Rev 4 & 11: The Rapture of the Church? [Archive]

bar Jonah

February 3rd 2003, 12:39 PM

Solly:
RI

Thanks.

Yes, the question is in place because Exposived positively asserted that the doctrine of the rapture is to be found in these verses. I know not everyone of a dispersuasion sees it that way, but I was interested in those who do.

As to your own view, this explains Ex's old byline about everything in scripture not being spiritually applicable to us. I think that is a diminished view of scripture, with a sop thrown to the masses that, of course, it is still helpful to us. How? In what way can some texts written for a different bunch of people be helpful to us? I would have thought putting "Left Behind" in steel caskets with directions on how to find it would be more useful.

Oh wait, someone did... :argh:

I have been preaching out of hebrews this last few weeks, and I find it speaks directly to us, because Israel is a type, not only of fallen humanity in its rebellion against God, but also of the people of God, in their calling and troubles. That is the nature of the NT/OT hermeneutic.

Equally, if the rapture is only for the gentiles, then what happens to converted Jews alive at the time?
Oy. It is apparent you know very little of the Acts-9 Dispensational view. (I'm not saying that to talk down to you, and I'm not putting you down; it's just a tad frustrating to have to start from the beginning over and over.) :)

Jesus taught a particular gospel message in His earthly ministry, and He passed that on to His apostles ("the Twelve"), who continued to teach what they learned from Him. But Jesus' message in His earthly ministry was meant only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not for the Gentiles. In fact, Jesus forbade the disciples from going to the Gentiles. Kind of goes against the principle of the Great Commission, doesn't it? Of course, the Great Commission came later.

But when Israel failed her election, God cut Israel off, and instead grafted in the Gentiles (us), and brought Paul in to deliver another gospel, one that didn't involve the Law of Moses (which Jesus' earthly-ministry gospel did). I keep saying "Jesus' earthly ministry" because Paul's message is also from Jesus, so both gospels come from Jesus. It has nothing to do with putting Paul over Jesus.

We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one. We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings. And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

I take their word for it. So if Peter tells me he's going to minister only to the Jews... and I'm not a Jew ... then I know his letters aren't written to me. They certainly carry useful teaching; obviously, some teachings are universal and present in both gospels. But... if something isn't clear or even appears to possibly contradict something from Paul, who do I go to? Paul. Not Peter, James, John, Jude.

In fact, with the exception of Jesus, Paul is the ONLY person in the New Testament who says that if anyone preaches something different from his gospel, that person shall be accursed. He is very protective over his gospel and his flock. Unlike Peter and Co., Paul frequently talks about "my gospel... my gospel... my children... do as I do... my gospel...."

You've been preaching out of Hebrews. Great! It was written for Jews who were saved after Israel was cut off. Once Israel was cut off, all Jews were no different from Gentiles in God's eyes. Reduced in status from being actively His chosen people... no different from the lawless, unclean, heathen Gentiles. So they were saved under the new dispensation, the new "house rules" that Paul mentioned.

And so as far as the Rapture, they will be treated no differently from you and me... spiritually, the aren't any different. They are saved as Gentiles according to what Paul referred to as the Mystery of the Gentiles.

Solly

February 3rd 2003, 12:55 PM

RightIdea:

Jesus taught a particular gospel message in His earthly ministry, and He passed that on to His apostles ("the Twelve"), who continued to teach what they learned from Him. But Jesus' message in His earthly ministry was meant only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Not for the Gentiles. In fact, Jesus forbade the disciples from going to the Gentiles. Kind of goes against the principle of the Great Commission, doesn't it? Of course, the Great Commission came later.

Syropheonician woman?

But when Israel failed her election, God cut Israel off, and instead grafted in the Gentiles (us), and brought Paul in to deliver another gospel, one that didn't involve the Law of Moses (which Jesus' earthly-ministry gospel did). I keep saying "Jesus' earthly ministry" because Paul's message is also from Jesus, so both gospels come from Jesus. It has nothing to do with putting Paul over Jesus.

When was this cutting off? On the Day of Pentecost 3000 Jews were added to the church, and many more followed. Paul himself was a Jew. Paul, though the apostle to the Gentiles, went to the synogogue first. he wrote the letter to the Romans who were a mixed church. The church, with Peter at the head, received in the Samaritans, God fearers and Gentiles, and Peter gave his imprimatur to that event.

We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. [quote]

Scripture? Gal 2? But paul is taking about sphere of operations there, not a different Gospel?

[quote]We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one.

Hmmm, and how through that paul was ensnared by the public opinion of these same zealous law keepers.

We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings.

He didn't say he had a hard time, he just said there are some hard things to understand. I find hard things to understand, doesn't make me a Jewish Christian. LOL

And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

Yes, he went to the Gentile nations, but as mentioned, he alwasy went to the synagogue first.

In fact, with the exception of Jesus, Paul is the ONLY person in the New Testament who says that if anyone preaches something different from his gospel, that person shall be accursed. He is very protective over his gospel and his flock. Unlike Peter and Co., Paul frequently talks about "my gospel... my gospel... my children... do as I do... my gospel...."

Once Israel was cut off, all Jews were no different from Gentiles in God's eyes. Reduced in status from being actively His chosen people... no different from the lawless, unclean, heathen Gentiles. So they were saved under the new dispensation, the new "house rules" that Paul mentioned.

Mentioned that to Jerry Shugart?

I'm off now for a few days. Catch up with you then.
See ya

Covenanter

February 4th 2003, 07:36 AM

[Right Idea]
We believe Paul when he says he brought a different gospel than that of Peter and the Twelve. We believe Luke when he says in Acts that the believers under Peter were "zealous for the Law," and this being mentioned in a good light, not a bad one. We believe Peter when he said he had a hard time understanding Paul's teachings. And most of all, we believe Paul, Peter, James and John when they all agree that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews.

I take their word for it. So if Peter tells me he's going to minister only to the Jews... and I'm not a Jew ... then I know his letters aren't written to me. They certainly carry useful teaching; obviously, some teachings are universal and present in both gospels.
So was Paul's Gospel or Peter's an accused "other gospel" :bonk:

When Peter wrote to the Galatians in his first letter, was he aiming to put them right against what Paul had taught them :bonk:

Why did Paul continue to go to the Jews wherever there was a synagogue if he had agreed "that Paul will go ONLY to the Gentiles, and Peter and the Twelve will go ONLY to the Jews."????

Where did Peter tell you "he's going to minister only to the Jews" ?????

Note that Peter's first letter is clearly written to all believers, Jew & Gentile without distinction:

I will quote myself from the http://www.reachouttrust.org/forum/

THe Greek word translated "scattered" (diaspora) occurs 3 times. John 7:35, James 1:1 & 1 Pet. 1:1 . Look them up.
I think it reasonable to consider "diaspora" to refer originally to the Jews of the dispersion. However, believers likewise were scattered (diaspeiro, Acts 8:1 et al), & I see no good reason to restrict "diaspora" to Jews in Peter's context when the related word "diaspeiro" plainly refers to Christians.
THe Greek word translated "strangers" (parepidemos) occurs 3 times. Heb. 11:13, 1 Pet. 1:1 & 1 Pet. 2:11. Look them up.
In 1 Pet. 2:11, "parepidemos" is translated "pilgrims", while "strangers " is the translation of "paroikos" which is translated "foreigners" in Eph. 2:19 (which we are no more (!))
James refers to those having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory meeting in the synagogue, (James 2:1-2) which might mean whole synagogues of Jewish Christians, and writing to 12 tribes appears to indicate a wide acceptance of Christ by the Jews of James' time. Rather unlikely. I think rather it means that James is writing to scattered Jewish Christians, using words "carried over" from Jewish use.

Does this mean that Peter & James were writing specifically to Jews, so that their writings are not directly applicable to the church ??
Only if the Galatians rejected Paul's letter, & formed or separated into a Jewish ekklesia, or we have misunderstood Paul completely, & taken Gal. 2:7 as an indication that there were two "Gospels" to be preached, one for Jews & one for Gentiles. In that case, perhaps you can tell me which Gospel, Paul's or Peter's, was "not another" so that its preachers were cursed?

m, open 1 Peter & read it without "Open Bible Trust" blinkers. Note:
[i]1Pe 2:9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Notice that ! Those who were not a people i.e. the Gentiles, are now the people of God, & now have obtained mercy. (See Romans 9 & Hosea 1) Not only so, but the wonderful promises for those who keep the Covenant (Ex. 19:5) are given them. THe people Peter was writing to have all the blessings of covenant-keepers. By God's grace, that includes you & me.

No, Michael. Don't let OBT bewitch you into tearing Peter & James out of your Bible, or reducing them to "profitable" but without authority. You need Peter for your witness against Popery. I hope you can see that when you say "The Reformers hd some of the truth but apparently did not build on or press on to discover more" that you are maligning those who were concerned to give us an accurate translation of the Scriptures, who wrote commentaries, & laid the groundwork for the Puritans, Matthew Henry, Strong, etc. We did not need to wait for Derby et al with their dispensational approach.

When the Bible was translated, folk wanted to read it & make its teaching theirs. Don't let OBT rob you.

bar Jonah

February 4th 2003, 06:53 PM

Solly:
Syropheonician woman?
First, do you admit Jesus said He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel? That Jesus forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles? I would assume so, since these things are unarguable primae facie.

Therefore, what happens with this so-called Samaritan or Syro-Phoenician woman? First, who had the authority to make an exception according to righteous judgement? Only Jesus, of course. But beyond that, look at the story closely. The woman comes up, telling of her demon-possessed daughter. A heart-rending story. And how does Jesus respond? He ignores her. She is pleading, begging for mercy, but the disciples say, "Send her away, for she cries out after us." Jesus agrees, adding, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She still begs further. Jesus still says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." It's noteworthy to mention that the term "dog" was a racial epithet in these days. Like pigs, dogs were considered to be filthy, unclean animals. Gentiles, likewise, were considered unclean. She was a filthy Gentile dog.

But here is where the story shifts. The woman doesn't disagree with our Lord. Rather, she agrees with Him! She accepts His authority and His words, and adds with great faith, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." And for her faith, Jesus relented and healed the woman's daughter. Crumbs. Jesus gave this little dog a crumb. Nothing changed in Jesus' mission or His instructions to the disciples.
Solly: When was this cutting off? On the Day of Pentecost 3000 Jews were added to the church, and many more followed. Paul himself was a Jew. Paul, though the apostle to the Gentiles, went to the synogogue first. he wrote the letter to the Romans who were a mixed church. The church, with Peter at the head, received in the Samaritans, God fearers and Gentiles, and Peter gave his imprimatur to that event.
When was Israel cut off? A year after Christ's resurrection. Jesus said Himself just before His death that Israel would have one more year to live. And though the church grew at first, Saul came a long and persecuted it until by his own confession later, he "destroyed" it. Wasted it. Demolished, disintigrated, overthrew it. Ended it.

Stephen's martyrdom is the straw that broke the camel's back. Saul presided over the death of Stephen. How can we know this was such a monumentally critical event? Because both Jesus and God the Father appear in this story. I'd say that's a pretty big sign. And right after that, we see several things. Peter receives a vision of the change to come -- unclean things now made clean! Symbolic of the Gentiles formerly unclean (and still having been unclean for this past year since Christ's resurrection), now made clean. And Peter is instructed to go preach the gospel to a Gentile. One Gentile, just one -- Cornelius. And what else? Jesus appears to Saul on the road to Damascus, and Saul becomes Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles. Here is the shift toward a new direction in Acts. Peter's ministry diminishes, and Paul's takes off. Peter recedes into the background, and Paul becomes the major player. God has cut Israel off, and chosen Paul to take His message of salvation directly to the Gentiles.
Solly: Hmmm, and how through that paul was ensnared by the public opinion of these same zealous law keepers.
What are you talking about? Be more specific?
Solly: He didn't say he had a hard time, he just said there are some hard things to understand. I find hard things to understand, doesn't make me a Jewish Christian. LOL
Hard things to understand in Paul's teachings, yes. This from the top disciple of Jesus?

smilax

February 4th 2003, 10:51 PM

RightIdea:
Therefore, what happens with this so-called Samaritan or Syro-Phoenician woman? First, who had the authority to make an exception according to righteous judgement? Only Jesus, of course. But beyond that, look at the story closely. The woman comes up, telling of her demon-possessed daughter. A heart-rending story. And how does Jesus respond? He ignores her. She is pleading, begging for mercy, but the disciples say, "Send her away, for she cries out after us." Jesus agrees, adding, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." She still begs further. Jesus still says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." It's noteworthy to mention that the term "dog" was a racial epithet in these days. Like pigs, dogs were considered to be filthy, unclean animals. Gentiles, likewise, were considered unclean. She was a filthy Gentile dog.

But here is where the story shifts. The woman doesn't disagree with our Lord. Rather, she agrees with Him! She accepts His authority and His words, and adds with great faith, "Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." And for her faith, Jesus relented and healed the woman's daughter. Crumbs. Jesus gave this little dog a crumb. Nothing changed in Jesus' mission or His instructions to the disciples.Perhaps you may want to reconsider your interpretation in light of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html.

Reba

February 4th 2003, 11:20 PM

Matt 8:8-11
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.

9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
KJV

bar Jonah

February 5th 2003, 03:23 AM

bar Jonah

February 5th 2003, 03:29 AM

smilax:
Perhaps you may want to reconsider your interpretation in light of http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qcrude.html.
Well, I went there, and found their interpretation interesting (though not entirely new or anything)... but when they got to the following line, they completely lost me:

5. They decide to approach Jesus about her, and ask him to grant her request and send her away (Mt 15.23)

This claim about the passages in question is categorically false. They did NOT ask Jesus to grant her request. The authors of this website just made something up and tried to pass it off to me as scriptural. They practically added to scripture.

At that point, I didn't even see any reason for continuing to read. I understand their basic premise, and I know they are dishonest in their portrayal of the passage in question. No offense intended, but why give them the time of day after that?

smilax

February 5th 2003, 04:21 AM

RightIdea:
This claim about the passages in question is categorically false. They did NOT ask Jesus to grant her request. The authors of this website just made something up and tried to pass it off to me as scriptural. They practically added to scripture.So you think that the disciples were asking Him to send her away empty-handed? (Not that that's even crucial to the argument... And considering that you don't believe in inerrancy, what's the problem?)

Covenanter

February 5th 2003, 07:12 AM

We have been discussing "right division" on the http://www.reachouttrust.org/forum/ . THe following posting should be self explanatory:

Rev. Charles Dodgeson (aka Lewis Carol) wrote the following:

"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."
:bonk:

You have carefully explained that "expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, is different from Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ." [Acts 28]

You have also explained that only Paul's prison letters are to the [mainly Gentile] present dispensation church, the others being to the mixed Jew/Gentile New Covenant church which was suspended at Acts 28.

You have further shown that Paul has almost nothing to say about Abraham, Israel, the covenants, etc, in Paul's prison letters.

Now it is generally agreed that Paul's letters to the Thessalonians were his earliest. In them we read almost nothing about Abraham, Israel, the covenants, etc.
:bonk:

I have heard premils argue strongly that Paul taught the rapture in 1 Thess 4, & they get all sorts of end times teachig from 2 Thess 2. How could he possibly teach the rapture of the church to the Thessalonians before Christ had revealed the mystery to him in prison ?????
:bonk:

dizzle

February 5th 2003, 07:50 AM

A year after Christ's resurrection. Jesus said Himself just before His death that Israel would have one more year to live.

Ah, large contradiction then in your system for you then have Jesus predicting two distinct and mutually exclusive things... either they would be cut off after a year or they would not be and get to go through the "good" Tribulation. It cannot be both ways.

dizzle

February 5th 2003, 07:54 AM

Dear RightIdea:

I will review that Christian Thinktank article in light of your criticism... but let me tell you that I do know the author Glenn Miller who is an apologist of utmost integrity. He would never be purposefully dishonest. I will read the article and forward your concern to him... but I think that Smilax probably demonstrated where Glenn was drawing that inference from. Now if that is a reasonable inference, we can certainly disagree with the inference, but then it is not bold addition to the text or dishonesty. I am only butting in because Miller IMHO is one person that I hold in extraordinarily high esteem as an apologist... not because we agree on everything (we disagree on quite a bit) but because I have heard his heart and seen his character.

Ourglass

August 18th 2003, 10:10 AM

I have discussed my views a few different times on this site. You might want to look at my post, but the one with "End Times" that I started is probably most descriptive of my point.

I disagree with the posts indicating the tribulation started ~2000 years ago, or that only the Jews are saved, etc.

My take: G-d still has a plan for Israel. As we speak, Israel is preparing to rebuild their temple, they have the bloodline of the Levites preparing to head the temple, the proper attire is being prepared, etc. Israel will reinstate the temple worship, which will be part of the events to occur during the "last days" discussed in the Bible. Israel rejected their King when Christ was killed, therefore, the 70 weeks was placed on hold for the Church Age. The Bible was to be preached to every nation, land during this Chruch Age (which I believe we are coming to an end of now).

There is the old covenant (with G-d and the land of Israel) which will be completed when Christ comes to rule on earth and Israel rules with their G-d. The new covenant, which is the saving grace through the blood of Christ - the salvation available to the Gentile nations.

There are specifics in the Bible which refer to the rapture of Christ's church, and saving her from the day of tribulation, the end times, etc.

I believe, the Jews that believe in Christ at the time of the rapture will be raptured with the rest of Christ's Church and will not experience the tribulation. But they will come to see Christ as their King, and this is to take place during the trials and tribulations on earth during this 7 year period. There is another post of mine on this site as to why I indicate the 7 year period. Check Daniel 9, and also the Book of John because he talks about the two 1,260 day periods.

So, have I muddied the waters enough with my ramblings? Interested to know your take on my POV.

Solly

August 18th 2003, 10:42 AM

Today @ 03:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=188908#post188908)
Ourglass:

First off, belated welcome to Tweb Ourglass.
Second, nothing like exhuming old threads; I had forgotten about this - but then, it is nearly seven months ago.

My take: G-d still has a plan for Israel.

God had a plan for national Israel; to bring forth the Messiah. As for whether he still has a plan, you would have to show that the Secular nation State of Israel and the Occupied Territories fits the same category; which I don't believe it does.

As we speak, Israel is preparing to rebuild their temple, they have the bloodline of the Levites preparing to head the temple, the proper attire is being prepared, etc. Israel will reinstate the temple worship, which will be part of the events to occur during the "last days" discussed in the Bible. Israel rejected their King when Christ was killed, therefore, the 70 weeks was placed on hold for the Church Age. The Bible was to be preached to every nation, land during this Chruch Age (which I believe we are coming to an end of now).

I consider such actions abomination to God, and would warn all Christians not to be involved with such things. The Temple worship pointed to Christ, and has now been done away. The New Covenant has made the other one old, in that it has worn out, and is of no use. As for the "Church Age" idea, you will find many here who will take you through Daniel verse by verse showing that there is no such gap.

There is the old covenant (with G-d and the land of Israel) which will be completed when Christ comes to rule on earth and Israel rules with their G-d. The new covenant, which is the saving grace through the blood of Christ - the salvation available to the Gentile nations.

If there is a new covenant, then the old is done away, not to be resurrected. Don't mistake the national covenant God made with Israel, which covenant became void because of their disobedience. It was not an unconditional covenant, and once broken was broken for good. Israel were also typical - typical of fallen humanity in its rebellion, typical of the people of God in their blessings. All is fulfilled in Christ: the Land, the Temple, the Worship, the Law, the Promises, the Blessings.

There are specifics in the Bible which refer to the rapture of Christ's church, and saving her from the day of tribulation, the end times, etc.

There are specifics that speak of the church being saved from the wrath to come when Christ comes. When Christ comes, that is the end. Finito Benito. Salvation and Judgment in one event.

I believe, the Jews that believe in Christ at the time of the rapture will be raptured with the rest of Christ's Church and will not experience the tribulation. But they will come to see Christ as their King, and this is to take place during the trials and tribulations on earth during this 7 year period. There is another post of mine on this site as to why I indicate the 7 year period. Check Daniel 9, and also the Book of John because he talks about the two 1,260 day periods.

The "Tribulation the Great" has passed, old Jerusalem has been destroyed once for all. Though there will be troubles at the end of the age, yet the church will go through them, and be saved through them.

So, have I muddied the waters enough with my ramblings? Interested to know your take on my POV.

If you are up for hardcore debate, you will find quite a few who will wrestle every inch of ground with you, either in this forum, or in the Gym. Either way, enjoy your stay!!

The Curtmudgeon

August 18th 2003, 10:54 AM

Solly, to answer your original question from a Dispensational POV different than RightIdea's (I'm not Acts9; I guess you could call my position Schofield Dispensationalism heard of the term "Acts9 Dispensationalism", and disagree with its main tenet mightily]):

Rev 4:1 - This is seen as a portrayal of the Rapture due not solely to the use of the phrase "Come up hither" but mainly because from 4:1 on, the Church is absent from the rest of the book (until re-appearing as the Bride, of course), unless one chooses to believe that God pours out His wrath indiscriminately on the Church as well as on the world (which those of the "Schofield school" [so to speak] do not choose to believe). I fully realise that other POVs take the position that God will miraculously provide protection for the Church during the Tribulation; we essentially agree, but believe that the form of the protection is to remove the Church to heaven before the Trib starts.

Rev 11:12 - This is not seen as having anything to do with the Rapture of the Church, because that occurs between Chapters 3 and 4 (since we accept Revelation as sequential in nature). This verse, as you believe, applies only to the specific Two Witnesses as individuals.

I realise your opposition to my POV on 4:1, so you needn't rehearse it here unless you just want to. But you asked "how", and I disagreed with (aspects of) RI's answer, so I thought you (and other readers of the thread) should at least be presented with another side of the coin.

The (that coin's got too durn many sides already) Curtmudgeon

Solly

August 18th 2003, 11:11 AM

Thanks The (I'll answer the question as well) Curtmudgeon.

I wasn't interested in debating, at least not now. This would be in Intro to Theology if started anew.

Daniel927

March 17th 2006, 11:03 PM

Solly,

I'm relatively new to this site, and have been "mining" for threads that I might express concerns re: millennial - ism! I won't get into all that, BUT thought I would comment on your original question.

While Rev. makes no mention of the church from chapter 4 until she appears as the bride, COULD be for several reasons.

First, there is nothing written in the text that remotely indicates the church is raptured at that point. You are correct in your assessment!

IF - IF - there is some semblance of chronological order to Revelation, then we clearly see in chapter 12, the recorded account of Christ AND him being caught up to HIS throne! YES???????

Okay! If this portion/event of salvation/redemption DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL CHAPTER 12 -- HOW CAN THE "RAPTURE" OF THE CHURCH OCCUR IN CHAPTER 4?????????????

Guess what? IT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Next - I would like to think (personal thought zone) - That because Christ has "done away" with the "old" order, covenant, temple, priesthood, etc. (read Hebrews chap. 5 -10), That what is "left" - IS THE CHURCH!!!!!!
(BTW these same chapters do deal with - "ONE TAKEN, ONE LEFT")

Therefore when he begins the "vision" with John - BECAUSE the church is in the "here and now", the "present", the NEW, the forefront - He begins WITH the letters (things) THAT CONCERN THE CHURCH! The church is the "issue" that is at hand - so Christ addresses the church first! How proper is it to "deal" with "things" that are at hand?

I want to think that is "why" Christ presents that to John first - THEN he takes John and shows him things that are eternal - from the "present, past and future (WHO IS, WAS and is YET TO COME)".

I guess this was the LOOOOOONG answer to a short question, sorry!

Bless,

D

Covenanter

March 18th 2006, 08:41 AM

Daniel,

Having contributed two replies on this thread, & having met Solly at his home & church, I will jump back in.

THe thread is resurrected, & I consider that texts used to justify the "rapture" are in fact "resurrrection" texts teaching the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ at the end of the present age.

If the absence of "ekklesia" in Rev. 4-21 means that the chapters relate to events during the 7-year tribulation when the church is raptured, then Peter's & Jude's letters (which have no reference to "ekklesia") are also for some other dispensation. My earlier post on this thread shows that such a view is untenable.

While Rev. makes no mention of the church from chapter 4 until she appears as the bride, COULD be for several reasons.

First, there is nothing written in the text that remotely indicates the church is raptured at that point. You are correct in your assessment!

IF - IF - there is some semblance of chronological order to Revelation, then we clearly see in chapter 12, the recorded account of Christ AND him being caught up to HIS throne! YES???????

Okay! If this portion/event of salvation/redemption DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL CHAPTER 12 -- HOW CAN THE "RAPTURE" OF THE CHURCH OCCUR IN CHAPTER 4?????????????

Guess what? IT CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is Revelation as a whole chronological? Surely not, although there are several series of chronological events each of which end with the return of Christ. They are thus recapitulations of tribulations inflicted on the earth during the present dispensation.

THe return of Christ is stated to take place in the following verses:
6:12-17, 11:15-18, 14:20, 19:11-20, 20:9-15, 21:1ff.

Next - I would like to think (personal thought zone) - That because Christ has "done away" with the "old" order, covenant, temple, priesthood, etc. (read Hebrews chap. 5 -10), That what is "left" - IS THE CHURCH!!!!!!
(BTW these same chapters do deal with - "ONE TAKEN, ONE LEFT")

Therefore when he begins the "vision" with John - BECAUSE the church is in the "here and now", the "present", the NEW, the forefront - He begins WITH the letters (things) THAT CONCERN THE CHURCH! The church is the "issue" that is at hand - so Christ addresses the church first! How proper is it to "deal" with "things" that are at hand?

I want to think that is "why" Christ presents that to John first - THEN he takes John and shows him things that are eternal - from the "present, past and future (WHO IS, WAS and is YET TO COME)".

I guess this was the LOOOOOONG answer to a short question, sorry!

Bless,

D
Well stated. IMHO the Holy Spirit formally declared the Old Covenant formally & finally ended when he declared the Jews to be uncircumcised when they lynched Stephen. Stephen declared their covenant history, stressing their uncircumcised hearts & ears. With Stephen's death the 70 weeks ended.

The New Covenant is now in force. Paul carefully explained that Jews were no longer "the circumcision" but that Gentiles were now truly in that spiritual status. Jewish circumcision is now mutilation.

Phl 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

THis echoes the words of the Lord Jesus to the Samaritan woman:

Jhn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

I hope this is helpful & will bring to an end the myth of the rapture.

Covenanter

March 18th 2006, 11:41 AM

I recommend Vaughn Elliott's web site http://insight2bp.homestead.com/ giving many studies on Bible Prophecy.

He has a new book "Nobody Left Behind" which discusses much more than the popular fictional writings of Tim & Jerry. Read about it & the complete chapter in which he discusses the issues on http://www.nobodyleftbehind.net/

Daniel927

March 19th 2006, 08:23 PM

Ted

March 19th 2006, 10:24 PM

Rev 4:1 - This is seen as a portrayal of the Rapture due not solely to the use of the phrase "Come up hither" but mainly because from 4:1 on, the Church is absent from the rest of the book (until re-appearing as the Bride, of course), unless one chooses to believe that God pours out His wrath indiscriminately on the Church as well as on the world (which those of the "Schofield school" [so to speak] do not choose to believe). I fully realise that other POVs take the position that God will miraculously provide protection for the Church during the Tribulation; we essentially agree, but believe that the form of the protection is to remove the Church to heaven before the Trib starts.
This is the classic position. It suffers from three irreparable faults.

1. As noted earlier in the thread, John is taken up. There is no one with him, and there is no biblical indication that he is to be taken as a type. This is a presumption on the Dispy side. Types require biblical confirmation of their application. (The lamb as sin offering/lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, etc.) Since there is no such use of John, the application is incorrect.

2. Revelation 4-22 is a classic Jewish apocalypse. It uses the same pattern as several intertestamental apocalypses in which the seer is taken to heaven with an angelic guide. He sees many symbolic scenes in heaven, then reports what he has seen to an audience by writing it down. No seer is ever identified as symbolic in himself as the Dispy position requires.

3. The church is most emphatically seen in the visions after chapter 4 and before the Bride. In Rev 7, we have John hearing “the number” of the 144,000, then turning to see an unnumbered multitude “from every nation and tribe and people and tongue.” This is the church. The two descriptions are of the same group. (This is a typical Revelation pattern. Rev 5 has a lamb standing as if slain as the visual after the Lion of Judah is introduced. Rev 21 has the Bride identified and the City seen, etc.)

Also, the “saints” are mentioned numerous times. Since this is the universal NT word for God’s people, the church is in fact in the book all throughout.

**

The use of John as symbolic of the church is required by classic Dispensationalism. It has no textual, contextual, or intertextual basis whatever. In fact, he fits a completely different mold when seen within the literary heritage from which Revelation springs. If a person were to study Revelation using good methods, but without a Dispy background, there is no way that he would arrive at the Dispy conclusion. To declare that John typifies the rapture of the church in 4:1 is eisegesis.

Daniel927: We are in complete agreement here on your first post. Surprise! Major agreement on the second.

Covenanter: Ditto. Well said.

Ted

Covenanter

March 20th 2006, 08:56 AM

Ted, Daniel,

I hope the dispensationalists are looking in :eek: I have debated the subject with others, & they rely on the literal interpretation of selected Old Covenant Scriptures to "prove" their case.

Ted, I have just read your chapter on "Israel" in your book & consider it unanswerable. Israel comprises believers only, Jew & Gentile as one body IN CHRIST.

ALL ISRAEL will be saved. THe dispensationalists cannot maintain that glorious truth. THe most honest answer I have had is "one third of the tribulation Jews."

Ted

March 20th 2006, 12:30 PM

Thank you.

Ted

Covenanter

March 20th 2006, 04:39 PM

Cov,

Thanks for the "come-back", I'm never sure that someone is out there "watching" at these old threads!

I have a tendency to agree with your thoughts along the line of "recapit". The reference to Christ in 12, while the church is in 3, was to throw some "prickly pears" out to those who do hold to "rapture" in 3/4!

The "rapture" that I hold to occurs in both Thes. and Corin.! It is a "catching away/catching up", just as those provisions proclaim. It is the event that fulfills this "age" and ushers in the New, Eternal, "age" (which we look forward to).

You use "rapture." Do you agree that the Scriptures the dispensationalists use to support the rapture in fact relate to the resurrection when Christ returns, & that the only dispensation then remaining is the eternal New Heaven & New Earth.

A couple questions:

Why are the 144,000 referred to as, "the firstfruits"? Doesn't that designation follow along the lines of the "tithe"? Just as that is, to be the "firstfruits" unto God? The FIRST of the increase?

This number, that no man could number, 7:9, 14, out of great tribulation, out of every nation, tongue and peoples. Where are they from?

I'm not sure anyone can offer a definitive explanation of "firstfruits" in this context. My suggestion is:

THe 144,000 are servants of God living on earth, & who will live through tribulation. That they are "tribes of Israel" no longer means "Israel after the flesh" as Israel comprises all & only true believers, regardless of ethnicity. Our Lord warned us that we would suffer tribulation. (John 16:33) Paul also warned the Thessalonians. THis tribulation suffered by believers comes from unbelievers, not from God, & is distinct from the tribulation inflicted by God. (2 Thess. 1) There is of course tribulation inflicted by God on the world, in the wars, earthquakes, & the plagues of Revelation, etc.

As God's servants on earth, we are counted among the 144,000.

Why "firstfruits?" THe firstfruits are the new & immature fruit that give promise of the full harvest. Our imperfect praise is a promise of the glorious praise of the great multitude in glory.

Where are they from? Earth of course. The church has suffered tribulation down the ages, & is suffering intently in some parts of the world to this day.

This relates to Rev. 20 & the present millennium. The saints who have suffered & died are even now living & reigning with Christ in glory. Their first resurrection gave them eternal life (John 5:24ff) & that life did not end with their martyrdom. (Mat. 10:28)

For the sake of argument -- IF -- there were to be a 7 year "great tribulation", HOW IS IT THAT THEY ARE INNUMERABLE? We, as man, are able to "count" the people of the earth, right now! So how is it that God's word says "these" are innumerable, OR UNABLE TO "COUNT" THEM?

While we have 6/7 (forgive my ignorance, as I cannot remember which) billion people on the planet, NOT many of those are "saved and alive" in Christ Jesus! Narrow is the gate, and straight is the way, AND FEW BE THAT FIND IT! So, the "redeemed" would be far fewer than that! Yet they are said to be "uncountable"!

Try counting using letters (Roman numerals). We cannot count the total number of believers living today. How much less the total number for all time?

For MY answer, I wish to believe that in John 5:28, 29, Christ is speaking of what WILL TRANSPIRE within the same time frame, as his resurrection.

That causes me to know that the 144' are OLD TESTAMENT JEWS, those of Abrahams' bosom, that are redeemed, as Matthew 27:53 says,"...AFTER his resurrection".

I keep hearing that "MOST" scholars do not hold to that, but I think that is due to a "misreading" of verses :52/53.

So that (perhaps) makes these 144' as, Rev. 6:9-11, "...under the altar". Also Chapter 7:1-8, and 14:3, :4 (ref. II Cor. 11:2, ...that I may present you as a chaste virgin).

Those that were "kept", pre-Christ, until the glorious appearing of Jesus, that died, believing, "UNDER" the old covenant (ALTAR).

That would make those in Rev. 7:9- , as believers in Christ, who died, "post"-Christ! Since the time of Calvary, until the great day of his coming.

Now, with that, you would have an "innumerable" number. We've been adding to it for 2000 years, and who knows how long it will be before his return!

Hope I didn't "ramble" too much.

In Christ,

Dan
Jesus speaks of two resurrections in John 5. Conversion, or the spiritual resurrection (24-5), & the resurrection of the dead at the last day. I don't see Mat. 27 fulfilling John 5:28-9. Those under the altar are the same as the martyrs in Rev. 20. They died on earth, & live in heaven. THe same people as the great multitude.

Hope that helps. We are all thinking aloud.

Daniel927

March 20th 2006, 10:22 PM

Cov.,

You'll have to forgive me, because I REALLY struggle sometimes, to not only ask the right "question" (scenario), but to ask it correctly. Look careful, because there are "two" points of difficulty there!

Thanks for the patience!

I do not hold to some form of "rapture", be it partial, secret, or otherwise. Christ is going to return, at the "end" of this age, and usher in the "new" age, the beginning of eternity for ALL the redeemed.

Hope that clears that little issue up.

I have a SERIOUS problem with the understanding of the Jew, and the Jew! Check out my opening remark!!!!!!!!

Okay!

Since the time of Christ AND his atonement, Paul, in the scriptures, fully relates, leaving no question, that the BELIEVER, is the JEW! I think that you have said exactly that in this thread. I couldn't agree with you more!

There is no language/scripture, that I find, that refers to "US" as a "replacement" Jew. WE ARE the children of Abraham, because we are partakers of the covenant of God, through Jesus Christ.

That is "one" of the two Jews, that I can relate to.

Now, the "only other" Jew that I can identify, and here is where I guess I have a problem, is the Jew, that clearly existed prior to the atonement work of Christ on Calvary! Or, perhaps better known as "OLD TESTAMENT"- Jew.

As Paul fully states in Heb., chapters 6-10, ALL the "OLD" order was completely done away with. In Rm. 11, he tells of the Jew, as a branch, as being 'broken off". Yet, if they abide not still in unbelief, they can be "grafted" back into the tree.

But that would require them to believe in God, by believing in Christ, whom God sent. YES?

Even so, at that point, while they would then become a covenant Jew, they would be no - "more or less" - a Jew, than someone who was also under the same covenant. By that, I mean - a Gentile who has gone through the conversion - and was now a "NEW TESTAMENT" Jew! YES?

So attempting to get a real good hold on all this, this is where I'm going to leave off.

This would be a good place to start, because the "best" is yet to come!

God bless,

D

Ted

March 21st 2006, 09:05 PM

Cov,

The issue of “firstfruits” in relation to the 144,000 is not easy. The basic problem is the imagery of “firstfruits.” Looking at technical theological work, I’m not sure that theologians have clarified the imagery to a satisfactory degree.

The obvious western approach is reflected in your comment. Why "firstfruits?" THe firstfruits are the new & immature fruit that give promise of the full harvest. Our imperfect praise is a promise of the glorious praise of the great multitude in glory.
I’m not sure I can argue effectively with this sense of the word. After all, the firstfruits were the very first harvested grain. But it wasn’t immature. It did, however, seem to be, as you suggest, a promise of continuing harvest. But is this the sense in which it is used in Rev 14:4?

As I look through the OT, I find the definitional passages all identify the firstfruits as holy. They were “the priest’s due,” a “tithe” (Deut 18:4, 2 Chron 31:5). They supported the priests, who were denied the right to own land. One commentary indicates that the first fruits were given to God to show that all the crop belonged to Him. The remainder was to be used by the people and was not therefore holy. As one author suggests, the first fruits are holy so as to “desacralize” the rest of the crop.

But how can this type be applied properly?

Jesus was the “firstfruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20). I see two approaches to this. First, as the antitype of the first fruits, through corporate identity, Jesus represents all the saints. All the dead rightfully belong to Christ, but only a remnant are saints. The vast majority are wicked, and therefore not holy. This works, but to a western mind, it isn’t terribly satisfying.

The second approach would say that Jesus is the promise of the harvest to come. But when we look at Rev 14:4, we find that the attributes of the 144,000 are not only “first fruits,” but “the ones who have not been defiled with women” (i.e. not adulterers), “the ones who follow the Lamb,” and so on. Note the definite article. If this group is only part of the saints, then the definite article seems out of place. After all, “the” seems to indicate the complete number, not a representative few. (I know this can be stretching the Greek use of the definite article, but it seems appropriate.)

Neither approach seems to give a good answer by itself. But if we continue into the chapter, we find a pair of harvests. The first is the harvest of the saints, which by definition would match the “first fruits.” It is also “holy” since the saints are holy. And it is a minority of the total harvest. The second harvest is definitely unholy, since it is the harvest of the wicked. It is also much larger, matching the desacralized part of a natural harvest.

This seems to give a better approach to the first fruits. The total number of the saints are the first fruits to God. And it matches the imagery of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. There John “hears” the number, then turns and sees an unnumbered multitude from every people and tribe and nation. Thus, he hears a symbolic representation of the body of the saints, then turns to see the reality. And this pattern occurs several other times in the apocalypse.

I don’t want to argue this as absolutely conclusive, but it seems to make good sense. The type represents the remnant who are holy to the Lord. Applied to Jesus, it is used in a corporate identity sense. This is foreign to western ears, since we are individualistic. But ANE peoples thought in a corporate sense. (That’s our problem in the Middle East! We don’t realize the the individual is unimportant, the group is the identity, and the group must survive. But that’s another subject.) Applied to the 144,000, they are all the saints of all ages.

As Paul fully states in Heb., chapters 6-10, ALL the "OLD" order was completely done away with. In Rm. 11, he tells of the Jew, as a branch, as being 'broken off". Yet, if they abide not still in unbelief, they can be "grafted" back into the tree.

But that would require them to believe in God, by believing in Christ, whom God sent. YES?

Even so, at that point, while they would then become a covenant Jew, they would be no - "more or less" - a Jew, than someone who was also under the same covenant. By that, I mean - a Gentile who has gone through the conversion - and was now a "NEW TESTAMENT" Jew! YES?
I recognize the difficulty here. Remember that “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved (see Gal 3:16-29). Look at John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9. The terminology is consistent, and is unrelated to New and Old covenants (Psalm 105:6). To solve your problem, take Romans 11:16-27. Parse every sentence. Identify every term. Identify every logical relationship. Follow Paul’s logic to see his argument. In other words, do the structural and cultural analysis. If you do this carefully, you may surprise yourself. I’m not going to state your conclusion here, since I have stated it in other places. Let us know what you find.

Ted

Daniel927

March 21st 2006, 11:59 PM

Ted, Cov.;

I am attempting to determine whether there is sufficient scripture to suggest a resurrection occurring at the time of Christs' resurrection. Yes, I know that Matt. 27 speaks of events that could be understood as such.

I know that many events "swirl" around this time of Christs' passion, and I'm just trying to "filter" some things out.

In order to adequately consider this event, I thought the beginning of the answer/solution might be found in the determining of the -- JEW.

That is why I posed the questions concerning the Jew. Yes, I know a Jew, ..is a Jew, ..is a Jew. Just like the question earlier.

But..........

There was a Jewish nation, out of Abraham, which existed, Pre-Christ.

Christ arrived on the scene, and "that" order was ushered OUT. YET, Christ ushered in a "new" order, a "new" JEW, the POST-Christ Jew.

STOP ME, - if I'm missing it -, because it is necessary to get the "basic" concepts correct, for any of this to be seriously contemplated.

Christ establishing this "new", did not eliminate/exterminate the "old" order Jew, it just brought that "age" to a close.

So, it seems to me that there are "two", distinct Jews, in that one order was Pre-Christ and the other is Post-Christ.

That is the premise that I am suggesting and I would like get your input, as to whether that is a correct assumption.

If so, I'll attempt to move this "...on down the line", and get to the "heart" of the scenario.

Bless

D

Lizard

March 22nd 2006, 10:35 AM

There are many who would say that that is the correct assumption.

I am not one of them.

I think Paul in Romans (and elsewhere, but most notably in Romans) that Faith is what makes one a member of True Israel, not lineage, physical circumcision, or anything else apart from Faith.

I suggest you read all of Romans with this in mind (or at least chapters 4-9), but I will provide a few “highlights” to get you started (all scripture is ESV):

1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

So it is NOT according to the flesh (lineage) that one is justified, not in the Old Covenant nor in the New. ]

13For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Here Paul is stating that it is those who share the faith of Abraham that are counted as his off-spring (which he elaborates on in Chapter 9 which I will post later).

1Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

In Chapter 4 Paul talks about the faith of Abraham. He then goes on in Ch. 5 to declare that it is the same faith that we have in Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul emphatically declares that all righteousness came into the world through Christ. The righteousness of Abraham (from Ch. 4) and the righteousness of his audience (Jewish and Gentile believers).

And next we have (for me anyway) the “clincher” Romans 9:6-8:

[verse=Romans 9:6-8] 6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Paul clearly (clear to me anyway) says that ‘membership’ in true Israel is not based on lineage, but on “the promise” the promise that Abraham accepted on faith (mentioned in Chapter 4) and was counted righteous.

Also consider Galatians 3:7-29 (pay very close attention to v. 39)

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

To me it is clear. While there is no “break” between the Old Covenant “Israel” and New Covenant “Israel”. The only “distinction” is that before Christ righteousness was accounted on faith in the promise, after Christ righteousness was counted on faith in the fulfillment of that same promise. In other words the only “distinction” is one of temporal relationship to the promise/fulfillment.

I hope that helps.

Ted

March 22nd 2006, 09:29 PM

Faramir,

Well said --- and unanswerable.

Ted

Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 10:46 AM

Faramir,

Well said --- and unanswerable.

Ted
:blush:

Covenanter

March 23rd 2006, 04:57 PM

Cov,

The issue of “firstfruits” in relation to the 144,000 is not easy. The basic problem is the imagery of “firstfruits.” Looking at technical theological work, I’m not sure that theologians have clarified the imagery to a satisfactory degree.

It certain is a challenge, as we do not find the 144,000 in other Scriptures.
Covenanter

The obvious western approach is reflected in your comment.
I’m not sure I can argue effectively with this sense of the word. After all, the firstfruits were the very first harvested grain. But it wasn’t immature. It did, however, seem to be, as you suggest, a promise of continuing harvest. But is this the sense in which it is used in Rev 14:4?

Lev. 2:14 offers green ears of corn, dried by fire.
Covenanter

As I look through the OT, I find the definitional passages all identify the firstfruits as holy. They were “the priest’s due,” a “tithe” (Deut 18:4, 2 Chron 31:5). They supported the priests, who were denied the right to own land. One commentary indicates that the first fruits were given to God to show that all the crop belonged to Him. The remainder was to be used by the people and was not therefore holy. As one author suggests, the first fruits are holy so as to “desacralize” the rest of the crop.

But how can this type be applied properly?

Jesus was the “firstfruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20). I see two approaches to this. First, as the antitype of the first fruits, through corporate identity, Jesus represents all the saints. All the dead rightfully belong to Christ, but only a remnant are saints. The vast majority are wicked, and therefore not holy. This works, but to a western mind, it isn’t terribly satisfying.

The second approach would say that Jesus is the promise of the harvest to come. But when we look at Rev 14:4, we find that the attributes of the 144,000 are not only “first fruits,” but “the ones who have not been defiled with women” (i.e. not adulterers), “the ones who follow the Lamb,” and so on. Note the definite article. If this group is only part of the saints, then the definite article seems out of place. After all, “the” seems to indicate the complete number, not a representative few. (I know this can be stretching the Greek use of the definite article, but it seems appropriate.)

Is the "the" in the Greek? Young leaves it out, as do most translations.
Covenanter

Neither approach seems to give a good answer by itself. But if we continue into the chapter, we find a pair of harvests. The first is the harvest of the saints, which by definition would match the “first fruits.” It is also “holy” since the saints are holy. And it is a minority of the total harvest. The second harvest is definitely unholy, since it is the harvest of the wicked. It is also much larger, matching the desacralized part of a natural harvest.

This seems to give a better approach to the first fruits. The total number of the saints are the first fruits to God. And it matches the imagery of the 144,000 in Revelation 7. There John “hears” the number, then turns and sees an unnumbered multitude from every people and tribe and nation. Thus, he hears a symbolic representation of the body of the saints, then turns to see the reality. And this pattern occurs several other times in the apocalypse.

I don’t want to argue this as absolutely conclusive, but it seems to make good sense. The type represents the remnant who are holy to the Lord. Applied to Jesus, it is used in a corporate identity sense. This is foreign to western ears, since we are individualistic. But ANE peoples thought in a corporate sense. (That’s our problem in the Middle East! We don’t realize the the individual is unimportant, the group is the identity, and the group must survive. But that’s another subject.) Applied to the 144,000, they are all the saints of all ages.

I recognize the difficulty here. Remember that “seed of Abraham” is Paul’s term for ALL the saved (see Gal 3:16-29). Look at John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9. The terminology is consistent, and is unrelated to New and Old covenants (Psalm 105:6). To solve your problem, take Romans 11:16-27. Parse every sentence. Identify every term. Identify every logical relationship. Follow Paul’s logic to see his argument. In other words, do the structural and cultural analysis. If you do this carefully, you may surprise yourself. I’m not going to state your conclusion here, since I have stated it in other places. Let us know what you find.

Ted
Logical thinking BUT - its stretching logic to argue that only the firstfruits are holy, & the main harvest corrupt when Paul argues the opposite.
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.

The various references to "firstfruits" in the New Covenant Scriptures are either to living believers or to Christ. In some cases they are simply the first converts in an area. Rev. 14 is the problem, as the 144,000 there are in heaven, before the throne with Christ, and there is a great harvest to follow.

THat is the point (I think) of Dan's logic in saying that the 144,000 are pre-Christ believers. That would make sense in Rev. 14, but not in Rev. 7, where they sealed on earth prior to tribulation.

Are both bodies of 144,000 the same?

Another logic presents the first 144,000 as sealed on earth, & the second the same body seen triumphant in glory That presents competing pictures, as the 144,000 are sealed on earth prior to tribulation, while the great multitude are seen in heaven, under the altar.

I have looked at the argument in Romans 11, but I can't see a logic that would identify the firstfruits with the first harvest by the Son of man, as holy, while the main harvest as corrupt. The firstfruits are always representative of the main harvest.

Identifying the 144,000 as the tribes of Israel may refer to Jewish Christians who certainly suffered persecution, & thus be firstfruits anticipating the main Gentile/Jew harvest. They are however sealed against divinely inflicted tribulation.

I know we are trying to identify a signified truth. (Rev. 1:1) I look forward to your further thoughts.

Daniel927

March 24th 2006, 12:25 AM

Gentlemen,

I apologize for not being clearer in my earlier response/question.

By the way, I "have Ted" on another thread, and just told him tonight how busy I am at the moment, so this may not be long.

My mistake earlier, in speaking of the Jew, which I failed to clearly state, was that I was NOT referring to the "natural" Jew, after the flesh, according to their "linage".

I was making reference to the "faithful, believing, godly" JEW, which are both of Pre and Post Christ.

I agree with your response that to be considered "Abrahams' Children", we must "do" the works of Abraham, which is to "believe"!

Only, for us, because we have "seen" the mystery of God revealed, in Christ Jesus, we enter in to this covenant with the "atonement" clearly presented. Christ said that, "...many kings and prophets have desired to see the things you see...". Yet we are all (pre-post) united in that it requires "faith".

The issues that surround the 144'-, include this potential "resurrection", that I'm inquiring of. Is it possible to "contemplate" that all those verses which speak of them, just might be talking of "ONLY" one distinct group????

First - Look at Rev. 7 - It speaks of the angels standing on the four corners of the earth. Had Israel been scattered? In all their comings and goings? Into bondage and captivity? In and out of the nations of the earth?

So, --IF-- OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL, IS scattered....why wouldn't their "gathering" be visualized with four angels standing (the "extent" of this event) on the four corners? Could it refer to Israel being "gathered" from the four compass points, "reaches", of the earth?

I know that I have used the word "gather", while the verse talks about "sealed". But that is just to convey/present the main thrust of possiblity concerning the events surrounding the 144'!

In a "nutshell", I am inclined to think this "sealing", IS the Holy Spirit being "given" to the OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS! Who were preserved, in the bosom of Abraham, for the time, waiting for the "coming" of the redeemer.

The "giving" of the Holy Spirit would REQUIRE FIRST THE SHED BLOOD OF CHRIST? We, as the living, as the believer, would receive the baptism after Christ ascended, beginning with pentecost. Aren't these the faithful, who died "under" the covenant, Pre-Christ?

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised Christ from the dead shall quicken your mortal bodies........BY HIS SPIRIT"!!!!!!!!

Is it possible that this account in Rev. 7, is showing the very "sealing" of OT Israel? "Grieve not the Holy Spirit, whereby you are "sealed" unto the day of redemption"? Wouldn't that be the "seal" of God, that is being spoken of here?

NOW, look at Rev. 6:9, it speaks of those who are "UNDER" the altar. They are given white robes (white linen is the righteousness of the saints?), and told to REST, as the "time" is not yet full?

Aren't these the same OT saints, pictured prior to chapter 7? Prior to being "sealed"? Christ has not yet (6:9) instituted the plan of redemption, and therefore "they" must WAIT until such time? "...Til their brethren that should be killed, -as they were -, SHOULD BE "FULFILLED"?

Now if Paul speaks that, "...absent from the body...present with the Lord", and that applies to all believers, WHY aren't these (who obviously are believers), "with" the Lord?

Again, --IF--, these are OT ISRAEL, they are "calling out" FROM Abrahams' bosom. They are in their "eternal" state, they are preserved, BUT still seperated from God, because Christ has not yet completed his work?

Would then the "ALTAR", that they are pictured "UNDER", NOT NECESSARILY be a picture of LOCATION (as in: I was "under" the table), BUT RATHER BE A PICTURE OF "POSITION/RELATIONSHIP" (as in: I was "under" the care of Ted)????????????

Would then that "picture" of being "under the altar", be presented because the "ALTAR", was where the Jew (believer) had and met the requirement for "covenant" relationship with God?????????? This "ALTAR" would be the avenue, the vehicle, for exhibiting their relationship wiith God????????

NOW, in Rev. 14, we again "see" this 144'! But unlike the picture of them in Rev. 6:9, before Christ arrives on the scenc, or, Rev.7:1-8, where they are actually experiencing the "in-filling" of the "seal" of God, we see the FULFILLMENT of the plan of God.

PROGRESSION

In Rev. 14, these 144' are shown in their "redeemed" state, in the kingdom? They are being shown, in the "inheritance" that is prepared specifically for them? That "ONLY" they can sing of this song? Why? Because these are the "ONLY" ones who have been "redeemed" out from the covenant --PRE-CHRIST???????????? That would certainly make them distinct from NT saints, wouldn't it?

As for the part, "..for they are virgins", please turn your attention to II Cor. 11:2, "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a .......CHASTE VIRGIN TO CHRIST"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OT and NT saints may have some distinctions between them, but there are also similarities! We are ALL presented as "chaste virgins" to Christ. Without spot or blemish!

With ALL these possibilities, it does bring up the question of "resurrection"! This could very well be the picture that is presented in Rev. 20 -- where the "language" means an actual -physical, bodily, - resurrection. I know we talk of the "spiritual birth" as "resurrection", but this speaks of, "...This is the FIRST resurrection"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It certainly is all connected

I know it's alot.

Ted,

I apologize again, for not answering in a timely manner, I will do my best to "catch" you this weekend.

Bless all of you,

D

Ted

March 24th 2006, 09:24 PM

Logical thinking BUT - its stretching logic to argue that only the firstfruits are holy, & the main harvest corrupt when Paul argues the opposite.
Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
Be careful about the construction here. Paul makes two statements in parallel. The first notes the imagery of the firstfruits and unleavened bread. It’s in an “If A, then B” form. If you read Leviticus 23, you will see that the Firstfruits and Feast of Unleavened Bread happen at the same time. Thus, Paul properly links them, pointing out the holiness of both the offering and the unleavened bread. The second part looks back to common Hebrew references to such things as Jesus as the “Root of Jesse” (Isa 11:10) as the corporate identity of true Israel. The imagery goes back as far as Deut 29:18 where idolatry is a “root bearing poisonous fruit.” Thus, if the root is holy, of course the branches will be, too.

Thus, your argument about Paul is incorrect. Paul uses two sets of imagery, and neither suggests anything about the remnant of the harvest after the holy firstfruits.

The various references to "firstfruits" in the New Covenant Scriptures are either to living believers or to Christ. In some cases they are simply the first converts in an area. Rev. 14 is the problem, as the 144,000 there are in heaven, before the throne with Christ, and there is a great harvest to follow.
There are questionable underlying assumptions in your statement. That is, (1) Revelation is strictly sequential, and (2) Revelation follows the usual rules of physical reality. Neither is true. Verse 6 of chapter 14 introduces a new scene with “and I saw.” Verse 14 does this again. Thus, to suggest that the harvest following verse 14 takes place while the 144,000 are literally in heaven is to over-read the passage. There is nothing in the passage to tell us just when each of the parts of the chapter take place relative to each other.

Throughout the book we have a consistent use of “earth-dwellers” to speak of the wicked and “heaven-dwellers” to identify the saints. If this takes place during a hypothetical “great tribulation,” then to say that all who dwell on the earth celebrate the death of the witnesses (chapter 11) says that there are no faithful people dwelling on the earth. But this contradicts the Dispy idea of “tribulation saints.”

Of course, if we use the NT consistently, we find in Hebrews 12 that the saints alive on earth in Paul’s day are “heaven-dwellers.” Next, Revelation is a symbolic vision. It doesn’t play by normal rules. There is no reason why we shouldn’t see one entity appearing in more than one place in a single scene. One such is the first seal, where the rider in white is Jesus, even though Jesus opens the seal. (For you Dispy’s, Satan and his minions never get to wear white.)

I have looked at the argument in Romans 11, but I can't see a logic that would identify the firstfruits with the first harvest by the Son of man, as holy, while the main harvest as corrupt. The firstfruits are always representative of the main harvest.
I understand your point, but you are reading something into Paul’s argument that isn’t there. (See above.) We have to be careful about asking scripture to answer questions it doesn’t address.

The issues that surround the 144'-, include this potential "resurrection", that I'm inquiring of. Is it possible to "contemplate" that all those verses which speak of them, just might be talking of "ONLY" one distinct group????
Because ot the identical substantive language in Rev 7 & 14 of “144,000,” there seems to be little reason to suggest that they are not identical. At the same time, recall that in 7, John “hears” the number, then “sees” an unnumbered multitude. They are the same group.

First - Look at Rev. 7 - It speaks of the angels standing on the four corners of the earth. Had Israel been scattered? In all their comings and goings? Into bondage and captivity? In and out of the nations of the earth?

So, --IF-- OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL, IS scattered....why wouldn't their "gathering" be visualized with four angels standing (the "extent" of this event) on the four corners? Could it refer to Israel being "gathered" from the four compass points, "reaches", of the earth?

I know that I have used the word "gather", while the verse talks about "sealed". But that is just to convey/present the main thrust of possiblity concerning the events surrounding the 144'!
Not so fast! The angels are there to hold back the winds. Others are involved in the sealing. Look back at the imagery. While you might argue that it comes from Isa 11:12 for your gathering motif, the duties of the angels at the four corners indicate that Ezek 7:2 is a better source, speaking of impending doom.

It’s nice to see a possible connection. But your first glance needs to be backed up by careful analysis. And I can’t find any place where sealing implies gathering. Eph 4:30 is the closest parallel, and gathering is conspicuously absent.

NOW, look at Rev. 6:9, it speaks of those who are "UNDER" the altar. They are given white robes (white linen is the righteousness of the saints?), and told to REST, as the "time" is not yet full?

Aren't these the same OT saints, pictured prior to chapter 7? Prior to being "sealed"? Christ has not yet (6:9) instituted the plan of redemption, and therefore "they" must WAIT until such time? "...Til their brethren that should be killed, -as they were -, SHOULD BE "FULFILLED"?
Once again, be careful of your imagery. This is the place that the blood (the life! – Lev 17:11) of the sacrifice was poured out. Jesus declared that His blood was to be poured out (Matt 26:28). And Paul uses temple imagery regarding his impending death (Phi 2:17). He also gave us a whole book (Hebrews) devoted to the Temple as applied in the New Covenant. (I know, the authorship is contested…) So restricting this image to OT saints is really problematic. Of course, the fact that the book of Revelation is built around the Temple ought to suggest that such a restriction ought to be subject to very careful scrutiny.

Now if Paul speaks that, "...absent from the body...present with the Lord", and that applies to all believers, WHY aren't these (who obviously are believers), "with" the Lord?
Why didn’t I anticipate that question??? Again, you are leaping to a conclusion. Read 1 Cor 15. Paul anticipates leaving this “natural body (v. 44) at the parousia. Thus, Paul does not expect to be “absent from the body” until the parousia. Thus, as Paul says in 1 Thes 4:13-17, he is now “sleeping” in the dust of the earth.

BTW, don’t apologize for being busy. It happens to all of us. We’ll be here.

General comment:
As I discuss on the board, I repeatedly find people who do not go through the steps of careful analysis. In concept, they’re not very hard. And one of my hermeneutics students has already noted that they greatly enrich his preaching. (Halfway through the course.)

The first thing to look at is the subject matter. What is the author talking about? Often we reach conclusions unrelated to the subject in scripture simply by not noticing this first element of context.

Next, we need to analyze the structure of the passage. Break it into blocks and see what each block is about. Topic sentences for paragraphs are a great help.

Third, we need to be sure we understand all of the terms. If the text speaks of an altar (fifth seal), which altar is it? What happened there? For prophecy, what are the sources of the symbols?

Fourth, we need to consider the cultic and cultural milieu. This means that we can’t understand sanctuary language (most of Revelation) without a good working knowledge of the OT sanctuary type, including the festivals.

These steps allow us to begin to do a theological analysis. That analysis is continually revisited as new information is developed. It is also compared to results from other passages. Only when they all agree can we have confidence in our results.

I understand how prophecy is so enticing. Solving puzzles is satisfying. But I firmly believe that if you don’t have a command of some prerequisites, your work in symbolic prophecy will be seriously hampered. In particular, the Temple is the core of everything. It was in the OT, with the Temple on earth, and it is in the NT with the Temple in heaven. The first is the type, and points forward to the latter antitype. Learn about the Temple, in detail, and much of the prophecy will fall into place.

Ted

Daniel927

March 25th 2006, 10:36 PM

Ted,

Enjoyed, very much, your contributions. It just "tickles" me to no end when I see you "get" something that I've been "pounding" your way -- :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You are correct about the four angels holding the winds, 7:1, and that John "only" heard the sealing. The imagery that I was looking to stress was that of the event "encompassing" the whole realm (eternal?), descriptive by the usage of "four winds".

Of course, that may be similar to 1:10, where he "heard" (the voice) behind him.

So John didn't "visualize" the 144' being sealed, but I would imagine that he "came into the knowledge of, or comprehended" that the "sealing" took place.

The "sealing" and "gathering" are two separate workings/applications/events. You'll notice that I even pointed out that fact. YET, even in our present case, for EVERY believer, we are FIRST sealed (after the blood, forgiveness)...[without my Spirit, you are none of mine], SO THAT WE MIGHT BE "GATHERED" (found worthy of eternal life).

So while in chap. 7, they are "only" SEALED, and not gathered, chap. 14 shows the "gathering" that has transpired, which was certainly preceded by the event of "sealing".

That was the "connection" that I was attempting to suggest. You can feel free to refer to it as a "new" concept, something that needs some contemplation. But it certainly "aligns" with the events of forgiveness/indwelling/redemption.

Your point that the angels were holding back a potential "doom", Ez. 7, -I would have a tendency to agree with. In Rev. 6:15-17, it clearly conveys the day of "wrath" against the ungodly. It speaks particularly of the "wrath" of the Lamb.

So is it possible that these two events are transpiring, in conjunction one with the other? If not almost simultaneous, certainly "linked" - timewise? I'm trying NOT to ask more of the verses than they provide, but these events would certainly "mirror" the - great and terrible day. Great for the believer, terrible for the ungodly?

The scripture does say the "great and terrible" day of the Lord, doesn't it? In this part of the passage it certainly implies that the "doom" is impending, almost immediate, merely waiting upon this act of "sealing"?

-----------------------------------------------------

I know that the "body" of Paul is in the ground. That's a point that even I wouldn't care to debate. YET, ......where is his eternal man/spirit?

In I Thes. 4:13--, Paul addresses those who have died (asleep) in Christ (which certainly includes him as well), that (14) "...even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God -- BRING WITH HIM".

You certainly have to help me here because I am under the distinct understanding that, THOSE THAT ARE ASLEEP IN CHRIST CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITH CHRIST (when he returns), UNLESS THEY ARE THERE PRESENT WITH HIM, AND THEREBY ABLE TO BE "BROUGHT WITH CHRIST" (at his return).

SO, what am I missing?

-----------------------------------

The "firstfruits" are these very same 144'! The first to partake of the "eternal consequences" that transpire for ALL those who believe in God. Redeemed at the time of Christ. Representative of the "whole" that are to be redeemed. FIRST FRUITS.

The "initial" fulfilling of eternal life to the believer. THEN "after this" (9), perhaps not meaning a: "time" identification; but more so, the NEXT STEP/PROVISION, in the covenant relationship of the Lamb?

Meaning FIRST the OT believers, and "after" them, the NT believers? Again, as a FINAL, ETERNAL PICTURE of the work of Christ? John is "seeing" the finality of many things, isn't he?

This is the point and distinction that I am attempting to point out. The Jew, OT, the first; the Jew, NT, the second.

It helps to properly set a "time frame" for some of these events in Rev. It is simply for the purpose of knowing the written word. AND it leads to "...line upon line, precept upon precept". It is all good!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------

Earlier I saw that you pointed out a fact that sometimes events are "conditional". The old - "IF' - "THEN" - scenario.

With Paul in Cor. 15, why doesn't this apply? He begins with, "...I show you a mystery, WE SHALL ALL NOT SLEEP". Why isn't he addressing that very "class" of believers (awakers)? He is!

Paul stipulates what the IF is! He does not state "IF" in the passage because HE is expecting the Lord to return while HE is still alive! But the "IF" is: "IF" - WE ARE STILL ALIVE AT THE RETURN OF THE LORD!

YET, Paul is STILL correct with his statement, BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE ALSO PART OF THE "WE" THAT HE SPEAKS TO IN THIS PASSAGE.

In Thess. he speaks of the scenario that "covers" those that have gone to be with the Lord. Here in Cor. he discusses the only other "option" to NOT being asleep in the Lord.

Alive and remaining.

Your point is correct -- Paul was expecting to "BE ALIVE". May I confide in you? I AM EXPECTING TO BE ALIVE AT HIS "COMING" AS WELL!!!!!!!!!! How about you? Aren't we "called" to be that way?

-----------------------------------------

Take notice that those "under" the altar, are PRE-crucifixion. That is the context I want to place it in. YES, we have our "own" portion of the altar, that would be in Christ. We are "made" partakers with/of/by Christ.

Their partaking of the OT altar, pre-Chrsit, could "ONLY" preserve them until the time of regeneration. Waiting for the Spirit, the Spirit of LIFE. WE have already received that Spirit of Life, through the ministry of Christ!

All "partakers", yet (dare I use - THE - word?), a different application, a different "dispensation"? OUCH.

To your point concerning Hebrews, the "pattern", "the type and shadow", but not the true. Christ "displacing" ALL those "types".

------------------------------

I appreciate your "comments" regarding understanding that we must consider "where" the end of our positions will take us. That we must excercise proper hermeneutics in attempting to "digest" the word of God. What they (considerations) will leave us "holding", as far as a theology goes. Care must ALWAYS be taken.

Although the working of the Spirit is different in all our lives, He still works to the unity, benefit, building up of the body.

SOME OF US HAVE to be the "hard" boiled types, so that those other "types" can have someone to help "straighten" out! Everyone has their place, yes?

---------------------------------------------------------

May the tender mercies of our Lord and Savior ever overshadow you. May He ever cause you to know and comprehend his glorious plan for all those that love him and eagerly await his appearing.

In Christ,

Daniel

Ted

March 26th 2006, 11:13 AM

So while in chap. 7, they are "only" SEALED, and not gathered, chap. 14 shows the "gathering" that has transpired, which was certainly preceded by the event of "sealing".
I’ve been teaching that for quite a while. The basic issue in sealing, however, is whether Rev 7 is treating “until we have sealed” as a one-time event or the conclusion of the process. I hold to the latter, since Paul speaks of the sealing as ongoing in his day (Eph 1:13).

One other point – I regard the gathering in 14 as the harvest of the earth (vv. 15-16), not the 144,000 in the praise scene. As noted before, there are at least three independent scenes in 14 – the praise scene, the three angels, and the harvests. Because of the symbolic visionary nature of Revelation, and the fact that the saints are regarded as dwelling in heaven before the apocalypse was written (Heb 12:18-24), seeing redeemed saints praising God in heaven before the parousia does not tell us that they are physically there.

Your point that the angels were holding back a potential "doom", Ez. 7, -I would have a tendency to agree with. In Rev. 6:15-17, it clearly conveys the day of "wrath" against the ungodly. It speaks particularly of the "wrath" of the Lamb.
Nice pick up. That’s one of the timing cues in the book. The fifth and sixth Trumpets happen during the sixth seal, after the last saint has been sealed, but before the Day of Atonement in the Seventh Seal and Trumpet. Note in 9:4 that the saints are protected at this time. This is the “hour of testing” (3:10) that comes to prove those who “dwell on the earth” (the wicked).

I know that the "body" of Paul is in the ground. That's a point that even I wouldn't care to debate. YET, ......where is his eternal man/spirit?
This is really a state of the dead question. I have three essays on the subject on my website. But the key is found in your question. You assume that there is an eternal, immortal part of man that persists. That is an Hellenistic idea that does not exist in scripture, but became a part of Jewish thought by Jesus’ day. Remember that Jesus said that He could “destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matt 10:28). The way He put this is an accommodation to that Hellenization. But we must also note that in 1 Cor 15, Paul says that immortality comes at the parousia. If our “soul” is immortal, then we already have immortality and Paul is wrong. But Paul recognizes that we do not have a soul, we are souls. Genesis 2:7 says that Adam “became a living soul.” Of course, the Hebrew of Genesis 1 calls animals “souls” as well.

In I Thes. 4:13--, Paul addresses those who have died (asleep) in Christ (which certainly includes him as well), that (14) "...even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God -- BRING WITH HIM".
Three items here. First, if the saints come from heaven, Paul is contradicting himself, because only immortal and sinless beings have access to heaven. Yet Paul expects to receive immortality at the parousia. Next, Jesus told the disciples (John 14:1-3) that He was going to prepare a place for them in heaven. If they aren’t immortal and sinless yet, they haven’t been there yet.

Finally, the verb translated “bring” doesn’t necessarily mean “bring.” BDAG notes that it can also mean “take” or “lead” (See Acts 20:12 and 23:18 NAS). That means that your translation depends on your theology. If you see live saints in heaven before the parousia, and the parousia leading to an earthly kingdom, you will translate it “bring,” as most translators do. After all, that is the basic theology of the vast majority of translators. But if you see the saints sleeping in the grave as Paul does (1 Thes 4:13), then you will translate it “take” or “lead” (cf. Psa 68:18, Eph 4:8). Jesus will come to “receive” (cf. John 14:3) the saints so that they can be with Him in heaven.

Paul stipulates what the IF is! He does not state "IF" in the passage because HE is expecting the Lord to return while HE is still alive! But the "IF" is: "IF" - WE ARE STILL ALIVE AT THE RETURN OF THE LORD!

YET, Paul is STILL correct with his statement, BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE ALSO PART OF THE "WE" THAT HE SPEAKS TO IN THIS PASSAGE.
Isn’t the Holy Spirit wonderful? He inspired that passage for just the meaning you gave it.

Take notice that those "under" the altar, are PRE-crucifixion. That is the context I want to place it in. YES, we have our "own" portion of the altar, that would be in Christ. We are "made" partakers with/of/by Christ.

Their partaking of the OT altar, pre-Chrsit, could "ONLY" preserve them until the time of regeneration. Waiting for the Spirit, the Spirit of LIFE. WE have already received that Spirit of Life, through the ministry of Christ!
I fear you are over-reading the passage. Recall that the earthly sanctuary was a type and shadow of the heavenly, the true sanctuary. Thus, we should expect that the earthly type would be echoed in the heavenly antitype. Since the blood (the life is in the blood!) was poured out under the altar (Exod 29:12), when we see “souls under the altar” (fifth Seal), that is symbolic of all the saints who have died. They were all killed by sin in the world, regardless of their own acts. Thus, they were “poured out” in a manner little different from the blood of the sacrifices. And since the antitype is present and active (Hebrews!), we should see the dead NT saints there just as the OT saints are.

As for “regeneration,” it is used in only two verses, Matt 19:28 and Titus 3:5. Titus uses the sense you note. But Matthew applies it to the disciples, who “in the regeneration” will “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” From Acts, we know this didn’t happen at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out. So we have to find another meaning. And even if your sense is correct, since that promise didn’t happen at Pentecost, it loses its timing value.

**

I greatly appreciate the spirit in which you are engaging the discussion. It will serve you well.

Ted

Daniel927

March 30th 2006, 09:51 PM

Ted,

Knowing that the themes in Rev. are inseparable, it is difficult to not lose "focus" on the issue being discussed. So bear with me, as I attempt to raise the concept of OT Jew vs. NT Jew and how they dictate the timing of the various events that occur.

In my estimation, there are distinctions made between them, for this very purpose. I do not disagree that when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty, WE ARE ALL JEWS, I just want to point out that there are differences between the New Jew and the Old Jew (in Rev.), and it serves a purpose.

John is told in 1:19, "...things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter".

I REALLY want to think that -- "things" -- which is referred to as; "...WHICH ARE and.... SHALL BE HEREAFTER...", is clearly making reference to "time elements" or "tenses". That being the case, I then want to also understand that when it speaks of; "...things which thou hast seen...", it is ALSO making reference to a "time" issue, YES?????????

What that would give us then, would be events that transpire in, "the past, the present and the future", YES????? So as the Lord instructs John to "write" all these things, we should know that certain of these happenings WILL BE "things" that took (past tense) place PRIOR TO this day of revelation.

Youn's, on that end, are probably well aware of this, I'm just trying to establish a "baseline". Sorry for the redundancy.

Take the issue of "sealing".

You are correct that Eph. clearly shows that we all, through the conversion, are continually "sealed". He is the "promise" of the gift of God to all who believe, He is our "seal". He is --ALSO-- the ONLY --- SEAL OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Now, as we look at chap. 7, where ISRAEL is "sealed", shouldn't we understand that this is an identical "work" done to them, that is done to us? God "seals" us the NT Jew, BUT He ALSO "sealed" them, the OT Jew! Isn't this what John sees and records?

So, to address your point; the "sealing" is an on-going event, in the believer's life, YET, this event which depicts the "sealing" of OT ISRAEL , was a ONE-TIME event! This group went into Abrahams' bosom, waiting on the promise, which was not JUST Christ, but also was the promise of God putting his Spirit IN them.

No different than anyone else, after the "blood", then the baptism of the Spirit. We, as believers are "sealed" individually, they, as a corporate body (of OT ISRAEL), were "sealed" all at once.

That is why you will see the differences in Rev. made between them and any other group.

Is it correct to consider that --IF-- these were/are - NOT- OT- Jews, then John, (whom I feel received a "very comprehensive" view of things in the eternal realm), did not "see", nor "record" any events that involved OT ISRAEL????????????

He continually spoke of "this" group of 144', but -- IF-- they are not OT ISRAEL, they HAVE TO BE - NT Israel. They have to be one or the other.

I cannot relate to them being some "modern day/future" Jew, that proselytize the world, and those "former" Gentiles are saved through this effort and are the ones depicted in 7:14!

That has always been a "consideration" of mine: IF they in chap's 6, 7, 14 are not OT Jews, and the ones' in 7:14 are NOT the church, the body, THEN NEITHER GROUP GETS ANY "INK" in Rev.

I would like to respond to many of the things that you spoke on, in your last post, but this has turned out quite lengthy, just speaking on OT-NT Jew! Perhaps in the up-coming ones, I can work in some of those issues.

JUST ONCE MORE , I would like to reinterate that the events, concerning those Jews; 6:11 represents - preservation/separation/sanctification; 7:4-8 represents -infilling/baptism/empowerment; 14:1 represents - redemption/regeneration/restoration.

This mirrors exactly the work of God in the converts' life since the time of the ministry of Christ:

Blood: -sanctification
Baptism: -empowerment to become the Sons of God
Resurrection: -redemption - regeneration - restoration.

Try not to have alot of "grief or heart-burn" over this, I've simply felt it best to try and give you a "grip" one some of the things that I "lean" towards!

Thanks,

In Christ,

D

Ted

March 31st 2006, 02:40 PM

John is told in 1:19, "...things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter".

I REALLY want to think that -- "things" -- which is referred to as; "...WHICH ARE and.... SHALL BE HEREAFTER...", is clearly making reference to "time elements" or "tenses". That being the case, I then want to also understand that when it speaks of; "...things which thou hast seen...", it is ALSO making reference to a "time" issue, YES?????????
Let’s first make a quick visit to grammar. If you look at different translations, you will notice that some have two “ands” and others only one (between “are” and “will be”). This reflects the variable use of kai in Greek. Thus, some who insist that all of the book is future are on shaky ground. Enough of that aside.

As for this being a time marker, its problematic. Yes, there are things that “shall be.” That’s clearly future. But when we get into the book, identifying which things are present versus those things that are future isn’t easy. John “saw” them all. For example, the fifth Seal has the “souls” of martyrs under the altar. Since Abel was the first martyr, this group begins around 4,000 years before John. We could go on. Each segment has to be evaluated and placed within the structure of the whole. And before that can be done, the structure of the whole has to be understood, and all of the symbols for the element have to be decoded. All in all, a daunting task.

You are correct that Eph. clearly shows that we all, through the conversion, are continually "sealed". He is the "promise" of the gift of God to all who believe, He is our "seal". He is --ALSO-- the ONLY --- SEAL OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!
Here I have to be certain of the intent of your first sentence. We can take it that I am personally undergoing a continual process, or a repetitive process of sealing. Alternatively, I can take this as a collective statement where each individual is sealed once, but the collective process is continual. That would make the Greek verb a “constative aorist.” If your meaning is the latter, then I agree.

Now, as we look at chap. 7, where ISRAEL is "sealed", shouldn't we understand that this is an identical "work" done to them, that is done to us? God "seals" us the NT Jew, BUT He ALSO "sealed" them, the OT Jew! Isn't this what John sees and records?
First, it is imperative to identify “Israel.” There are at least seven biblical definitions of the word, and they are all identified by context. In this case, the list of tribes is different from every other list of tribes in the Bible. This should suggest that there is something going on. Then, when we see the “I heard/I saw” pattern (as you noticed in 1:10ff), we must identify the “tribes” as the “great multitude.” That is, John “heard” one description of the group, then “saw” another. In each case where this happens (1:10-16, 5:5-7, 7:4-9, 21:9-10), the two descriptions are of the same entity. This denies your premise that the twelve tribes are OT Jew.

Incidentally, I would suggest that you abandon the idea of OT and NT “Jew.” Since that term is only applicable to the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin (with the Levites), it excludes all the prophets to the northern kingdom such as Samuel, Elijah, and so on. The better term is “Israel.” But even with that, you should research the term more carefully. While there is a secular ethnic application, in the redemptive context, “Israel” properly refers to the faithful throughout history. Those who rebel but claim the name are properly rebuffed as pretenders, such a John the Baptist’s rejoinder to the Pharisees in Matt 3:9-10.

So, to address your point; the "sealing" is an on-going event, in the believer's life, YET, this event which depicts the "sealing" of OT ISRAEL , was a ONE-TIME event!
This statement is incorrect in two ways. First, the individual is sealed when he accepts Christ. This is not a continuing process in an individual. Second, there is no basis for stating that it is a one-time event for OT Israel.

First, the imagery is of all peoples, not just Israelites. Second, the ancients were sealed at the moment they expressed their faith in Yahweh, just as we are when we express our faith in Jesus.

Finally, there is no verbal reason to require this to be a one-time event. The verb is morphologically aorist, but it can be a constative or culminative aorist, referring to the same aggregate process I discussed before. In other words, it can be legitimately translated “…until we have finished sealing…”

That is why you will see the differences in Rev. made between them and any other group.
Actually, Revelation blends the NT and OT saints in such a thorough way as to make them indistinguishable. I repeatedly note this in I Want to be Left Behind and in my new book on Revelation (partial on my website).

He continually spoke of "this" group of 144', but -- IF-- they are not OT ISRAEL, they HAVE TO BE - NT Israel. They have to be one or the other.
Not true. They represent all saints of all ages.

That has always been a "consideration" of mine: IF they in chap's 6, 7, 14 are not OT Jews, and the ones' in 7:14 are NOT the church, the body, THEN NEITHER GROUP GETS ANY "INK" in Rev.
It’s time to revise your thinking. Forget about distinctions between the groups. The saints are the saints – period. When they lived is unimportant. All that is important is their faith in God.

Ted

Daniel927

March 31st 2006, 11:52 PM

Ted,

It is a wonder that we EVER agree on ANYTHING!!!!!!!

Perhaps it is because we aren't that familiar with each other, familiar enough to know what each other means "when" we use a certain "terminology"!

Even the "cults" often use the same terminology as born-again believers, but they attach different meanings to those expressions. So I understand the caution, but it will be good "once" we reach that point!

To quote you, "We have a failure to communicate"!!!!!!!!

When I speak of "Jew", I am making reference to "ONLY" the believer, be it those pre-Christ or those post-Christ. That has always been the "only" Jew, and that has always been the "only" Israel. Individually or corporately.

My reference to OT Jew, is clearly meant to mean the believing Jew, which is inclusive of all those who faithfully obey, follow the Lord. Regardless of lineage, or geographical location. The designation is only meant to identify those, who lived prior to Christ walking upon the earth. Conversely, NT Jew, is simply those who have lived since that time of Christ!

------------------------------------------------------

John was shown "past, present, and future". That being the case, we need to understand that this means those events, that were revealed to him, were occurring either in the : "past, present, or future".

I know that sounds redundant, but that is the point! Some recorded events happened, prior to the work of Christ, some are on-going at that very time, and some will transpire in the future, from the writing of those accounts. That's the point I was trying to make about them being a "time" issue.

--------------------------------------------------

I whole-heartedly thank you for realizing that I was talking in the "corporate" sense, of the believer being continually "sealed". It is a continual work for each and every new convert. Once we have received the "seal" individually, the work is complete for us. But corporately, the work of the Spirit goes on "sealing" each and every "new" convert.

NOW, --IF-- I were to hold to what you seem to describe about the 144' and the innumerable #, I would have no problem with eliminating the distinction of OT and NT Jew. But I think this is going to be a "difference" between how we see these that are redeemed.

Once again, the 144' - CANNOT BE - the number that no man could number! I thought that was what you were saying a couple of posts -back, I just wasn't certain of it.

Can one (1) apple be the same as one-hundred (100) apples? Can one (1) dollar be the same as ten (10) dollars? ONCE AGAIN, I readily admit, ...that I just don't get it! I don't see how - two different "numbers" can be the "same" number!

Else why would in 14:1, 3, "...144'...no man could learn that song, but the 144'! If they (144') are ALL the redeemed, why would that verse even be there? Isn't it there to show a distinction?

This group is clearly identified, AND numbered as; 12,000 out of the 12 tribes of Israel! That absolutely, positively gives us 144'. That -DOES NOT -, in any way, shape or form, give us an innumerable number!

Not only that, but the 144' ARE clearly Jew, the innumerable # are out of ALL nations, kindreds, peoples and tongues! A clear and undeniable distinction!!!!

Okay, then tell me "how" to see it!

--------------------------------------------------

The point of it being a "one-time" sealing of Israel, OR NOT, let me inquire of you:
Was the Holy Spirit given unto men, the in-dwelling, prior to Pentecost?
Does the Holy Spirit represent (IS) the "seal" of God?
IF - it took the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7), and He is our "seal", WHAT were those, who died prior to this time "sealed" with?
Surely you're not advocating that those who confessed and believed in YWHW, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, prior to Christ?

God very well may have "hedged", as in Job, those that believed in Him, but that was a different work than the baptism, the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit!

Was there a place called "Abraham's bosom", where the believer, the true Jew went to, and was preserved, prior to Christ?
If they were all "gathered", held, preserved, in one place, why wouldn't this be the "group" (referenced as 144'), in Rev. 7:4-8?

So, - IF - the OT Jew, is the pre-Christ Jew, -AFTER Christ -arrives on the scene, -THERE CAN BE NO MORE PRE-CHRIST JEWS (THAT IS: ADDED TO THIS GROUP).

THERE CAN ONLY BE POST-CHRIST JEWS, FROM THAT POINT FORWARD!
They are shown, 7:4-8, as being "sealed" -CORPORATELY-, YES? The entire group? All at once?

-------------------------------------------------

Lastly:

YES, we agree, WHOLE HEARTEDLY! The believer, is the believer, is the believer. Israel is Israel is Israel! The Jew is the Jew, is the Jew, is the Jew!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I said that at the very beginning, and I say it again!

Is it possible to understand that when you attend Church this Sunday, that you may arrive by automobile? What if some live close enough, that they walk? Or even some arrive on motorcycle or even take the bus?

Did they ALL make it to church? Are they ALL there? They are not considered as a "less" class of attendees, because of the "mode" of arrival, are they?

Yet, you cannot discount "how" it was they "arrived"! Their means, though different, accomplished the same end.

The OT Jew arrived, although not without Christ, through the vehicle or mode, that was available to them, the old covenant. The NT Jew had available to them a "different" vehicle, the "NEW"!

So for all the reasons, there is a distinction, that is a key of understanding.

Thanks much for the in-put,

Bless,

D

Ted

April 3rd 2006, 01:02 PM

Once again, the 144' - CANNOT BE - the number that no man could number! I thought that was what you were saying a couple of posts -back, I just wasn't certain of it.

Can one (1) apple be the same as one-hundred (100) apples? Can one (1) dollar be the same as ten (10) dollars? ONCE AGAIN, I readily admit, ...that I just don't get it! I don't see how - two different "numbers" can be the "same" number!
You are missing the point. The numbers in the first part (“I heard the number”) are symbolic, while the second part explains the first. Thus, to “equate” the numbers is non-sequitur. John doesn’t do it, and neither should we. On the other hand, John equates the meanings.

Was the Holy Spirit given unto men, the in-dwelling, prior to Pentecost?
You will find theologians who will argue that the OT saints (please don’t use “Jews,” since the saints extend from creation on, long before “Jew” was a word) didn’t have the Holy Spirit. But David, in Psalm 51:11 implores God not to take the HS from him, implying that he had the indwelling. Isaiah (63:10-11) implies that the HS was indwelling the Israelites in the exodus. Thus, I would suggest that the argument is incorrect. Rather, the issue is the HS coming in power (Acts 1:8). This speaks of the prophetic office.

Does the Holy Spirit represent (IS) the "seal" of God?
Paul says that the HS is the mechanism of sealing (Eph 4:30). Is it the seal? That could be argued. I’m not sure I want to get into that semantic issue.

Was there a place called "Abraham's bosom", where the believer, the true Jew went to, and was preserved, prior to Christ?
If they were all "gathered", held, preserved, in one place, why wouldn't this be the "group" (referenced as 144'), in Rev. 7:4-8?
You are referencing the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. The term “bosom of Abraham” in that parable comes from a blending of the Hellenistic idea of the immortality of the soul and the biblical “sheol,” the place of the dead. A friend of mine presented a paper on this at ETS, and there is only one extant ancient source to help us out. But the idea of the immortality of the soul is not biblical (Matt 10:28!), and scripture is quite clear that the dead are unaware (Eccl 9:10). Further the dead do not praise the Lord (Psa 115:17). Yet it is quite clear that the 144,000 are praising the Lord (Rev 14:3), since that is the impact of the “new song.” So the dead are not the 144,000.

You seem to be insisting on a literalistic understanding of the 144,000. The imagery is quite explicit. The “144,000” is symbolic, while the unnumbered multitude is the reality. Let John tell you what happens. Don’t try to hunt for imagined matches. He gives the explanation right there. And don’t try to make the apocalypse literal and sequential. It’s not. 1:1 explicitly says that it was “communicated by way of symbols.” Understand the symbols. Don’t try to make them literal. BTW, Rev 7 is a recap of the Seals, which are a thematic presentation of the call of Grace. Rev 7 tells us who answers that call, and it is a unnumbered multitude from ever nation, and tribe, and language.

The OT Jew arrived, although not without Christ, through the vehicle or mode, that was available to them, the old covenant. The NT Jew had available to them a "different" vehicle, the "NEW"!
The NT saint had more, but not a different, way of salvation. Like Job, it was by faith in the Redeemer (Job 19:25). The difference is that we know who that redeemer is.

Is the New Covenant fundamentally different from the Old? NO! The only difference is that it is written on our hearts. Read Jeremiah 31. And what does God require? “To do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) Nothing has changed in the essence. All that has changed is the ministry. The OC had the ministry of death (2 Cor 3:7-9, Gal 3:10-13) in the sacrifices. The NC has the ministry of life, since the last sacrifice has been given on the cross (Gal 3:13). And remember, OT saints had the NC (Enoch, Elijah, etc.). David was a “man after God’s own heart.”

Ted

Daniel927

April 3rd 2006, 11:03 PM

Brother Ted,

Thank you so kindly for relaying to me - "a better understanding" - relative to what it was that you were saying about them.

I can "almost" see where the 144' could/would be considered symbolically to be the entire "group" of the redeemed. ALMOST!

I will attempt to refrain from "Jew" (in a non-applicable scenario), as I see that it has generated quite a bit of "give and take", trying to sort out exactly what I was meaning by it usage. As they say in the old neighborhood - No problemo!

As for the indwelling, re: David, I know of the implications, that it COULD be construed as such, BUT, it could also mean: through RELATIONSHIP! NOT necessarily an indwelling but a relationship of interaction, near proximity, fellowshipping, etc..

David sought the face of the Lord continually, and I am certain, he often "felt" His presence. So I am not the least bit surprised when David declares that he doesn't want this "relationship" to end, or be broken.

It is possible that Isaiah IS implying the HS was indwelling. But I would like to think that this may be referencing Moses, more than the Israelites as a whole. POSSIBLE?

------------------------------------------

Okay! Matt 10:28; are you suggesting that this passage indicates that those cast into hell are "completely destroyed" into a state of "NON-EXISTANCE"????

That being the case, whatever happened to "everlasting" punishment?

Adam became a "living soul", was he affected by death at that point? I thought it took the FALL to usher in death? So, is it correct to understand that in the absence of death, in creation, that CREATION was in fact, ETERNAL?

----------------------------------------------------

Yes, the "dead" know nothing! WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE IN REFERENCE TO THE BODY BEING DEAD? THEY DO NOT therefore "praise" God, IN THE BODY! However, in 6:9-11, while we see them NOT praising the Lord, OBVIOUSLY, they certainly "KNOW" something. THEY ARE IN A "FORM" OF EXISTANCE, AND THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS "SOULS", (of them) WHO WERE SLAIN.

ALIVE SOULS, DEAD BODIES! Dead at one point, alive and resurrected at another!

In 7:4-8, we see them NOT praising, BUT in 14:3, we see that they do. This is where I spoke of the "natural progression" of the OT saints (!), from ONE state - TO ANOTHER!

-------------------------------------------

Even though Christ uses a Hellenistic viewpoint, in Luke 16, do you think that he used it to "trick" us believers? Or do you think that it very well may have represented, closely, what the Lord was attempting to explain to them? So why shouldn't we relate it correctly to the point he was making?

I'm not questioning the origin being Hellenistic, just the fact that this "concept" may well have "hit the nail, on the head"!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------

You're going to love this!

I agree with you concerning ALL the similarities between OT and NT saints and their covenants. Yet making that point, it is also seen as being different through the practice/rituals of those two covenants! They had one "process" in their relationship with God, ours is different, in that respect, yet it is to the same God.

ONE MINISTRY APPLIED TO THEM, ANOTHER MINISTRY APPLIES TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even Heb. 11:40, "God having provided some BETTER THING for us, that THEY without US, should not be made perfect". Showing this very distinction that I keep referring to! Their completion/perfection came, even as ours does, through Christ.

------------------------------------------------

Rev. 7 is a picture of the "call of grace", but don't forget: NOAH FOUND "GRACE" IN THE EYES OF THE LORD. Introduction vs. Fullness. OT vs. NT.

----------------------------------------------------------

IF -- Christ was showing John things that, "were, are and yet to be", they HAD TO HAVE SOME CORRELATION/INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CREATION. Thereby a "literal" aspect to the judgment and salvation of mankind.

As for them NOT being "sequential" - WHY NOT? God is a God of structure, of order. He began creation with the FIRST day and followed it through to the LAST day (of creation).

To suggest to me that God would somehow NOT do FIRST things FIRST, just doesn't seem quite right.

I want you to know that I am enjoying this "give and take", and attempting to consider all those things that you've sent my way.

I see some things differently, than you, and yet there is much that we agree on.

The Lord is so very good, and his return is assured, and we patiently, expectantly, await his glorious appearing!

In the unity of the Spirit,

Bless,

Dan

Ted

April 6th 2006, 08:10 PM

I can "almost" see where the 144' could/would be considered symbolically to be the entire "group" of the redeemed. ALMOST!
Good.
As for the indwelling, re: David, I know of the implications, that it COULD be construed as such, BUT, it could also mean: through RELATIONSHIP! NOT necessarily an indwelling but a relationship of interaction, near proximity, fellowshipping, etc..

David sought the face of the Lord continually, and I am certain, he often "felt" His presence. So I am not the least bit surprised when David declares that he doesn't want this "relationship" to end, or be broken.

It is possible that Isaiah IS implying the HS was indwelling. But I would like to think that this may be referencing Moses, more than the Israelites as a whole. POSSIBLE?
Be careful here. Isa 63:9-10 clearly speaks of the HS being involved with the people at large. Verses 11-12 speak of Moses, and I can see where you see that emphasis. But that can’t negate the prior statement.

Okay! Matt 10:28; are you suggesting that this passage indicates that those cast into hell are "completely destroyed" into a state of "NON-EXISTANCE"????
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m declaring it outright. Jesus clearly states that He has that power in that verse. But we should note other statements.
Matt 22:7 – Parabolically, Jesus declares that those who do not accept His gracious invitation will be “destroyed.” They are KILLED.
Mal 4:1 – The Lord of Hosts declares that the wicked will be “set ablaze” so that the fire “will leave them neither root nor branch.” (Numerous OT passages use this basic imagery. The image of the wicked as “chaff” is frequent.)
Matt 3:12 – (John the Baptist) Jesus will “burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Matt 13:30 – The parable of the wheat and the tares. The tares will be burned up.

The only passages that allow the possibility of some continuing existence if misinterpreted are:
Mark 9:44-48 – “their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” First, “unquenchable fire” is an OT image, and speaks of a fire that burns until all the fuel is gone. You can’t pour water on it and have it go out. (That’s the definition of “unquenchable.” Look it up.) Next, the “worm” is a maggot (Isa 66:24) that feeds on dead flesh. Maggots do not infest living flesh. The source here is an image of being cursed, and the wicked are DEAD. They are not living souls in torment. Since this is the source, it should not be taken as representing a continuing "live" existence.
Rev 14:11 – “The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever.” This is NOT a time statement. It is a visual. It doesn’t say that the fire burns forever. It says that the column of smoke rises out of sight.
Rev 19:3 – Same as 14:11.
Rev 20:10 – The devil is thrown into the lake of fire with the beast and false prophet where “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” This is the ONLY text that is unequivocally a time statement. We have to note exactly who is subject to this. The DEVIL, BEAST, and FALSE PROPHET. The Beast is a symbolic representation of human government, motivated by the Devil. The False Prophet is a symbolic representation of apostate religion, again motivated by the Devil. Since two of these are non-persons, ONLY the Devil suffers “forever” torment. But even that is open to question. In Neh 9:5, the crowd is told to “Praise the Lord forever and ever.” That’s a physical impossibility. In Psalm 21:4 we find that David’s “length of days” extend “forever and ever.” (I know, this can be regarded as Messianic.) In Psalm 119:44, the psalmist declares that he “will keep thy law continually – forever and ever.” The same sort of construction occurs in Psalm 145:1-2, 21. Isa 34:8-10 declares that a “year of vengeance” lasts “forever and ever,” and the smoke of the Lord’s vengeance rises “forever.”

In short, making Rev 20:10 into a never-ending torment for even the Devil is problematic. When the Hebrew OT roots of the expressions are found, the terms are hyperbolic, and simply declare that the time is indefinite. It only makes sense that the torment for the Devil is a lot longer than that for wicked men, since he is responsible for every sin on earth. But it makes sense that that will end at some point as well.

Adam became a "living soul", was he affected by death at that point? I thought it took the FALL to usher in death? So, is it correct to understand that in the absence of death, in creation, that CREATION was in fact, ETERNAL?
Yes.

Yes, the "dead" know nothing! WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE IN REFERENCE TO THE BODY BEING DEAD? THEY DO NOT therefore "praise" God, IN THE BODY! However, in 6:9-11, while we see them NOT praising the Lord, OBVIOUSLY, they certainly "KNOW" something. THEY ARE IN A "FORM" OF EXISTANCE, AND THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS "SOULS", (of them) WHO WERE SLAIN.
You have to quit assuming that a symbolic vision represents physical reality. The fifth seal is a symbolic echo of Genesis 4, where Abel’s blood “cries out from the ground.”

Even though Christ uses a Hellenistic viewpoint, in Luke 16, do you think that he used it to "trick" us believers? Or do you think that it very well may have represented, closely, what the Lord was attempting to explain to them? So why shouldn't we relate it correctly to the point he was making?
Good question. Let’s consider Jesus’ intention. He gives a punch line that the hard-hearted Pharisees wouldn’t listen even if someone came back from the dead to tell them the gospel (v. 31). His discussion wasn’t about the state of the dead. It was about hard hearts that wouldn’t listen to Moses and the Prophets. He simply used the common misunderstanding as a way to set up the punch line. If He had spent time trying to straighten out their error about the state of the dead, He would never have gotten to the issue at hand.

Jesus was not above using someone else’s misunderstanding as a springboard to teach. But He stuck to His point. He didn’t bother with side issues. And He didn’t give His imprimatur to the error by using it to get to the illustration. Matthew 10:28 is another one of those situations. His purpose was to get people to listen. If He argued with their misunderstanding of a side issue, He would never get them to come out to hear a central issue.

I agree with you concerning ALL the similarities between OT and NT saints and their covenants. Yet making that point, it is also seen as being different through the practice/rituals of those two covenants! They had one "process" in their relationship with God, ours is different, in that respect, yet it is to the same God.

ONE MINISTRY APPLIED TO THEM, ANOTHER MINISTRY APPLIES TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even Heb. 11:40, "God having provided some BETTER THING for us, that THEY without US, should not be made perfect". Showing this very distinction that I keep referring to! Their completion/perfection came, even as ours does, through Christ.
Excellent. The issue is the administration, not the central faith.

IF -- Christ was showing John things that, "were, are and yet to be", they HAD TO HAVE SOME CORRELATION/INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CREATION. Thereby a "literal" aspect to the judgment and salvation of mankind.
You are confusing “literal” with “literalism.” Symbolic pictures have a literal meaning. The candlesticks in Rev 1 are symbols, which literally mean “churches.” (Rev 1:20). But a church is NOT a candlestick. Rather, that symbol points out that they are to be a light to the world (Matt 5:14). Certainly all symbols have a “real” content. But they should net be mistaken for a “literalistic” entity. A classic is the “beast” in Rev 13. It is a symbol, not a man, a computer, etc.

As for them NOT being "sequential" - WHY NOT? God is a God of structure, of order. He began creation with the FIRST day and followed it through to the LAST day (of creation).

To suggest to me that God would somehow NOT do FIRST things FIRST, just doesn't seem quite right.
Yes, God is a god of order. But that doesn’t mean that He doesn’t use the literary forms of the day. Rev 4-22 is classic Jewish apocalyptic. It has multiple recapitulations that tell the same story from different angles. We have similar literature in the OT, with Daniel’s 4 revelations all being of the same story from different angles. There is apocalyptic in Isaiah and Ezekiel. So your argument is non-sequitur. Apocalytpic is in fact very orderly. You just have to understand the form.

Ted

Daniel927

April 6th 2006, 11:21 PM

Ted,

HELLO NEIGHBOR!

Some good answers, they have given me another "perspective" to consider. I do have issues with others though.

Rev. 14:11, I agree that the smoke (of their torment), arises forever and ever. BUT, even now as I look at the passage, I see NOTHING that says it ascends - "OUT OF SIGHT"! Do you mean in the sense that it is- no longer visible? That the smoke is not a "continual" event, that there is an end to it, a cessation?

Wouldn't that contradict the "ever and ever" portion of the verse?

I have checked five (5) different "versions" of the passage, and NONE mention - out of sight!

---------------------------------------------

If they are to be consumed by the fires of Hell, I am inclined to think that it wouldn't take long at all, for them to be consumed! Yet , the verse indicates that they have, "...no rest, DAY OR NIGHT"! It seems like it is taking an awful long time to burn up a little bit of flesh.

Or could it be that Hell is limited in size and they can't accommodate more than two or three "bodies" at a time, AND therefore, it takes "ever and ever" to get them ALL burnt up!

----------------------------------------------

Isaiah 63:9, says that, "...In all their affliction, "HE WAS AFFLICTED". Isn't that speaking of Christ? I can't find ANYWHERE it is written that , the HS was AFFLICTED? Or have I just missed the passages that declare that?

It then says that the "...angel of HIS "presence" saved them". Yet nothing of an indwelling. Certainly we understand the Pillar and the Cloud, being the visual "presence" of the Spirit of God. But again, it does not address an "in-filling"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-------------------------------------------

Again, I agree that the "beast" is NOT a man, computer, etc.

But, I see John make reference to a "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". A symbol that represent "reality".

IF - there was not an actual "application" in our lives, for the event, why would it be included in the scripture? Doesn't it say that, "ALL scripture is given...reproof, doctrine, correction and instruction in righteousness"?

Then why would it be given to us, if their is no application for it in our lives? So then, there MUST be a connection to reality for those events that are recorded!

-------------------------------------------

I can't say how often I am going to say "this", but I'm certainly going to mention it now.........................I will "defer" this understanding to Christ!

By that I mean, the words of Christ give a clear picture, at least for me, in the passage of Lk. 16!

For me, or anyone for that matter to say, Christ continued in the "error" of the times, so as to get his point home, REALLY lacks credibility!

Certainly he was making the point about, "...even though one rose from the dead, and...they have the prophets and Moses". That point is recognizable.

Yet to state that "Christ did not know, the "true" state of the dead, or that he proceeded to build a "teaching" on error, is egregious!

It may have well been that his MAIN focus was the hardness of their hearts, beginning with the treatment of Lazarus by the rich man. But you cannot discount, in the clear absence of contradictory scripture, that the "issue" of the dead AND the results of their deeds, was also addressed by the Lord.

You may be "parked", relative to an issue of the dead, that certainly is your prerogative. Yet, when Christ addresses any issue, such as in this case, it is conclusive that he is fully knowledgable, relative to what he is speaking of!!

Without scripture that suggests that he was "in error" relative to the example that he was using, doesn't give you many options for making the claim.

It is always good to fellowship with you on this site, whether we come to a common understanding or NO!

Bless,

D

Ted

April 7th 2006, 05:07 PM

Rev. 14:11, I agree that the smoke (of their torment), arises forever and ever. BUT, even now as I look at the passage, I see NOTHING that says it ascends - "OUT OF SIGHT"! Do you mean in the sense that it is- no longer visible? That the smoke is not a "continual" event, that there is an end to it, a cessation?

Wouldn't that contradict the "ever and ever" portion of the verse?

I have checked five (5) different "versions" of the passage, and NONE mention - out of sight!
Look up “idiom” in your dictionary.

If they are to be consumed by the fires of Hell, I am inclined to think that it wouldn't take long at all, for them to be consumed! Yet , the verse indicates that they have, "...no rest, DAY OR NIGHT"! It seems like it is taking an awful long time to burn up a little bit of flesh.
Same comment.

Isaiah 63:9, says that, "...In all their affliction, "HE WAS AFFLICTED". Isn't that speaking of Christ? I can't find ANYWHERE it is written that , the HS was AFFLICTED? Or have I just missed the passages that declare that?

It then says that the "...angel of HIS "presence" saved them". Yet nothing of an indwelling. Certainly we understand the Pillar and the Cloud, being the visual "presence" of the Spirit of God. But again, it does not address an "in-filling"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess what? You won’t find “in-filling” or “indwelling” in the Bible anywhere. The key is to look at the content of what is said. In Isaiah, the content of the passage is that the HS was “the angel of His presence…lifted and carried them.” This is the HS, just by another name. We recognize this when their apostasy “grieves” the one who carried them, this time called by name: the HS.

I recognize your excitement. But don’t let the search for a specific word blind you to the content expressed in other words. Hebrew writing is full of parallelisms and euphemisms. These and other figures of speech allow us to have a more graphic picture by describing the same thing in many ways.

But, I see John make reference to a "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". A symbol that represent "reality".

IF - there was not an actual "application" in our lives, for the event, why would it be included in the scripture? Doesn't it say that, "ALL scripture is given...reproof, doctrine, correction and instruction in righteousness"?

Then why would it be given to us, if their is no application for it in our lives? So then, there MUST be a connection to reality for those events that are recorded!
You seem to have missed my comment: You are confusing “literal” with “literalism.” Symbolic pictures have a literal meaning. The candlesticks in Rev 1 are symbols, which literally mean “churches.” (Rev 1:20). But a church is NOT a candlestick. Rather, that symbol points out that they are to be a light to the world (Matt 5:14). Certainly all symbols have a “real” content. But they should net be mistaken for a “literalistic” entity.
Was Jesus “slain” when the earth’s foundation was laid? NO! He died on the cross. But was the cross divinely appointed before the world began? Peter (1 Pet 1:20) says exactly that. Thus, a “lamb slain from the foundation of the world” is very real, but is a figurative way of saying the saying what Peter says more explicitly. Symbols are not “real,” but they point to “real” things. What we need to do is to decode the symbol to find the “real” thing it points to.

For me, or anyone for that matter to say, Christ continued in the "error" of the times, so as to get his point home, REALLY lacks credibility!
I never said that Jesus continued in any error. Rather, I said that He used their misunderstanding, without comment as to its error, as a way to get across a point that was more important than correcting the error.

You may not agree with me. But you must find a way within the proper reading of other scriptures to harmonize your view of Luke 16 with the explicit texts of scripture. I think you will find that difficult.

It may have well been that his MAIN focus was the hardness of their hearts, beginning with the treatment of Lazarus by the rich man. But you cannot discount, in the clear absence of contradictory scripture, that the "issue" of the dead AND the results of their deeds, was also addressed by the Lord.
You may wish to reconsider your comment after you have looked at Eccl 9:5, 10, Psalm 115:17, 1 Thes 4:13, and 1 Cor 15. Of particular important is Paul’s declaration that the resurrection is the hope of the Christian (Acts 23:6, 24:15). If the dead are already with God, they have received the Blessed Hope. But that contradicts Paul. Enjoy.

Ted

Daniel927

April 7th 2006, 11:17 PM

Ted,

AND ENJOY, I DO!!!!!!!

As we ALL are well aware, the scriptures also do not say, "rapture or trinity", yet we know that they none the less "exist" in the passages.

However, you are correct about - indwelling and infilling - the word does not exist!

Yet the IDEA is promoted throughout scripture. Some of those verses are: Rm. 8:9 - "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, IF so be that the Spirit of God DWELL in you.
Lk. 17:21, "...for the kingdom of God is WITHIN you".
Jn. 6:56, "He that eatheth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, DWELLETH in me".
Jn 7:38, "And he that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, OUT OF HIS BELLY SHALL FLOW RIVERS OF LIVING WATERS".

Certainly ample presentation to substantiate the IDEA of: In-dwelling and/or In-filling!!!!!!!!!!

I AGREE THAT THE HS BOTH "LIFTED AND CARRIED" THEM! But suffice it to be said, THAT STILL DOES NOT, EVEN REMOTELY IMPLY, THAT THE SPIRIT WAS "WITHIN" THEM! MUCH LESS THE SAME APPLICTION THAT IS CLEARLY SHOWN US IN THE NT!

-------------------------------------

BETTER than understanding "idiom", understanding "ever and ever" which is defined as, "...without end, eternal, for ever more and perpetuity", IS the key! What happened to the fore mentioned positions of, "LET THE TEXT, INTERPRET THE TEXT"?

Can we say: SELECTIVITY?????????????????

There is a clear "image" given in the passage, and because it very well may CLASH with our own perceptions, we attempt to rationalize what else it "might" be saying!

--------------------------------------------

Apparently, I did miss what your comment on "literal" was suggesting.

------------------------------------------------

Let me attempt this again! On the issue of Christ in Lk. 16 - concerning the "state" of the dead (although that is a issue "of the dead").

You feel that he took a "misconception" of the day, and utilized it to speak on the "hardness" of mens' hearts.

Can you tell me of other places where Christ embraces "error" in a given concept, that he might present/teach a lesson?

It does not "sit well" with me, not at all.

To look at that scenario then we must also conclude that he was "wrong" when he indicated that the rich man was not "consumed" by the flames of hell. As someone I know contends.

What about the "dead" knowing nothing? The rich man was certainly "dead" (and buried), yet he not only "knows" the state that he is in, but that of Lazarus! He clearly recognizes, Father Abraham. Not only that, but, he has recall of his immediate family, of his brothers and even how many he had.

Yet you contend that this was all incorrect, because the concepts certainly disagree with some of your thoughts on these matters.

I do not think Christ spoke of incorrectly held views. It isn't relayed in the passages. That can't be ascertained from the text. That's the point!

So while the issue of "hardness of heart" is presented, so are those "other" issues, that he spoke on.

----------------------------------------

This is going to be a "bone" of contention between us. Dead vs. Alive! (Almost sounds like a "Western" poster).

When the "dead" body of Christ was put into the tomb, what does scripture tell us that he did? I Pet. 3:19, "...he preached unto the spirits in prison".

You keep telling me, the "dead" know nothing! Yet, it shows that while the earthly "body" of Christ was DEAD, without cognizance, His eternal being, was alive and aware of all things. Just as Lk 16 presents.

Yet Christ, just prior to his resurrection, re-entered into his "earthly" body, and THEN was made ALIVE! The two are distinct and separate. The earthly body and the eternal man.

The parameters changed once Christ ushered in the plan of salvation. Else there is no advantage to "buried with him in baptism, risen with him through the faith of the operation of God". Or, "...the Law of the Spirit of Life, in Christ Jesus has made me FREE from the Law of sin and death".

---------------------------------------

Was there a response that you missed concerning the "smoke...raised out of sight?"

--------------------------------------

I don't know how "busy" you are Ted, but I know at times I get "swamped"! So I just want to take a second and let you know I appreciate all the time and effort you have "invested" in me.

Although it is obvious that we don't agree on some matters, it always does my heart GOOD when we find those things that we do agree on.

It's late and I hear "dreamland" calling, thanks again and......

God bless,

D

Ted

April 11th 2006, 01:13 PM

BETTER than understanding "idiom", understanding "ever and ever" which is defined as, "...without end, eternal, for ever more and perpetuity", IS the key! What happened to the fore mentioned positions of, "LET THE TEXT, INTERPRET THE TEXT"?

Can we say: SELECTIVITY?????????????????

There is a clear "image" given in the passage, and because it very well may CLASH with our own perceptions, we attempt to rationalize what else it "might" be saying!
Not so fast, cowboy! You are missing the focus of the sentence. Does it say anything about “the fire burns forever and ever?” No. The subject is SMOKE. The action is RISING. Thus, the smoke continues to rise “forever and ever.” That is, if you look at the smoke and follow it as it rises, it keeps rising until you are unable to see the top of the column. This says nothing whatever about the time that the fire burns.

Yes, we must let the text interpret itself. But you are fixated on “fire,” and that’s not the subject of the text. In fact, “fire” isn’t even mentioned. You take a western mindset and assume that the text is speaking about smoke that continues to rise out of the flames forever and ever. But that’s not what the text says. And that is the idiom taken in isolation.

Revelation is full of contrasts. In the case of the smoke, it recalls the pillar of smoke and fire in the wilderness. That pillar was God’s leading and protection for His people. In Revelation, it’s contrast is woe for the wicked. Thus, the imagery is of the daytime pillar of smoke, confusing the Egyptians, leading to their destruction (Exod 14:24).

Next, when we look at the structure of the apocalypse, the “smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” is in 14:11, in the third angel’s message. This is a recapitulation of Rev 13, as noted by the reference to the mark of the beast in verse 9. The destruction of the wicked comes from the “wrath of God” in verse 10, which is seen in the seven Bowls of chapter 16. These are the Day of Atonement/Day of the Lord. And this ends this sinful era, leading to the millennium. Thus, in this example, the time of the smoke production (the fire) is clearly time-limited. But the smoke rises “forever and ever,” that is, out of sight. And that is what the idiom means. Remember, John was told to record “what he has seen (Rev 1:19). It’s a VISUAL.

I have allowed scripture to interpret itself. On the other hand, you are clinging to a western view of the single phrase, lifted away from its scriptural context. But, just for completeness, let’s see what Greg Beale (who doesn’t agree with me) says in his mammoth Revelation commentary.
(regarding Isa 34:9-10, the likely source of this idiom) “Once destroyed by God’s judgment, Edom would never rise again. Likewise, the judgment of unbelievers at end time will be as absolute and complete… Does the portrayal mean that unbelievers are to be annihilated, so that their existence will be abolished forever? Or does this text refer to a destruction not involving absolute annihilation but the suffering of unbelievers for eternity? The OT context of Isaiah could support the former view, since there the historical annihilation of Edom is portrayed… ‘day and night’ in 14:11 can be taken as a qualitative genetive construction indicating not duration of time (like the accusative construction of the same phrase) but kind of time, that is, time of ceaseless activity (e.g., Mark 5:5; Luke 18:7; Acts 9:24; 1 Thess. 2:9; 3:10; 2 Thess 3:8; {and on and on goes the list}) The lack of rest will continue uninterrupted as long as the period lasts, but there will be an end to the period. Therefore, the imagery of Rev 14:10-11 could indicate a great judgment that will be remembered forever, not one the leads to eternal suffering.” NIGTC Commentary on Revelation, pp 761-762, Gregory Beale, Ph.D.
Note that Beale disagrees with me in his conclusions, but admits that my approach is legitimate.

Let me attempt this again! On the issue of Christ in Lk. 16 - concerning the "state" of the dead (although that is a issue "of the dead").

You feel that he took a "misconception" of the day, and utilized it to speak on the "hardness" of mens' hearts.

Can you tell me of other places where Christ embraces "error" in a given concept, that he might present/teach a lesson?
I mentioned Matthew 10:28 in a previous post. There, Jesus takes the idea of a dualist idea (body and “immortal” soul as two parts, the incorrect, but contemporary view), and turns it on its head by saying that He can “destroy body and soul in hell.”

Jesus does not “embrace” the error in either case. He simply uses the current view as a bridge to teach something of greater importance. He offers no direct comment whatever on either error.

What about the "dead" knowing nothing? The rich man was certainly "dead" (and buried), yet he not only "knows" the state that he is in, but that of Lazarus! He clearly recognizes, Father Abraham. Not only that, but, he has recall of his immediate family, of his brothers and even how many he had.

Yet you contend that this was all incorrect, because the concepts certainly disagree with some of your thoughts on these matters.
I will vigorously contest your assessment of my motivations. I disagree with your view because I see that scripture disagrees with it. We are not called to accept scripture because it agrees with our modern and western sensibilities. We are called to accept it because it is the voice of God in writing. When it disagrees with our sensibilities, we must ask who the final authority is.

When the "dead" body of Christ was put into the tomb, what does scripture tell us that he did? I Pet. 3:19, "...he preached unto the spirits in prison".
You certainly get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions. 1 Peter 3:19 doesn’t say that Jesus preached to anybody while he was in the tomb. In fact, it doesn’t say that he preached to anyone who was dead! Let’s look at this in detail.
1 Peter 3:18-20 18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
Verse 18 ends with the fact that Jesus was resurrected physically through the action of the Holy Spirit. Verse 19 begins with “in which also.” That means that, “in” or “through” the HS, He preached to spirits in prison. Note that “now” is italicized, indicating that it is not in the original. This is a theological addition, not a syntactic one. The translators have made a theological decision that they wanted to emphasize the idea of present imprisonment of the spirits to whom Jesus preached. Yet the text does not give us such a time reference.

The qualifiers regarding time are simply that “the spirits” “were disobedient … in the days of Noah.” Some have read Peter’s construction to say that they were “once” disobedient, but after Jesus’ preaching, they became obedient. But that is an over-reading of the text. The NIV says that they “disobeyed long ago.” It doesn’t give the possible impact of repentance “now” that the NAS does.

The simplest answer is that this passage merely makes reference to the preaching of Noah – Jesus “preaching through the Spirit” – before the Flood. Peter throws it in to get the idea that Noah and his family were saved through water (v. 20) so he can make a parallel to baptism in verse 21. It doesn’t say anything about Jesus preaching to some spirit prison during or after His stay in the tomb. While Peter is the only NT writer to use phulake in this way, the synonym “bondage”/sundesmos is frequently used to describe “imprisonment” by sin (Acts 8:23, Rom 7:14, etc.).

If you try to build your doctrine on this one difficult text, you are practicing a poor brand of hermeneutics. Doctrine should be built on the plain texts, and those should be used to help understand the less plain.

You keep telling me, the "dead" know nothing! Yet, it shows that while the earthly "body" of Christ was DEAD, without cognizance, His eternal being, was alive and aware of all things. Just as Lk 16 presents.

Yet Christ, just prior to his resurrection, re-entered into his "earthly" body, and THEN was made ALIVE! The two are distinct and separate. The earthly body and the eternal man.
See above. Your entire premise is flawed. But the real key is in Genesis 2:7. There we find that “God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul.” Your approach would require that Adam acquire a living soul. But scripture clearly identifies him as a soul. He wasn’t a soul plus a body. He was a soul. Period. And so are the animals. Note that nephesh, the word for “soul” in Gen 2:7 is the same word translated “creatures” in Gen 1:24 & 24, describing birds, fish, and land animals. They are living souls, but the translators have not been able to overcome their theology enough to allow them to properly translate this word. If they did, you might understand the problem.

I don't know how "busy" you are Ted, but I know at times I get "swamped"! So I just want to take a second and let you know I appreciate all the time and effort you have "invested" in me.

Although it is obvious that we don't agree on some matters, it always does my heart GOOD when we find those things that we do agree on.
You are quite welcome. While I am a student first, my calling is to be a teacher. And there are others that look on, but don’t participate. Some of them may be benefitting. But there is another benefit.

When I see how others frame questions, when I see their theological ideas, I learn many things. For example, in this discussion, I had to do the word study on “forever and ever.” It helped me to understand the issues more clearly. It also allowed me to more clearly explain my position.

Don’t give up. I may get you on to a more careful exegetical path somewhere down the line.

In His Service,
Ted

Daniel927

April 19th 2006, 10:25 PM

Ted,

Finally I am back!

I think I have a problem with this site, and that would be that I was under the distinct impression that we COULD remain anonymous, if we choose to participate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else how would you know: THAT I HAVE A HORSE AND AM A "COWBOY"????? :lol: :lol:

You realize that this has gotten waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic about "pre-post Jew"? None-the-less................

About this apparent difference we have over "spirit/body", perhaps you could define an event for me, that causes me to think that there is a "separation" at the time of death for a believer????????????

As Christ hung on the cross and spoke to the thief that hung on his right side, Lk. 23:43, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, TODAY shalt thou be with me in Paradise"!

I was contemplating asking you a bunch of impertinent questions concerning this event, but I will refrain from that, wishing to "redeem the time"!

So, I will express my views to you and allow you to point out my errors!

Man, do I love this site!!!!!!!!!!!!

First, Christ was NOT referring to the tomb as "Paradise" that he was about to be placed in. EVEN if that is what he meant, the thief WAS NOT buried in that tomb with him, but certainly in some "uncommentated" location.

Christ was contained in that tomb for what we wish to think of as three days and nights. At NO TIME was the thiefs' body placed there with his.

SO, NOT ONLY was the thief NOT with Christ the day of crucifixion, but also NOT WITH Christ any for the next three days and nights!

Christ then must have mis-spoke, in Lk. 23!

What though, if Christ were correct?

There must then be an understanding that although the body of both men were contained at their respective locations, there had to be a place where a "portion/part" of them were together!

That Christ, on the cross, reference to "Paradise", was a clear indication that this REALM existed. That it was a place for those that "departed" this life, a place for the "dead" (in body)!

That there was "existence" outside of this mortal body!

I don't know how it is that I came to this opinion that you somehow think there is "ONLY" a living soul, without body, or that the body IS the "living soul"?

We are created in Gods' "image", and that is NOT limited in scope.

One of those "likenesses" (is that a word?), is that God is a "threefold" being/person, where does it say that we aren't? Of course Paul, in I Thess. 5:23 says, "And the very God of peace.....SANCTIFY YOU WHOLLY.....; and I pray God your whole....SPIRIT....and...SOUL...and...BODY... be preserved blameless..."

Seems to me that Lk. 23 reflects the events in Lk. 16 as factual. But then, that's just me!

(It is impossible to get "away" from OT saints (Jews) and NT saints (Jews). Paul was the former, but counted it all as loss that he might gain Christ (and become a NT JEW!).

In Christ,

D

Ted

April 22nd 2006, 07:19 PM

I think I have a problem with this site, and that would be that I was under the distinct impression that we COULD remain anonymous, if we choose to participate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else how would you know: THAT I HAVE A HORSE AND AM A "COWBOY"?????
You never know how the Holy Spirit will inspire... LOL

As Christ hung on the cross and spoke to the thief that hung on his right side, Lk. 23:43, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, TODAY shalt thou be with me in Paradise"!
Do you realize that this translation requires Jesus to be a liar, and therefore unable to atone for our sins with His death?

Now that I’ve got your attention, let me let you in on a little secret. This is one of my favorite hermeneutic problems. The problem is the comma. The Greek was unpunctuated, and the comma was placed before “today” by translators who believed that your soul went to heaven when you died. That is, the punctuation is theological, not grammatical.

Our first problem is to identify “Paradise” biblically. There are only three texts that use the term. The first is Luke 23:43. Next we have Paul in 2 Cor 12:4 being “caught up to Paradise.” 12:2 says that it is in “the third heaven.” We know that the three heavens are the sky where birds fly, the sky where the stars are, and the heaven where God lives. The last text is Rev 2:7. There we find that the Tree of Life is in the Paradise of God. Rev 22:1-2 identifies this as the New Jerusalem, and 21:10 shows it descending from heaven. Thus, the proper conclusion is that “Paradise” is in heaven with the Father. But you knew that.

Now we move to resurrection morning, the third day. Remember, if the comma is in the correct place, the thief AND Jesus would be in heaven with the Father on the first day.
John 20:17 17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
Notice what Jesus says: He hasn’t yet ascended to the Father. Combine this with what we have derived about Paradise, and we see that Jesus hasn’t been in Paradise yet. If the comma is in the right place, He’s two days late. So it’s obvious that the comma is wrong. Let’s try it differently.
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee TODAY, thou shalt be with me in Paradise"!
This is a perfectly ordinary translation of the same verse, using the same words. But what it says is radically different from the earlier translation. Here it is Jesus’ assurance, TODAY, that the thief will be in the kingdom. WHEN isn’t stated. Punctuated the other way, Jesus lied. So the thief isn’t in Paradise... yet. But he will be.

You go on to argue existence outside the body. But Jesus said “I have not yet ascended.” He didn’t say, “My body has not ascended.”

Ted

Daniel927

April 29th 2006, 10:19 PM

Ted,

Your responses are quite informative and thorough! I get the feeling that this response back to you has to be considered, "on the cheap".

By that I mean, quick, short AND perhaps, not very thought out. But as you can see, I have been "gone" for a while and I wanted to show my "commitment" by getting back to you.

That scenario that you laid out, using your "give and take", definitely poses the difficulties that you presented!

However, I would like to just throw a "wrinkle" out to you.

You recall that we spoke earlier of the passages that involved Lazarus and the rich man. I think that we both agreed that the presentation bordered on a Hellenistic approach?

But didn't I inquire "what-if" the Lord used that very approach, because it "mirrored" the eternal side?

IF he did, because of that very reason, THEN it would place a very large "hole" in your presentation of "what-ifs"!

Think about it, Christ, as well as the thief, would both, upon giving up the ghost, "go" into the bosom of Abraham. The "realm" of preservation, for all those that had died, waiting upon the "promise"?

Yes, that BEFORE he arose, BEFORE he was seen, BEFORE he ascended to God, HE went into a place (other than that earthly tomb), where the thief also was.

Now it ALL fits!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have to run, but it's ALWAYS a blessing to "commune" with you, in the majesty of the Lord!

(It is remarkable what the Spirit "reveals" to us!!!!!!!!).

Bless,

Dan

richardmjolley

April 30th 2006, 03:47 PM

It seems like you hear this all the time even from van impe but there is no way you can get a rapture from rev. 4 it can only be found in thess. and it is found as being caught away and it is at the second coming after the tribulation which lasts 42 months. and it is only for the elect only for the people God loves. which is not every body in the world and don't quote jn. 3:16 cause God dosen't love everybody only His' elect. RJ rev:13:8

Daniel927

April 30th 2006, 11:46 PM

RMJ,

I'm not certain if your response was directed my way, concerning my last post. If it was, there has been some mis-communication someplace!

First, I do not "hold" to some secret rapture, either in Rev. 4, or any other place. You are correct, Thess. speaks of the one that occurs with the coming of the Lord.

Van IMPE, is just an IMP, and is clearly WRONG about many things, as are others who hold to the positions he espouses!

But glad to see that you have "jumped" into the mix, on this site. There is always room for one more.

Welcome,

In Christ,

Dan

Daniel927

April 30th 2006, 11:57 PM

Ted,

One last thing!

If it is a matter of punctuation, then the verse is redundant!

There is no need for Christ to say "today", because there is NO OTHER OPPORTUNITY in which to say it. In order to distinquish if from applying to "tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or next week, month, or year"!

Christ doesn't need to state that, "I'm saying this to you TODAY", because that, in itself, is self-evident!

Also, there is nothing in the passage that indicates this is the application. It is only presented as such, to once again, uphold "selectivity", relative to a theological position.

In the clear text, Christ is indicating a "time frame" in which those events will transpire! To disregard that meaning is to also ignore the applicable situations that Christ earlier explained, in great detail!

You know that I thoroughly enjoy these "give and takes" with you!!!!!!!!!!!

In the mercies of Christ,

Your fellow servant,

Dan

Ted

May 7th 2006, 07:43 PM

If it is a matter of punctuation, then the verse is redundant!
Actually, it’s not. It’s emphatic. We repeat things or add words to make our statement stronger. That’s all that’s going on here.

But didn't I inquire "what-if" the Lord used that very approach, because it "mirrored" the eternal side?

IF he did, because of that very reason, THEN it would place a very large "hole" in your presentation of "what-ifs"!

Think about it, Christ, as well as the thief, would both, upon giving up the ghost, "go" into the bosom of Abraham. The "realm" of preservation, for all those that had died, waiting upon the "promise"?

Yes, that BEFORE he arose, BEFORE he was seen, BEFORE he ascended to God, HE went into a place (other than that earthly tomb), where the thief also was.
That’s a good question, well posed. Unfortunately, its premise misses some information. There is exactly one ancient text extant that sheds light on the “bosom of Abraham.” And that text places it in Sheol, the place of the dead. That is, the place where the rich man went was a tormenting area of Sheol, while “Abraham’s Bosom” is a nice area of Sheol. But neither of them is in Paradise.

Now, since Sheol (Hades) is clearly the place of the dead, universally pictured as under the ground rather than in heaven, there is no possibility that the conventional punctuation is correct.

In the clear text, Christ is indicating a "time frame" in which those events will transpire! To disregard that meaning is to also ignore the applicable situations that Christ earlier explained, in great detail!
Slow down, Cowboy! You haven’t explained what “clear” explanations you are talking about. So far I haven’t seen a single one that is as clear as your comment would suggest. I see a very consistent picture in scripture, and it never suggests anything other than a sleep in the grave waiting for the parousia. So I await your “clear” refutation.

Ted

richardmjolley

May 8th 2006, 07:53 PM

Could someone explain how the rapture of the church is found in these verses from Revelation.

Moi: Christ is talking to John on the island of Patmos, After spending some time dictating correspondence to 7 churches, he then takes John in hand to give him an eyeful of the behind the scenes events that underlie what is going on around him, and in the future. There is absolutely NOTHING here about the rapture of the church. What is particularly noticeable is the use of personal pronouns:
Revelation 4.1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

If all future history is laid out in these chapters of Rev, then why is this required of the raptured church: Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I find only one man, going up for a look around, since there is no historical or biblical record that John was translated to heaven.

Moi: This tells me only two men DIE, and then are RAISED up and taken to heaven.

So how do you find the doctrine of the rapture of the LIVING COMPLETE CHURCH on earth in this? I would be interested to know the rationale and interpretive method used to come to this conclusion.
to the quick the rapture of the church is not in rev.4:1 its in `1thess. 4 R.M.J.

richardmjolley

May 8th 2006, 07:56 PM

if you would like the truth concerning the rapture you can contact me at richardmjolley@yahoo.com only the elect know God's word

richardmjolley

May 8th 2006, 08:03 PM

Of course, Solly. That should be no secret by now. :)

God's original plan was for Israel to accept her election. But she failed. So God used Plan B -- Paul went to the Gentiles with a different gospel that didn't include God's covenant with Israel. After all, by definition, Gentiles didn't have this covenant. And when this happened, it changed eschatological matters as well. The Tribulation (which as any praeterist can tell you) began back then. But (and this is where a praeterist and I part company), when Israel failed her election, God cut her off, and consequently, the Tribulation was cut short after only a year or so. Therefore, the "End Times" plan was rewritten to take into account the age of the Mystery of the Gentiles, which would end upon the fulfillment of the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means.

The Tribulation has or nothing to do with the Gentiles, directly. So there's no reason for the Gentile "Body of Christ" to be around when it occurs. Hence the Rapture, which removes the Body from the situation, at which point God returns to working with Israel on a corporate level again.
if some one has to accept their election God didnt elect them He is soverign R.M.J.

Daniel927

May 13th 2006, 10:46 PM

Jonah,

There is absolutely no reference to Israel "missing" their "appointed time", frustrating God's divine will, and thereby "causing" God to institute PLAN "B" (the gentiles).

If you look closely at Matt. 21:31 - 45, you'll see that "apostate" Israel has the kingdom "...taken from them, and given to a nation, that WILL render forth the fruits".

It is also recorded that the "priests and Pharisees" KNEW that he had spoken this parable against them. Even they realized it. They were to be removed and another, faithful "nation", would be given the vineyard!

Do you see anywhere there is a "revocation" of this pronouncement? Even in Matt. 23, Christ says, "...desolate, UNTIL you say blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord". UNTIL they are willing to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

At that precise point, they become part of that new "nation", that is given the kingdom. That would be INDIVIDUALLY (body of Christ)- NOT CORPORATELY (as in the nation of Israel)! Otherwise, the two texts contradict each other.

---------------------------------------------------

Ted,

Brother, what's happenin???????

CLEARLY DEFINED TEXTS: Luke 16:19-31; I Thes. 4:14, 23; John 5:28, 29; Joshua 5:7-9 and Joshua 6: 15, 16.

Of course, you may choose to ignore ANY or ALL, which ever you feel necessary to do. ONLY ---DON'T ATTEMPT TO INDICATE THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCES TO JOSHUA!

After all, there is such a thing as "carrying something too far".

Do you love this, or what???????????

As you can see, I've been "away" again AND I'll still be MIA through next week also.

--------------------------------------------------

I would have thought the very predicament that Christ and the thief found themselves in would have been emphatic, sufficient enough to speak for itself! That the very actions that were transpiring were far exceeding what mere words might convey! How does a single word, ADD anything to those events?

Or even the physical reality of the situation, where Christ is "gasping" for each and every breath. What greater opportunity than this for Christ to be verbose. I'm even surprised why, given this penchant for discussion, that Christ didn't launch into some oration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly me!

Short of the text giving ANY such "hint" that the word Today was to be understood, per your "slant", once again, let's change the application so that it "fits" our predetermined END!

That's what it sounds like to ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------------------------------------------

IF Christ meant "heaven", why didn't he say so? Actually "heaven" is easier to say than "par-a-dise"! Yet the text clearly (once again) indicates that Christ chose NOT to use the word "Heaven".

Now, why do you think that would be?

After going through this life, not to mention the "passion" of the moment, I wonder if the "bosom of Abraham", would seem like "paradise" to them? I wonder if "paradise" could make reference to a place or state of happiness?

I wonder if the text in Luke 16 doesn't indicate that Lazarus was being "comforted"? Even as Samuel inquired, "Why have you disquieted me", relative to Saul and the witch at Endor?

Paradise and heaven are two distinct, separate places.

Heaven is the place for the "living"; PARADISE WAS a temporary place/state for those who had died, that were preserved! The eternal portion of man, waiting for the redemption!

Hell (the lousy part), the inheritance for ALL the ungodly. The eternal portion for the eternal person. YET, the lake of fire awaits both of them!

(Can I ask you something real quick? Have you ever given any thought that "Hell" represents an authority? A dominion? Perhaps a spiritual "entity", that came into "existance" solely due to the "fall of Adam"? That, due to that fall, due to the "commandment" of God (sin taking occasion of the law), that it's existance is only because of the "fall"? I ask because in Rev. it also is thrown into the lake of fire (which is prepared for Satan and his angels)! Which suggests that "hell" is something "tangible"? Yeah, "off-base", but I thought as good a place as any to ask.)

----------------------------------------------

You will also find the references that apply to "being in the ground, waiting for the resurrection", to be contained in scripture that applies PRE-Resurrection of Christ.

That is why I gave you John 5:25-29, it equates to one clear picture, prior to the resurrection of Christ, even as Thes./Cor. depicts another picture.

------------------------------------------

Yes! A resurrection at the time of Christ! ALL those Pre-Christ resurrection. O.T., after he arose, paradise, Abraham's bosom! Precisely what John 5 discusses!

It is impossible to get away from O.T. (as opposed to N.T.)!!!!!!!!!!!

Ted, thanks again for everything, sorry about the delay for the answer, hope to hear back soon (even though I'll be gone for another week)!

Knowing that Christ alone keeps us, encourages us, restores us and in finality shall redeem us into everlasting life.

In His tender mercies,

D

Ted

May 15th 2006, 03:56 PM

Brother, what's happenin???????

CLEARLY DEFINED TEXTS: Luke 16:19-31; I Thes. 4:14, 23; John 5:28, 29; Joshua 5:7-9 and Joshua 6: 15, 16.

Of course, you may choose to ignore ANY or ALL, which ever you feel necessary to do. ONLY ---DON'T ATTEMPT TO INDICATE THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCES TO JOSHUA!
In order:
Luke 16:19. This is a PARABLE. It uses a common misconception of the day to get to the punch line in verse 31. It tells us nothing about the state of the dead in fact.
1 Thes 4:14. Don’t forget verse 13! Those who have no hope grieve over those who are DEAD. They have “fallen asleep.” “In Jesus” refers to the state of salvation, not to location.
John 5:28-29. This passage explicitly declares that those in the tombs, not in heaven, will hear Jesus’ voice (see 1 Thes 4!).
Josh 5:7-9, 6:15-16. Sorry, I can’t take orders from you. These two passages haven’t got anything to do with the state of the dead. If you would be so kind as to explain why you think they do, then we might have something to talk about.

Short of the text giving ANY such "hint" that the word Today was to be understood, per your "slant", once again, let's change the application so that it "fits" our predetermined END!

That's what it sounds like to ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And this sounds like you are completely unconcerned with the arguments I made. You don’t care that placing the comma in the conventional location makes Jesus into a liar. Rather than being a “slant,” as you so derisively comment, I made a serious exploration of the text. Perhaps you might try the same.

Paradise and heaven are two distinct, separate places.
This shows that you have completely given up any pretense of biblical scholarship. Rev 2:7 declares that “the Tree of Life is in the Paradise of God.” Then Rev 22:1-2 clearly declares that the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem. Now, unless the New Jerusalem is in Sheol, it is impossible for Jesus and the thief to have gone there. And to suggest that the Tree of Life is in the place of the dead is ludicrous. After all, Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden so they wouldn’t eat from it and live forever. Rather, as Rev 21:2 declares, the New Jerusalem descends out of heaven to the earth. Therefore, the Tree of Life is in the New Jerusalem in heaven.

Yes! A resurrection at the time of Christ! ALL those Pre-Christ resurrection. O.T., after he arose, paradise, Abraham's bosom! Precisely what John 5 discusses!
You have just committed a serious error in verbal analysis. You have assumed that Abraham’s Bosom is a part of Paradise. But you have no source for that assumption. In fact, as I said earlier, the only extant source speaks of Abraham’s Bosom as a place in Sheol, the place of the dead. Thus, your argument is nothing more than yelling. You seem to hope that by saying something loudly and often you will make it true. Unfortunately for you, truth is a stubborn thing. It does not care how often you say something incorrect. It is true regardless of what you think. And Abraham’s Bosom is not in Paradise.

Ted

Daniel927

May 15th 2006, 07:48 PM

Ted,

Well, well, well!

You certainly have a "short" side don't you?

I guess especially when someone "calls" you on some of your mis-conceived notions and ideas!

That only goes to show you that the longer you "hang" around, the more likely you are to see past the facade!

-------------------------------------------

Let's start off with some fundamental scripture. Hopefully you will decide not to argue against the clear, plain text.

Christ is recorded throughout the gospels as presenting a "parable" no less than forty-six (46) times. I checked the concordance for that number, if you don't believe it, you can easily check it yourself!

In the text of Luke 16:19-31, there is not one word spoken of "parable". That text is contained in the text of (1) :15, self-justification; (2) :16, the status of the law AND the kingdom; (3) :17, the ever-lasting provision of the law of God; (4) :18, the commission of adultery!

IN NONE OF THESE PRIOR VERSES, OR THEIR TOPICS, IS THERE THE REMOTEST HINT OF THEM BEING AN APPLICABLE "PARABLE"! THESE ARE ALL FACTUAL ISSUES, RELATIVE TO THE DAY. THERE IS NO "SYMBOLISM" UTILIZED TO CONVEY A "HIDDEN" APPLICATION!

THIS IS PRECISELY WHERE WE FIND THE ACCOUNT GIVEN OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN. WE CANNOT INSINUATE THERE IS A "HIDDEN" APPLICATION FOR THIS ACCOUNT, BY THE "TONE" OF SETTING FOR THE PRIOR VERSES!

In addition to this, we see Christ CLEARLY STATE (19), "THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN...(20), AND THERE WAS A CERTAIN BEGGAR, NAMED LAZARUS...".

Now, in TOTAL absence of a "text setting" that either states, or even remotely implies that this is to be construed as a "parable", we have no right to address it as such!

I understand your vehement rebuttal to speak against the TRUTH that Christ is conveying in this REAL LIFE ACCOUNT, because to accept it would "undermine" much of your concepts, that do not "align" with this, and therefore "in-kind" presentations!

So, I do understand! Yet, I cannot agree to something that refutes the clearly presented, written Word!

NOW, the text clearly presents that Christ says, "THERE WAS, ...AND THERE WAS". Are you wishing to contend that that is NOT the proper translation?

While my "library" is not nearly as extensive as yours, every reference that I have cross-referenced (6 different "writings"-bibles), ALL SAY THE SAME THING -- WORD FOR WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All that you are left with is the position that you wish to "contend" with the spoken provisions of Christ! Certainly not an enviable position!

So while you make allegations to me that I have not entertained your presentations, you have "failed" to provide any sufficient basis for your disregard of the clear presentation of events contained in Luke 16.

You can't "skip" the foundational presentation, and attempt to "construct" an idealogy that fails to address what was given in the text!

BUT, having always attempted to be more than "fair" with you and always been willing to "listen" to your position, I will, once again, "listen" to the reasons "why" Luke 16, IS A PARABLE!

--------------------------------------------

Oh yes, there is A "paradise of God", there was also a "paradise", referring to Eden. Because both were referred to as "paradise" are you attempting to say that "EDEN WAS IN HEAVEN"? I think not!

So your comparison that if it says "paradise", it can only be one place, and one reference, is wrong!

It is AND WAS, a part of Sheol, a place of the dead, those that were preserved, waiting on the Promise!

The ONLY natural, that contains the spiritual, is us, in our yet unredeemed bodies! Sheol was a spiritual place, for the departed spiritual man. The ground (natural earth), does not have authority over the eternal realm.

That is what is called a "category" mistake. While we may "envision" the eternal man goes into the earth, it is only our bodies. Natural to natural, BUT, spiritual to spiritual!!!!!!!!!

Until you get the most basic and fundamental concepts down, you build on misconceptions!

But it doesn't mean that I don't care enough about you, as my Christian brother, to offer correction and attempt to put you on the straight path!

In Christ,

D

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 08:48 PM

Of course, Solly. That should be no secret by now. :)

God's original plan was for Israel to accept her election. But she failed. So God used Plan B -- Paul went to the Gentiles with a different gospel that didn't include God's covenant with Israel. After all, by definition, Gentiles didn't have this covenant. And when this happened, it changed eschatological matters as well. The Tribulation (which as any praeterist can tell you) began back then. But (and this is where a praeterist and I part company), when Israel failed her election, God cut her off, and consequently, the Tribulation was cut short after only a year or so. Therefore, the "End Times" plan was rewritten to take into account the age of the Mystery of the Gentiles, which would end upon the fulfillment of the "fullness of the Gentiles," whatever that means.

The Tribulation has or nothing to do with the Gentiles, directly. So there's no reason for the Gentile "Body of Christ" to be around when it occurs. Hence the Rapture, which removes the Body from the situation, at which point God returns to working with Israel on a corporate level again.

Load of BULL

everything is of and about and for His People and Him doing it all

the Gentiles Are Hebrews

GOY is GOY

line of Israel through GOY himself even Christ = Goy

nothing new under the sun

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 08:51 PM

Could someone explain how the rapture of the church is found in these verses from Revelation.

Moi: Christ is talking to John on the island of Patmos, After spending some time dictating correspondence to 7 churches, he then takes John in hand to give him an eyeful of the behind the scenes events that underlie what is going on around him, and in the future. There is absolutely NOTHING here about the rapture of the church. What is particularly noticeable is the use of personal pronouns:
Revelation 4.1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

If all future history is laid out in these chapters of Rev, then why is this required of the raptured church: Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

I find only one man, going up for a look around, since there is no historical or biblical record that John was translated to heaven.

Moi: This tells me only two men DIE, and then are RAISED up and taken to heaven.

So how do you find the doctrine of the rapture of the LIVING COMPLETE CHURCH on earth in this? I would be interested to know the rationale and interpretive method used to come to this conclusion.
There is nothing in scripture about a rapture

it's made up

a work of fiction

from false teachers like

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b378/ChaChyNga/b1f0912e.jpg

all mans doctrines

it's not the Church

it's the called out ones = ecclesia

why do you care to leave this earth when Christ himself never said anything about it

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 09:03 PM

because Israel is a type, not only of fallen humanity in its rebellion against God, but also of the people of God, in their calling and troubles.

Israel is a RACE... a flesh and BLOOD SEEDLINE...

James
1 1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. 2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 09:11 PM

God had a plan for national Israel; to bring forth the Messiah. As for whether he still has a plan, you would have to show that the Secular nation State of Israel and the Occupied Territories fits the same category; which I don't believe it does.
They are Edom, not the Israel of scriptures but they are them that go by the name of jew and are not but do lie.

Hebrews
8 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The old is not done away, God is the same yesterday and today and forever Amen...

There is a new Covenant
one of Blood
from a perfect
offering
because God could swear by no other
My son
order of Melchesidec (sp)

and since God Himself Proclaimed him a Priest

There you Go

End of discussion

you just have to get covered in the blood and not be a panty waste in your daily walk

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 09:18 PM

Awesome scripture, Reba. Thanks! Further evidence that God's original plan was that the Gentiles would come to Israel and become proselyte Jews, rather than Israel being cut off. :)

After all, Jews couldn't sit down with Gentiles; only with other Jews. And as I already noted several times, Jesus Himself forbade His disciples from eating with the Gentiles, or preaching to them.

again this is part of the process of making the two sticks

Gentiles= nations

always God's nations of his people

Israel was in two main captivity stages

and you fail to recall the vision of unclean meats --- the damnable doctrines teach false teachings about eating a pig when the story is about Man ie Gentiles were suppose to be in the fold... God hath Clensed all men here and even an foreigner that clung upon the law of God and his Christ

the bible is always about Israel and Christ and God working his plan in no matter what man does

BurningBush--U

May 18th 2006, 09:27 PM

Daniel927

May 19th 2006, 09:48 PM

Ted

May 21st 2006, 05:36 PM

Ted,

Well, well, well!

You certainly have a "short" side don't you?

I guess especially when someone "calls" you on some of your mis-conceived notions and ideas!

That only goes to show you that the longer you "hang" around, the more likely you are to see past the facade!
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel. You really think you are so smart. In fact, you simply don’t like being called up short. I laid the facts out plainly, and all you can do is belittle me. Now let’s deal with your assertions about the PARABLE of the rich man and Lazarus.

In addition to this, we see Christ CLEARLY STATE (19), "THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN...(20), AND THERE WAS A CERTAIN BEGGAR, NAMED LAZARUS...".
Notice the parable of the landowner in Matt 21:33ff. “There was a landowner…” Or back up in Luke 16 to the PARABLE that immediately precedes the rich man and Lazarus. “There was a certain rich man…” Notice that Jesus uses EXACTLY the same language to start the parable in 16:1 that he uses in 16:9. And that brings us to another of your comments.

In the text of Luke 16:19-31, there is not one word spoken of "parable". Luke 16:1-13 is clearly a parable, yet the word “parable” doesn’t appear in it. Since this is the closest immediate context, by the same writer, in the same scene, using the same language, using the same parabolic construction, ignoring the same key word, it is necessarily the same form of presentation. It’s a – do we dare say it – PARABLE!

Of course, if we back up into chapter 15, we find (15:11-32) the PARABLE of the Prodigal Son. Of course, no one denies it is a parable. Yet the word “parable” appears nowhere in it. And it begins with, “A certain man had two sons…” Of course, this is another part of the opening of the wasteful steward and – do I dare say it – the rich man and Lazarus! So our precedent for the form being a parable extends back through not one, but two immediately preceding PARABLES. If we were to look at this from a standpoint of structure, there is no possibility that we would consider it to be anything but a PARABLE. But that would destroy your theology. And here lies the tale.

You are so enslaved by your theology that the PARABLE of the rich man and Lazarus HAS to be literal. As a result, you read your theology into the PARABLE, rather than letting the PARABLE teach you what Jesus wanted to teach.

You desperately want it to be literal. But if it’s literal, and not a parable, you now run into a host of other problems. If it’s literal, then we are dealing with disembodied spirits, yet the PARABLE talks about dipping a non-existent finger into water to cool a non-existent tongue. Of course, the rich man’s spirit sees with non-existent eyes. In other words, the very concept of spirits that are aware in some disembodied state requires their bodies to also be present for the PARABLE to make any sense.

You are blinded by your wish for the PARABLE to be literally true.

Oh yes, there is A "paradise of God", there was also a "paradise", referring to Eden. Because both were referred to as "paradise" are you attempting to say that "EDEN WAS IN HEAVEN"? I think not!

So your comparison that if it says "paradise", it can only be one place, and one reference, is wrong!

It is AND WAS, a part of Sheol, a place of the dead, those that were preserved, waiting on the Promise!
Nice try. Eden was a place of perfection. It was the sanctuary of God on earth. It was made in seven steps, just as the tabernacle was. God met with man there, just as He did in the sanctuary. It had the shekinah glory, noted by the angel with the flaming sword being “shakonned” to guard the entrance. And no unclean thing (Adam and Eve!) could enter.

Eden was indeed a paradise to our thinking, even though the word doesn’t appear in scripture. And this is the root of your next problem. You aren’t willing to let scripture be your guide. You have defined Eden as the “Paradise of God,” even though scripture doesn’t. Since the Tree of Life is in the Paradise of God, which the Bible defines as in HEAVEN, your argument becomes worthless. BTW, Jesus went to Hades when He died (Acts 2:31-32, c.f. Psa 16:10).

Even if the word had referred to Eden, it was above ground on earth. Sheol is ALWAYS referred to as below ground in scripture. And Sheol is NEVER referred to as Paradise in scripture. So let me put it simply. Either use the definitions that scripture uses, or be quiet and listen. Until you are willing to listen to scripture, you will not learn. And right now, you are trying to make scripture say things it doesn’t say.

In summary, the rich man and Lazarus is a PARABLE. Second, the “Paradise of God” is in heaven. Since Jesus told Mary after the resurrection that He had not yet gone to the Father, Jesus had not gone to Paradise, and therefore the thief was not with Jesus in Paradise “this day.” Thus, the comma is in the wrong place and your head is, too.

Go back and look at the facts I’ve presented. Let the Bible teach you instead of trying to twist it to fit your theology. I’ve had to give up ideas I held to. You will, too.

Ted

Daniel927

May 22nd 2006, 10:50 PM

Ted,

(Ted, Ted, Ted, ................I used it first, come up with your "own" ideas!).

I am SO short for time, glad you responded, just one quick thought.

You say the "tree of life" is in heaven, and is therefore ONE of the reasons - heaven alone is "paradise". Did I get that correct?

Well, you have a major need to go back to Genesis 3:22, "...lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the ....TREE OF LIFE........, and eat, and live for ever".

So then my question to you in the prior post was; "are you saying that Eden was in Heaven"?

By the insistence of your response, I have to take it that you are declaring that the Garden of Eden was not on the Earth, but was located in heaven!

Seems strange to me! If you're NOT saying that.......then you NEED to QUIT saying it!!!!!!

I know I said ONE point, but here's another quick one:

When the witch at Endor called up the spirit of Samuel, how did he hear....without ears, or speak.......without a mouth, or speak on the fact that God had departed from Saul..........without a brain?????

Oh yeah, I know, it was just a Pairable.........no, that was only ONE, so it had to be a Unible.

Cause when we give up this earthly body, with the spirit of life departing, we become nothing...........So Rev. 6 has it wrong also.

LIke I said ..........SHORT..........but to let you know, I"ll be back!

(BTW...Matt. uses the word parable, so it's a poor comparison for the text that doesn't.....AND.....I guess you think that there weren't rich men, who had "stewards". Me, I would think that the rich had plenty of help!)

Bless

Dan

Ted

May 23rd 2006, 03:36 PM

Daniel,

You say a number of things that don’t make any sense, so I guess I’ll just let them pass. I’ll tackle the things where I can figure out what you are trying to say.

You say the "tree of life" is in heaven, and is therefore ONE of the reasons - heaven alone is "paradise". Did I get that correct?

Well, you have a major need to go back to Genesis 3:22, "...lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the ....TREE OF LIFE........, and eat, and live for ever".

So then my question to you in the prior post was; "are you saying that Eden was in Heaven"?

By the insistence of your response, I have to take it that you are declaring that the Garden of Eden was not on the Earth, but was located in heaven!
My goodness! Do you really think I said that Eden was in heaven? Read again. I didn’t. And apply the principles of past, present, and future tenses.

In Genesis 3, the Tree is in Eden. That is PAST tense, by about 6,000 years now. Around 1,500 years after that event, the entire earth was flooded, so Eden no longer exists. And, if the tree was still on earth, it wouldn’t exist, either. But the New Testament declares that it is (PRESENT) in the Paradise of God, which I showed to be in heaven.

So let’s apply a little elementary logic. The tree WAS in Eden. It’s NOW in heaven. What happened in between? I know! God hired Davy Tree to dig it up so He could MOVE it.

Now that I’ve gotten past sarcasm, the answer is simple. When God destroyed the earth with the flood (or sometime before), He moved the Tree of Life to heaven. This shouldn’t be any harder to understand than Elijah or Jesus being taken up into heaven. It’s just that it isn’t described like the other two events. It’s a “good and necessary consequence” of the scriptures (Westminster Confession).

When the witch at Endor called up the spirit of Samuel, how did he hear....without ears, or speak.......without a mouth, or speak on the fact that God had departed from Saul..........without a brain?????

You really do get your exercize jumping to conclusions, don’t you? Go back and read 1 Sam 28. In verse 13, the witch sees a “divine being” (Heb: elohim) coming up out of the earth. Right away, we know it’s not Samuel. Samuel isn’t divine! Therefore, the apparition isn’t Samuel. But Saul “perceives” that it is Samuel.

Let’s put this in plain language. The witch sees a Satanic apparition. (Remember, elohim also applies to lesser gods {Yes, the Hebrew of the OT declares that there are many els. but there is only one Yahweh. He is an el, but He is unique. I know that is a shock, but it’s a fact.}) Saul wants it to be Samuel, so he treats it as if it were Samuel. Yes, the demon knows that the Spirit of God has left Saul, since Saul has been tormented by demons since the day the Spirit left him (1 Sam 16:14ff). It wasn’t Samuel.

(BTW...Matt. uses the word parable, so it's a poor comparison for the text that doesn't.....AND.....I guess you think that there weren't rich men, who had "stewards". Me, I would think that the rich had plenty of help!)
I don’t know why you are missing the point to often. I was showing how a parable could start with or without the word “parable” because the other verbal forms were the same. And you have completely ignored the fact that the Rich Man and Lazarus is the last of a series of parables that do not use the word “parable.” I went to great length to show that your assertion that it couldn’t be a parable was incorrect. But I guess you aren’t interested in dealing with the argument I presented. You just want more exercize jumping to conclusions. I never said anything about rich men not having servants.

Ted

BurningBush--U

May 25th 2006, 08:18 PM

Hey there,

Seeing how Heb. was utilized, I thought that perhaps you might find this interesting as well: 10:9, (this is Christ speaking), "Lo I come to do thy will, O God. HE TAKES AWAY THE FIRST, THAT HE MIGHT ESTABLISH THE SECOND"!

So, if Christ is speaking to the Father, of performing His will, what is the "FIRST" that he removes, thereby establishing the "SECOND"?

There is a great indication in Matt., BUT....IF YOU DON'T THINK "ALL" OF WHAT PAUL WROTE CONCERNING "WHO" THE JEW IS, is believable, then you won't believe the example given in Matthew!

Needless to say, once Christ did away with the first, he established the second AND I see nothing written about a "third". There is "only" TWO. ONE was the "former" covenant between God and man, the "second" -IS- the "new" covenant between God and man!

------------------------------------------------------

Just one thought about Paul, Eph. 3:2-9, it appears that he willingly abandoned all those "mentioned" things, that he might be "counted" as belonging to Christ!

What a strange position, if the plan of salvation is about Israel, the "land mass" and the people who dwell in it.

Anyone who remotely entertains that it is about a "race" of people (Jew, in the flesh), has not seriously read, studied or considered the VAST majority of New Testament scripture!

I cannot find anything mentioned in scripture about a Plan "B"!

Oh, by the way, IF, according to this "plan" - ALL Israel is to be saved, what do you do with not just the first 2000 + years - of the unbelieving Jew, but also the 2000 years since Christ - of the unbelieving JEW??????????????????????

Are you attempting to say that God is not "JUST", that what -so-ever a man sows, he will not "reap" it?

Just some thoughts.

D
Go back to the drawing board and investigate the scriptures anew.

You just have no clue to why Christ even came, much less knowing who the people of the book are...

Race is important or God would not have selected one over the others. Does that make the others bad, NO, God says they are Good...

Better go find what scripture says.

The People of the book starting with Gods peculiar treasure

Exodus
19 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Psalms
135 4 For the LORD hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure.

This is the same treasure spoken about:

Matthew
13 44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Don't you wanna know the truth?

Go figure out one of the hardest terms to understand by many people "JEW"
it has many meanings.

Go find out what Gentiles, Nations mean.

Go figure OUT why God came... because of many things, one of is a promise.

Go figure out:

Hebrews
8 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

When you have researched and matured and repented of wrong teachings come back.

Bottom Line, no place is there ever taught a rapture. The rapture is false, and has to be read into scripture by BAAL priests and their ilk.

In fact, the truth be known
: okay I'll tell some truth here:

The reason why people believe in the TRIB lies is because, besides loving a lie greater than the truth; they don't understand the bible for what it's saying and meaning et al in more than a very simplistic mental trance like state.

If they knew the different meanings of the terms World or even what the Roaring Lion Seeking... means, then they'd have a better box of tools to decipher the rest of the lingo throught the scriptures. They dont.... they will remain lost unless one of a couple things happen...

I Peter
5 8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Proverbs
19 12 The king' wrath is as the roaring of a lion; but his favour is as dew upon the grass.

Proverbs
20 2 The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

Proverbs
28 15 As a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.

Anyones eyes becoming opened as yet ???

:eek:

:lol:

Isaiah
5 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: 23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly: 27 None shall be weary nor stumble among them; none shall slumber nor sleep; neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed, nor the latchet of their shoes be broken: 28 Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses'hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind: 29 Their roaring shall be like a lion, they shall roar like young lions: yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry it away safe, and none shall deliver it .

Isaiah

31 1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD! 2 Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity. 3 Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together. 4 For thus hath the LORD spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the LORD of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof. 5 As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it. 6 Turn ye unto him from whom the children of Israel have deeply revolted. 7 For in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin. 8 Then shall the Assyrian fall with the sword, not of a mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man, shall devour him: but he shall flee from the sword, and his young men shall be discomfited. 9 And he shall pass over to his strong hold for fear, and his princes shall be afraid of the ensign, saith the LORD, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.

EZE. 22 25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. 26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. 27 Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. 28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter , seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken. 29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. 30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. 31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD.

Psalms
22 1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring? 2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent. 3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel. 4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them. 5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded. 6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. 7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying , 8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. 9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother' breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother' belly. 11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help. 12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. 13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. 16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. 19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog. 21 Save me from the lion' mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. 22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee. 23 Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel. 24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. 25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him. 26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. 27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. 28 For the kingdom is the LORD': and he is the governor among the nations. 29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul. 30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. 31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this .

Study these things out and you will come to realize more meat.

BurningBush--U

May 25th 2006, 08:36 PM

I Corinthians
15 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

&

I Thessalonians
4 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

eschaton

May 26th 2006, 10:52 AM

Chapter XXVI.-The Treasure Hid in the Scriptures is Christ; The True Exposition of the Scriptures is to Be Found in the Church Alone.

1. If any one, therefore, reads the Scriptures with attention, he will find in them an account of Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling (vocationis). For Christ is the treasure which was hid in the field,352 that is, in this world (for "the field is the world"353 ); but the treasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ, since He was pointed out by means of types and parables. Hence His human nature could not354 be understood, prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of Christ. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet: "Shut up the words, and seal the book even to the time of consummation, until many learn, and knowledge be completed. For at that time, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things."355 But Jeremiah also says, "In the last days they shall understand these things."356 For every prophecy, before its fulfilment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of men, and showing forth the wisdom of God and declaring His dispensations with regard to man, and forming the kingdom of Christ beforehand, and preaching by anticipation the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the man who loves God shall arrive at such excellency as even to see God, and hear His word, and from the hearing of His discourse be glorified to such an extent, that others cannot behold the glory of his countenance, as was said by Daniel: "Those who do understand, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous357 as the stars for ever and ever."358 Thus, then, I have shown it to be,359 if any one read the Scriptures. For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with, the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves "that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world."360 And the disciple will be perfected, and [rendered] like the householder, "who bringeth forth from his treasure things new and old."361

Irenaeus - Against the Heresies, Book IV

Daniel927

May 27th 2006, 09:37 PM

BB (BurningBush),

Just absolutely loved your input!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, in the VERY beginning of your response, YOU relate to God's "people" being those who: obey his voice, and are "under" His covenant.

Actually it is scripture that you quote, so it is obvious that you AGREE with the written word.

There's just one thing, the written word disagrees with your opinion!

Through Christ, WE are the children of Abraham, the true Israel. We are those who obey the voice of God and who are "covenanted" with Him through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

You should take to heart what Paul says in Gal 3:16, "Now to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made. He saith NOT, And to SEEDS, AS OF MANY; ...BUT...as of ONE, AND to thy SEED, WHICH IS ...........CHRIST!!!!!!!

It took Christ to redeem those who had died under the Law. So, both pre-Christ and post-Christ believers are the "ONLY' children, no one else.

The New Testament is the "revelation" of Christ, the covenant of God to mankind. The Old Testament was the fore-telling, the shadow of things that were to be fulfilled in Christ.

To deny such, or to be unwilling to accept such, hinders our "relationship" with God. After all, there is NO access to God, without Christ being our mediator!

In Christ,

Dan

-------------------------------------

By the way, I rechecked my earlier post and I don't see anywhere I mentioned about "rapture" or "trib"! Is my eyesight failing me, at such a tender age?

BurningBush--U

May 27th 2006, 11:07 PM

last two posters

both wrong

and yes your eyes are failing

look at the topic

are we not on the rapture

if you want to side track and talk other issues the so do

by battery has less than 7 minutes

and I have to go pee pee

so I'll be brief

you are making a false claim

you need to be more careful when you read

I agree Christ is the
SEED

But by not knowing the whole story

you do miss the realiztion of my points

4 minutes remaining

okay

does God change?

NO

Same yesterday and today and yes in the morning, SAME.

Now Think!

Daniel927

May 28th 2006, 06:38 PM

BB,

Have you ever attempted to put together a "jigsaw" puzzle?

At the very beginning, they are quite challenging, because there are soooooooo many possibilities to consider. Just as with your thoughts posted here.

There is sooooo little given (from you), and yet you inform us to "get" the big picture. Difficult, to say the least.

Now, if there is far more to consider, then you need to "throw out more than just a bone", so we might seriously contemplate your point of view.

Perhaps, for a moment, you DO think there is more to the picture than Christ and his ushering in of a "new" provision of "WHO" the children are. That would certainly be a point of contention.

If you look at Col. 1:14-18, NOT ONLY did he create all things, but for the single purpose of ...."FOR HIM". He is both before all things AND by him all things consist.

So to think that there is some "great plan", that is outside of the provision of Christ, leaves me with a great deal of discomfort.

You are correct, God does not change, never has, never will. Don't miss the realization the Christ IS God, always has been, always will.

The provisions given to Israel, under the Law, under the O.T., were "types and shadows" of Christ. While God "choose" them above all peoples, to be "his people", he DID NOT exclude ANY other peoples from coming under the covenant!

Think not?

Ex. 12:48, "And when a STRANGER shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and THEN let him come near and keep it; AND HE SHALL BE AS ONE THAT IS BORN IN THE LAND (Israel, or some foreign land?): for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Don't forget Rahab, as well as Ruth; the lineage of Christ.

Even more so: Matt 25:43, "I WAS A STRANGER, AND YOU TOOK ME IN..."!

So, in both the old and the new, the children NOW, or ever were, exclusively a biological lineage! Oh yeah, don't forget, God doesn't change!

Yetr, I want you to know that I appreciate both you, AND YOUR OPINIONS. Although I do not necessarily agree with them.

You believe in Christ Jesus, so do I. He alone is the Savior of all men. He is highly exalted and worthy to be praised, for He alone has been found worthy to open the book and loose the seals thereof.

In Christ,

Dan.

Ted

May 28th 2006, 07:54 PM

There's just one thing, the written word disagrees with your opinion!

Through Christ, WE are the children of Abraham, the true Israel. We are those who obey the voice of God and who are "covenanted" with Him through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

You should take to heart what Paul says in Gal 3:16, "Now to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made. He saith NOT, And to SEEDS, AS OF MANY; ...BUT...as of ONE, AND to thy SEED, WHICH IS ...........CHRIST!!!!!!!

It took Christ to redeem those who had died under the Law. So, both pre-Christ and post-Christ believers are the "ONLY' children, no one else.

The New Testament is the "revelation" of Christ, the covenant of God to mankind. The Old Testament was the fore-telling, the shadow of things that were to be fulfilled in Christ.
Dare I say this? Well said! Then you said this…

Ex. 12:48, "And when a STRANGER shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and THEN let him come near and keep it; AND HE SHALL BE AS ONE THAT IS BORN IN THE LAND (Israel, or some foreign land?): for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Don't forget Rahab, as well as Ruth; the lineage of Christ.

Even more so: Matt 25:43, "I WAS A STRANGER, AND YOU TOOK ME IN..."!

So, in both the old and the new, the children NOW, or ever were, exclusively a biological lineage! Oh yeah, don't forget, God doesn't change!
You are right on! BTW, don’t forget that Ruth and Rahab could not marry a Hebrew unless they became Hebrews themselves. (Deut 7:3) Note that the prohibition was even stronger against Moabites (Deut 23:3).

Ted

p.s. Are we ill? We are agreeing!

eschaton

May 30th 2006, 10:17 AM

last two posters

both wrong

!

BB,

I didn't state an opinion so you don't have to tell me I'm wrong. I gave the opinion of 2nd century Christian Irenaeus, much of which I think represents the teachings of the apostles and early church.

AF

Daniel927

May 30th 2006, 10:45 PM

Esc,

Excellent post concerning the early church fathers! Here we are, still trying to "dig" the truth out of scripture, when it hasn't been hidden from the very first believers!

I think that sometimes we "stumble" over the most obvious questions that have long since been answered by the church. Shame on us.

YET, it is always a glorious event, when we come into those understandings, when the "picture" of Christ is revealed to us. The reward is well worth the search/journey.

------------------------------------------

Theodore (!),

Two times now I have "missed" your posts back to me! Both times they "fell" at the bottom of the page, and I managed to overlook them both. SORRY!

I want you to know that when I capitalize something - I am not doing it so much for VOLUME - but rather for VISUAL! So, I'm NOT screaming at you, I'm just trying to help you READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAH!

I want you to know that in no way, shape or form, do I ever wish to sound bitter, resentful or disrespectful to YOU or anyone else, even though we remain unpretentious about our positions.

I am glad to know that we do not disagree JUST to be contentious with each other. That it is ALWAYS a legitimate question of a "truth" that we are convinced of!

It is GREAT when we find those moments, however RARE they may be, of harmony in our understanding of Christ! It's even better to realize that, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE "ILL", in order to agree!

There is SOOOOOOOOOO much that we CAN agree on concerning Christ, that we should NEVER find either time or topic, in which to disagree. Of course, YOU know how WE are, don't you?

------------------------------------

BB,

ARE you a "plant"? I don't mean like "vegetable", I mean like "subversive"!

Not that the concept of being a "pot stirrer" isn't legitimate.

Think about it! Wanting to get everyone "on-board" to an acceptable position about a topic matter, ALL that is really needed is some vague "nut-case", to spout off some insanity!

Is that you? Are you he?

However, I will say this, you haven't been the ONLY one on this web-site, so you don't have to feel all alone!

BTW, I mentioned that your "in-put" really needed a litte more "meat-on-the-bone", but from what I can see, you made your "in-put" even skimpier!

What's up with that?

Come-on back this direction, we'll talk!

(BTW, while this thread IS about the "rapture", it certainly dovetails into the "who will be" part of that event. Thus the question of "who" are the children, should at the very remotest, be considered legitimate for this site)

Bless,

Dan

eschaton

May 31st 2006, 09:10 AM

Daniel927

May 31st 2006, 07:11 PM

Esc,

AMEN, brother!

"Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ", Ephesians 4:13.

Bless,

In Christ,

Daniel

a_servant

July 15th 2006, 04:14 PM

I am a crypto-Jew whose ancestors assumed Spanish surnames to escape the hand of Rome in Galicia Spain, and have been in America for many generations.

I have been charged of our Lord Yeshua, as many others also have, as servants of the end of this age. For the past year or so, after finally resolving within my self that I am not crazy but rather a chosen vessel for the end of this age, I have been diligent in speaking the word of the Lord for the benefit of those who will escape the soon coming time of wrath and the time of Jacobs trouble and for those who will also engage themselves in the tasks ahead. We are a small and splintered group, but are finding each other. I am in touch with others, who likewise are in touch with others as well, who recognize that we are charged to do what the Lord requires before his eminent return as the King of the Ages. Lord Yeshua- Jesus come quickly. Following is a word I received in November of 2005. I have bracketed one word [initial] to clarify the meaning of the words received and scribed.

If you reply that you are in agreement with the word of the Lord I now forward, I will forward other things
the Lord is showing us. The time of the rise of the man of sin is at hand, and God has raised and will seal His servants who will identify him and challenge his hosts. We are of those who will do this and also assist in guiding the saints and the Bride through the time of wrath and of Jacobs trouble. Beloved, the hour is almost upon us and it is time to prepare before we enter the week of sorrows and troubles.

_____

This is the Word of the Lord from a servant of the end who obeys His Masters charge.

A strong delusion forms from deceit and malice as Lucifer prepares for his damnation. The eyes of the saints are focused on those that twist the scripture for they form doctrine from what is not there. The shepherd leads the sheep to hope beyond hope, for he too is deceived. The leader speaks confusion to those who follow, and while he contends with lies, he allows the wolf entrance to the tabernacle. The rage of the wolf against those who hunted him consumes many, for this is the great falling away.

Ready yourselves to enter the days of trouble, the week of tribulation. For we will not all sleep in him, but will live as he returns. This is the patience of the saints. We must wait on the Lord for he will call and we will rise, but that day is a week away, and into that week we will pass. Not all will hear the word of the Lord and will fall away as others are sifted from the harvest. The great falling away will precede the revelation of the one who would be king, the beast who charges man and the false prophet who calls the confused. The deception will take all that reject the word of the Lord. It is there within the words of his servants, who record the will of God as they serve to speak, knowing and having the mind of God. Look at it and understand. The Lord will return at the last trumpet, for there will be no [initial] second coming.

The deceit is one lie and there are many, but it has not yet been revealed. The revelation will be offered only to those who hear when the week begins and the confused wail. “Were we mistaken?” they say as they fall away, “He is the messiah; he must be, for he is risen from the dead.” They are now witnesses for the deceiver and hosts worthy of the bowels of the void. For there they will not sing but wail. Look, he is fallen from the seat of authority and the throne of the earth and now wails with them. And the void gives way to the fire of eternal damnation where the workers of deceit endure eternity.

______

God saw you in the vineyard and a labor of love has brought you out.

The grapes are never harvested by the watchmen, because the watchmen are charged and busy themselves chasing the Wolf. And in their labor to chase the beast from the vineyard, they find that when they look some grapes are no longer on the vine.

There is a time when the grapes will be of no use, for the time of the harvest will have passed.

When the harvesters arrive they are considered as beasts by the watchmen of the vineyard, and in their effort to fight the wolf, they find more grapes missing, but in the vineyard the watchmen remain.

The watchmen hear of a winepress that is producing new wine from grapes that are crushed and know those very grapes were once in their vineyard on the vines they watch.

But in their zeal to understand nothing else but their duty to watch, they miss the call to harvest and while chasing the harvesters, they allow the harvesters and the wolf to take some grapes, some taken by the wolf for the belly of the beast and some taken by the
harvesters to the winepress for the marriage feast, all while chasing both the wolf and the harvesters.

They never realized that being watchmen was not only to chase the wolf, but to watch for the harvesters. For chasing the wolf served only to protect the vineyard until the time of the harvest.

______

This is the word of the LORD
My children, seed of My friend,
Who I long to gather in safety under My wing.
For you are the Love I desire.
My promise to you is to be a wonder for the nations.
And now they charge upon you with vengeance for a love they never had.
Come to Me, daughter of denial
You have denied Me, and yet My mercy is to you a choice.
The wrath that comes to your enemies will not protect those that reject Me.
But the remnant will stand and call throughout the streets of Jerusalem.
"Why do you look to the arms of men for deliverance?"
"For the arm of the LORD and your GOD will shield those who find HIM."
This is the word of the LORD from a servant of the end of days.

____

servant_of_the_end@yahoo.com