Featured Do The Jews Worship God of the Bible Still?

It would be great if the new members who are contributing to this thread would post a short bio on the Introduction forum, so we can get to know them.

 

Actually, you are WRONG. There is no such thing, as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost". This false understanding was created by MAN, through their own VANITY. They should have ASKED GOD for a true understanding [seek, knock, ask].

There are FOUR FIGURES, NOT THREE. The truth was shown to me, in the spring of 2003. I had prayed for years, daily, sometimes multiple times in the same day, for wisdom, knowledge, understanding and experience. I wanted to know THE TRUTH. In the vision (followed by a dream 'in riddles') I received, there were FOUR figures. There were two figures (The Father and His Holy Spirit) who I was not allowed to see, that CONTROLLED the vision, and two figures I was allowed to see (The Lord God Almighty and Jesus who stood on the right-hand of God, in the clouds, both dressed in pure white robes.) The GODHEAD (Isaiah 44:6) refers to The Lord God Almighty and Jesus.

Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of ALL CREATION. His 'creation' is truly unique. The Holy Ghost created Jesus, from the SPERM of The Lord God Almighty ('without a mother'). When Jesus (as Lord of Hosts) 'took on flesh', The Holy Ghost implanted Him in Mary, as an embryo/fetus. Jesus, as Son of Man, carried no physical characteristics of Mary's DNA (again, 'without mother'). The body of Mary simply supplied the required nutrients until Jesus could be born as the Christ child.

When Phillip asked Christ to show them [the disciples] The Father, Jesus told them, "If you see me, you see The Father." When I saw Jesus and The Lord God Almighty standing in the clouds, in my vision, they both were identical to each other. They appeared as Caucasian men in their early thirties. They had short, combed, black hair, and were clean-shaven.

There are errors in the scriptures. John 1:18 is not correct [it is in conflict with other NT scriptures]. John 5:37 is correct, but it refers to The Father of The Lord God Almighty. Revelation 1:6 ends with..., "Unto God and His Father".

We have to remember, that if a person follows the Ten Commandments, but does not believe in Christ, that they cannot reside in the new Jerusalem. Revelation mentions Kings and Nations residing on the outside of the new Jerusalem, who have to enter the gates of the new Jerusalem in order to bring their 'gifts' to God, on a monthly basis. It is evident, that these Kings and Nations are NOT thrown into HELL!

Are these Kings and Nations, true 'Muslim' believers, and 'Jews', who do not accept Christ as their saviour, but worship 'GOD' as commanded by God [Thou shalt have no god before me]?

 

I suspect that someone has brought some of their Jewish comrades over from another board, and, if they're not Baptists they shouldn't be posting on this forum.

 

I believe the more Biblical description would be 'Enlargement Theology':

1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah.
2 Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not: lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes.
3 For thou shalt spread aboard on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall possess the nations, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Isa 54

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the Gentiles, saith Jehovah of hosts. Mal 1

10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass that, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Hosea 1

But for the record, Christ made no bones about telling them they were going to be replaced:

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Mt 21

11 And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven:
12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Mt 8

 

Did you know that the original baptists (who most say were anabaptists) were premillennial


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Dispensational in the modern view of the word, as Ryrie explained it, is different from how the word was used before Darby, Scofield, Chafer and Ryrie came along. Can you please acknowledge this? It's the truth.

"A controversy among orthodox theologians over dispensational distinctions is not new. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) wrote: 'There is, perhaps, no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ' (Edward's Works, I, 100). But this discussion, as is often the case, has suffered much for want of definition." - Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism, Chapter 1, I​

 

TCassidy, I have posted here for you an accurate description of millennial and dispensational thought before Darby came along. It's taken from George Peter's famous work, The Theocratic Kingdom (Proposition 78):

The early church doctrine was revived after the Reformation.

SEVERAL HUNDRED NAMES, INCLUDING SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT, LEARNED, AND PIOUS IN THE CHURCH, ARE GIVEN IN SUCH WORKS, AS TAYLOR’S VOICE OF THE CHURCH, BROOKS’S EL. PROPH. INTERPRETATION, SEISS’ LAST TIMES, ELLIOTT’S HORAE. APOC., SHIMEALL’S ESCHATOLOGY, COX’S MILLENARIAN’S ANSWER, ANDERSON’S APOLOGY, TIME OF THE END, WEST’S ESSAY ON HIS. OF DOC, AND VARIOUS OTHERS, EMBRACING MANY LIVING AFTER THE REFORMATION, WHO AGAIN REVIVED THE EARLY FAITH OF THE CHURCH IN THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST STILL FUTURE, AND TO BE SET UP AT THE SECOND ADVENT.
The works alluded to give many interesting extracts confirmatory of the Chiliastic views held at this revival of the doctrine. Bh. Newton (Dis. On Proph., No. 25). after referring to the suppression of the doctrine through the influence of Rome, says: “No wonder, therefore, that this doctrine lay depressed for many ages; but it sprang up again at the Reformation, and will flourish together with the study of Revelation.” Appleton’s Cyclop., Art. “Mill.,” with all its one-sidedness, frankly remarks: “The Reformation of the 16th century gave a new impulse to Millenarian views,” that the Anabaptist movement was only a “caricature of the old Christian doctrine,” that “it was preached with enthusiasm by many sects and theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries,” mentioning Wiegel, Comenius, Jurieu, Mede, Bengal, Oettinger, Hahn, Stilling, Lavater, and also Hass, Rothe, Hoffman, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hebart, Thiersch, Nitzsch, P. Lange, Ebrard, Irving, Cumming, and others, as its advocates during this period and later. Abbott and Conant (Dic. of Relig. Knowledge) say: “These views (Chiliastic) may be traced to the earliest history of the church, and were advocated by the fathers up to the 4th century. They then declined, till the Reformation gave them a new impulse, since which time they have prevailed through the entire church to a large extent.
Obs. 1. Candor requires of us to state this peculiarity attached to those who were thus Chiliastic. (1) Some held strictly to the Primitive view, as contained in our argument, believing only in one Kingdom (while acknowledging the general Divine Sovereignty, etc.), still future, which was to accord with the Davidic covenant and related prophecies. The church, exceedingly precious, was regarded as only provisional and introductory to this Kingdom. (2) Others, with a cordial faith in such a future Kingdom, also upheld a Kingdom as present existing in the church-a kind of prelude to the coming one-thus retaining in part the Origenistic or Augustinian idea. (3) Some declare for a present Kingdom in the church, and also for a future one here on earth at the Second Advent, but incorporate with the latter mystical conceptions or spiritualizing deductions (which detract from the early view), as e.g. making the reign of the Messiah invisible, retaining the Son of Man during this period in the third heaven, etc., thus violating the express terms of the covenant and promises. (4) Others, again, with or without a decisive Church-Kingdom theory, have adopted certain salient features of Chiliasm (as e.g. the nearness of the Advent, the restoration of all things, the rise of the Antichrist and his destruction by the personal coming of Jesus, the first resurrection literal, the Sabbatism, etc.), so directly antagonistic to prevailing views and so much in harmony with our doctrine that they may be classed as, at least, partly Chiliastic. The first three, and some of the fourth class, reject the notion that the present dispensation, in any sense, contained the covenanted, predicted Kingdom of the Messiah; they all looked, however they may regard the church as provisional and even an introductory reign, to the Second Advent for the realization of the glorious Kingdom as promised by the prophets, as covenanted by God, and as believed in by the early church. This Kingdom, pre-eminently Messianic, they all believed was introduced by a personal Advent and a prior resurrection of the saints.
Hence on the great outlines they are a unit, however they may differ as to details. For they are all Pre-Millenarian in view, and look to the Kingdom to be set up here on earth after the Second Advent for the fulfillment of covenant and prophecy.
​

If they believed it was according to covenant, then they favored the belief that the Jews were to be divinely favored again. Even enemies to most of chiliastic doctrine in that age favored the belief that the Mosaic Covenant was to be reinstuted, whether future by the Jews or present by the church, as evidenced in their Sabbatism beliefs. If these post-reformers believed as the early church believed, then, since the early church believed the Jews were to be divinely favored again, they also believed this. Important also to note, that Augustine, though amillennial, did not believe in replacement theology. He believed that God was going to favour the Jews again. Origen, however, which is where Augustine borrowed the amillennial belief from, did not.

 

The Trinity is three persons in one essence=God. Also, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Co-equal and co-eternal. The members of the Trinity are NOT identical. Each has a particular "ministry." In Exodus, Jehovah is called the "I AM." Likewise, Christ, in John 8, calls Himself the "I AM." This does NOT mean they are IDENTICAL persons. In mathematics, there is a BIG difference between saying quantities are EQUAL or EQUIVALENT.

So, the Father and the Son are not identical persons. They are BOTH called "King of Kings and Lord of Lords," in Deuteronomy and in Revelation. They may be ascribed similar titles, but they are NOT the same person.

As to Israel, they will not accept Christ until during the "time of Jacob's Trouble," the Great Tribulation, through the ministry of the 144,000. They are branches broken off the vine; a "remnant" will turn to Christ. As unbelievers, presently, they are not saved.

As to Islam, Jehovah and Allah are not synonymous names for God. The true Jews knew this and avoided committing idolatry serving a false god.


Babylon the Great is not JUST Rome but all false religions.

 

You obviously looked over my Jonathan Edwards quote? Is Jonathan Edwards a theologian? I always thought he was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Here's the test - do they worship Christ? If not, then the answer has to be that they worship a different God. If the answer is yes, then they worship the same God.

 

Quick question back ...

Did God exist before religion ?

 

Hey there good sir. What's your input on this post?

Jope

 

Quick question, did you read the rules to this forum before posting?