the
west;
Zechariah 8:8 and I will bring them back and they will live in the
midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be My people, and I will be their
God in truth and righteousness.'
The Lord clearly states that He will bring His people back from the
east and from the west and will live in their midst, has not happened
to date. Did the Lord make a mistake, change His mind, or, is it
future?
Zechariah 8:13 'It will come about that just as you were a curse
among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so I will
save you that you may become a blessing. Do not fear; let your hands
be strong.'
Yep, sure enough, the Lord says that He will save the house of Judah
that it may become a blessing. Do the preterist contend this happened
in the "first century" also?
Zechariah 10:6 "I will strengthen the house of Judah, And I will save
the house of Joseph, And I will bring them back, Because I have had
compassion on them; And they will be as though I had not rejected
them, For I am the Lord their God and I will answer them.
Zechariah 10:9 "When I scatter them among the peoples, They will
remember Me in far countries, And they with their children will live
and come back.
Zechariah 10:10 "I will bring them back from the land of Egypt And
gather them from Assyria; And I will bring them into the land of
Gilead and Lebanon Until no room can be found for them.
Ezekiel 36:28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your
forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
Ezekiel 43:7 He said to me, "Son of man, THIS IS THE PLACE OF MY
THRONE AND THE PLACE OF THE SOLES OF MY FEET, WHERE I WILL DWELL AMONG
THE SONS OF ISRAEL FOREVER. And the house of Israel will not again
defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry
and by the corpses of their kings when they die,
It appears to me that God explicitly dictates His intentions to "dwell
among the sons of Israel forever"
Ezekiel 43:9 "Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses
of their kings far from Me; and I WILL DWELL AMONG THEM FOREVER.
Again, God is quite clear as to His intentions.
Ezekiel 43:18 And He said to me, "Son of man, thus says the Lord
God, 'These are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built, to
offer burnt offerings on it and to sprinkle blood on it.
I have not bothered to list the many verses where God made everlasting
covenants with the Hebrews (Jews) promising them the land He had given
to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Of course, Dave never mentions these verses, they must not appear in
his Bible.
Bear
>
>>> Abraham looked for a country, but as long as he and the
>>> patriarchs were in Canaan (Palestine) they viewed themselves
>>> as sojourners and strangers. They never claimed it as their
>>> home (Hebrews 11:9,10). They died in faith, as strangers
>>> and pilgrims in the land, looking for the land which God
>>> promised them, 11:13-16.
>>
>>Abraham *was* in fact a sojourner, and had yet to experience the fulfillment
>>of the promise! The promise was that his descendants, in the form of a
>>*nation,* would inherit Canaan. While he was still a single family he
>>believed God that this inheritance would take place in the future, and he
>>was, in fact, a sojourner.
>
>You missed the point completely. You're just
>reworking it to make your doctrine fit, but it
>isn't supported in Scripture, which you add to.
>
>
>>The critical element here is that we are not to seek an inheritance in the
>>world *as it presently is,* with sin, Satan, and trouble. We are to seek a
>>completely new creation, in which sin is completely expunged from this
>>world.
>
>That's the Futurist claim, but Scripture does not
>support it and that was the point being made.
>
>
>>That is what we often call "the Kingdom of God." This Kingdom
>>presently exists in our midst, in a spiritual sense
>
>That claim is also not found anywhere in Scripture.
>Jesus specifically said that it would not (note the
>future tense) be seen with the eye and nowhere
>did He say, "but later it will be", so your claim
>contradicts Scripture and I'm not going to waste
>my time on doctrine that adds and changes
>whatever it wants in Scripture, to make it work.
>
>Fact: God fulfilled His "land promise".
>
>Fact: The Bible says that keeping the land
> was conditioned upon a relationship
> with God.
>
>Fact: The Jews reject the Messiah and there
> is only one way to God, according to
> Jesus Himself and the ultimate fulfillment
> is spiritual, not physical and while Futurists
> pretend to be all about the spiritual, they
> are hypocritically placing their faith in the
> physical that they think is coming and if
> they can't have that coming in the future,
> then sadly, Christianity is of no use to them.
I
> Oh, that is quite interesting Dave, do you mean like you ignoring
> scriptures like the following.
>
> Zechariah 8:3 "Thus says the Lord, 'I will return to Zion and will
> dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem will be called the
> City of Truth, and the mountain of the Lord of hosts will be called
> the Holy Mountain.'
>
> How about that, the Lord says that He "will return to Zion and will
> dwell in the midst of Jerusalem"
Amazing! So ..........
OBVIOUSLY God is NOT already in Zion or Jerusalem. The entire quote is in
the future "'I will return .... will dwell ... will be called .... will be
called"
HOW can an INFINITE God NOT currently be in Zion or Jerusalem? Please
explain.
> Ezekiel 43:7 He said to me, "Son of man, THIS IS THE PLACE OF MY
> THRONE AND THE PLACE OF THE SOLES OF MY FEET, WHERE I WILL DWELL AMONG
> THE SONS OF ISRAEL FOREVER. And the house of Israel will not again
> defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry
> and by the corpses of their kings when they die,
Wonderful! A verse that contradicts what you stated above. God cannot
"return" if He is already there.
> It appears to me that God explicitly dictates His intentions to "dwell
> among the sons of Israel forever"
NOT "TO" dwell but already dwelling as the present tense is used "This IS my
place".
> Ezekiel 43:9 "Now let them put away their harlotry and the corpses
> of their kings far from Me; and I WILL DWELL AMONG THEM FOREVER.
>
> Again, God is quite clear as to His intentions.
Again, this CONTRADICTS the previous verse. This verse is FUTURE tense and
therefore agrees with the first verse you quoted that God is NOT infinite
but FINITE for there is somewhere on Earth that God is currently NOT -
namely Zion and Jerusalem.
Why do you settle for a mere finite "god"???? I prefer the INFINITE
Exclusive One God Yahweh.
> Of course, Dave never mentions these verses, they must not appear in
> his Bible.
You do not seem to understand the verses that you quote.
--
MY BLOG - MARK T - my thoughts on Christianity & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
MY SOUNDCLICK PAGE- download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall