standingfirminChrist
New Member
The Church did not replace Israel. God has not rejected Israel totally, so the replacement theology in nothing but opinion and not Biblical truth.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
millinial questions
- Thread starter menageriekeeper
- Start date
Brother Bob
New Member
I don't know anyone here who said the church did replace Israel. The first Christians were Israel and the Gentiles were grafted in and they twain become as one.standingfirminChrist said:
Eph 2:15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Eph 2:19¶Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Apostle Paul considered himself to still be a part of Israel.
Rom 11:1¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
How on earth could we as Gentiles be grafted into something that wasn't there?? We were grafted into the Olive tree, which is Israel.
Rom 11:5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
I think many fail to realize who Israel really is and is looking for sacrifices of animals and temples and thrones and several resurrections.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
The first Christians were NOT Israel...the first believers in Jesus Christ were Jews... They were called "of this way" in Acts 9:2.
Acts 9:2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
Followers "of this way" were first called "Christians" in Antioch (Acts 11:26)
Gentiles were grafted into CHRIST, Who is the VINE. They are the BRANCHES contrary to nature. The believing Jews are the natural BRANCHES. The BRANCHES get their nourishment from VINE, Who is CHRIST! The nation of Israel is NOT the Church...never was, and never will be!
Brother Bob
New Member
You don't consider Paul one of the first Christians and set up Christian churches? You don't consider the Jews a part of Israel. Paul was of the tribe Benjamin.Linda64 said:
He came to His own (Israel), as many as received Him, He gave them power to become the sons of God.
The first Christian churches sure were not made up of Gentiles.
Rom 11:1¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
You do err terrible,
So you think scripture is saying we are fellow citizens with Jesus, instead of Israel??
Eph 2:19¶Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
You do err again, You deny scripture.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
No, sir. "Faith is the victory that overcomes the world." You are still in bondage if you believe that this is the MK.Brother Bob said:
Bob -- SNAP OUT OF IT! You're allegorizing -- er, dreaming -- again!! You AREN'T Jerusalem! The "writing" and the "pillars" and the "city" are for the "third heaven" where Paul went in the rapture of 2Cor 12, Heb 12:22!!
Yeah, right! So you are what, "Catholic?" Others are "anathematized?" :laugh:
For Himself -- yes. For us -- prospectively. NOT yet. Do you have your glorified body, Bob?
"Mother" just reminds me again of Mary and Catholicism and replacement theology, Bob. Should we start calling you Father Bob?
Bob, I don't want to ruin your Sunday and hopefully you will read this after the evening service -- but what's sad is anachronistic eschatology. You apparently miss the crowns and the wedding and New Jerusalem with all the Heb 12:22-24 and 1Cor 3:14 and .... You are, apparently, one of those of whom Paul said, "Ye are of all people most miserable!" 1Cor 15:19!
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob
New Member
skypair said:
I am glorified inwardly, waiting on the same change for the flesh.
Rom 8:21Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
I believe when I die, my soul will go to Heaven, it will not need a change or anything except for the angels to carry it to my rest. I believe my soul has been washed in the blood of the Lamb and cleansed up and made alive in Christ Jesus. I don't believe I will have to eat any goat or heifer. When you hear of my death, you remember the words I spoke, that to die in Christ is gain, for to die in the Lord is to be with Him. I will not gather with you at your altar and your animal sacrifices. My Lord took care of that when He came. If a part of Israel would not receive Him, that is their loss, not mine. The Lord gave them a time and a chance. I will not be there helping you build a temple, but I heard they are now trying to get access to the Mount of Olives to start building the temple, how come you are not over there helping them? If I believed that we must build a temple in Jerusalem, I think I would struggle to be there to help in the struggle that is going on now. They were denied access to the Mount, but are still trying. I do not understand you not helping them.
You eat your goat and I will feast on the Heavenly food.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Which you deny!Brother Bob said:
STOP, Bob!! The "righteous" were gathered to NJ 7 years earlier!! This is the "remnant" -- the 1/3 of ISRAEL that survives. Your "talking head" is an ERRANT POST-TRIBBER!!
Well, Bob -- your timeline is "topsy-turvy!" If the MK is yet to come and only then does the New Earth appear, then summer and winter will still exist for at least 1000 years!
NEGATIVE! Again, Jesus comes again and sets up His kingdom for 1000 years. What do YOU think He comes back for???? First there is JESUS kingdom of 1000 years -- then GOD'S kingdom for eternity!! Bob, look around you! Linda gave you a "MEGAclue!" We have NOT seen that kingdom yet. Why are you insisting that all the promises in between are "disfunctional?"
Guilty in the 2nd degree. :laugh: It is NOT in place of Christ but in remembrance/memorial of Christ.
Bob, spiritual Jerusalem is ABOVE as Paul told us, Heb 12:22.
skypair
Brother Bob
New Member
Benjamin said:You sure it isn't by their pedigrees? And you mean the blood of bulls and goats wasn't enough?Just kidding. :thumbs:
Well, until it was fully established, I guess it did pass down to their pedegrees and they accepted Christ as their sacrifice for sins.
BBob,
Bob -- you are "terrestirially glorified" right now. Yes!Brother Bob said:
Bob, we are building NEW JERUSALEM NOW!! What are you "laying up" in physical heaven? "Gold, silver, precious stones," right? What is New Jersualem above made of? Read Rev 21:18-21!! Do you know where that kingdom will be during the trib and MK? In heaven. During the MK, it may well be hovering over earthly Jerusalem! And then, in the "kingdom of God" -- the "New Heavens and New Earth" -- it will be on the earth! You are so misinformed! Do I need to send you a "Google Earth" view so you can see it!! :laugh:
skypair
Brother Bob
New Member
I will write upon him the name of that Holy City, New Jerusalem.skypair said:
I will take what Jesus says always over what you and others say. You place all your argument on OT and Rev. and completely overlook the Gospels. It seem it don't matter to you what Christ said about the end times.
Jhn 5:28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
Jhn 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob
New Member
skypair said:
I believe and preach the identical same eschatology that Jesus Christ taught, and will teach it until I die. You can't deny that and be truthful.
This is the passage:
"And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall he priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."--Rev. 20:1-6.
Now since these six verses have to bear the weight of this whole premillennial system, they ought to be strong; ought to be explicit, outspoken, unambiguous, unmistakable. What are the facts?
(1) Christ's visible, personal coming is not here--not a word of it. The revelator saw no such coming at the opening of the millennial period. He tells us what he did see, viz., a mighty angel coming down from heaven with a great chain in his hand; also the old serpent; but not a hint that he saw the glorious Son of God bursting through the heavens.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob,Brother Bob said:
I'm sorry, but it is you who are in error. I did say that the first believers were Jews...yes Paul was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin. The fact that the first believers were Jews does not equate to the first Christians being ISRAEL!
Born again, blood washed Jews and Gentiles are members of the Church/Body of Christ. Gentiles who are saved don't become Israelites...nor do they become "spiritual" Israel! We are all one in Christ Jesus (Galation 3:28).
Therefore, I do not deny Scripture!
Brother Bob
New Member
Linda64 said:
Could you tell me why not Israelites, when Jesus came to His own and His own were Israel? Did they cease to be Israel, when they accepted Christ. Paul did not accept that he was not an israelite anymore, he openly stated that he was. I forget where, but seems as if Peter and His brothers were of the Judah tribe. All of the twelve took one of the tribes of Israel to teach. Paul took the Gentiles, for he was a chosen vessel to the Gentiles, but remained an israelite.
I don't understand trying to do away with the obvious.
Paul did not say I was an Israelite, He said I am an Israelite.
Rom 11:1¶I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.
What does the following mean?
Rom 2:27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
Do we have the circumcism of the Heart?
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah! "Signs of life" at last!! :laugh:
Here's how the trib-to-MK works: rapture - trib - some of living Israel converted - 144,000 protected and most (2/3's) martyred - Christ comes again to earth - OT, trib (Mt 13:44), and surviving Israel (Mt 13:41), indeed, ALL Israel (formerly dead and alive) be saved!
Yes, but were then become part of the church if they believed post-cross, right? But they obviously don't keep their "Israel" destiny as their church one supercedes and is greater -- the rapture to NJ!
Actually, no. You are thinking that the next kingdom is the kingdom of God with New Earth, New Heavens, and NJ come down from heaven. In fact, you seem to believe that once we are raptured, we will live forever in heaven. Not so. We come back in Rev 21 and live on the New Earth with Israel, the MK saints saved from the recreation of the earth and brought back too.
I CAN think of a time when the souls that were not raptured pretrib will be "divided" between earth and hell (Dan 12:2, Mt 25). I cannot think of a one time event where all people that ever existed are judged at one time because all the lost are judged when this heavens and earth are destroyed postMK yet Dan 12/Mt 25 show a judgment on the earth vs. the GWT in heaven somewhere, Rev 20:11.
Ditto.
I did some research on this issue. The first point is that sacrifices NEVER DID avail against sin so that isn't even the issue, Bob.
Then I went to The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (LaHaye/Hindson) and looked up Millennial Sacrifices and Millennial Temple. Here are some exerpts that should help both of us.
"The distinction between ceremonial and spiritual atonement is significant, for it is at the heart of the basic difference between the theocracy of Israel and the church, the body and bride of Christ." (p227) Animal sacrifices were NOT to atone for sin any more than communion now is but to show us the cost of sin upon the rest of creation or upon Christ. Heb 10:4 has always been true -- the blood of bulls and goats NEVER took away spiritual sin. But under the Old Covenant, it DID "sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh," Heb 9:13 (which was the medium of the sacrifice, right Bob)?
"But the MK temple will not have the ark of the covenant, no pot of manna, no Aaron's rod, no tables of the Law, no cheriubim, no mercy seat, no golden lampstand, no shewbread, no veil, no holy of holies, no high priest, no evening sacrifice." And the feast of Pentecost, Trumpets, and Atonement are omitted. (Ezek 40-48) The sacrifices will be an "obedience" thing for 1000 years that will "guarantee protection from physical penalties and temporal judgments" like drought or death and physical consumption of the body in Gehenna outside the walls of Jerusalem, Isa 66:24 (p228)
Regarding the temple, I already gave you some differences. Here are some others: the MK temple is much larger than any other --
1 MILE on each side -- "larger than the entire ancient walled city of Jerusalem! "
Ezekiel was told to "write the blueprints down" since it was NOT like the temple he saw in Ezek 8-11.
Further, Ezekiel saw God come back to this temple (40:2, 27, 48, 43:18) in the same way Ezekiel saw the Spirit leave in Ezek 10:19 and 11:23!
The priesthood will be of Zadok here -- whom God promised an everlasting priesthood before Him! (1Sam 2:35, 1Kings 2:27, 35)
I hope you will consider and study these things before you correspond again.
skypair
Brother Bob
New Member
skypair said:
You seem to base your entire eschatology on Ezekial. You don't seem to consider that Jesus said they would all come out of the grave, at the same time, the church lifted up and the rest stand at the GWT.
11-2-5 Prophecies With Changed Fulfillment
Prophecies whose intended fulfilment was changed into something else
An example of prophesy having an intended fulfilment that was not only rescheduled but changed in its application is to be found in Am. 9:11: "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof, and I will raise up his ruins". "That day" is defined in v.8 as the time when Judah was destroyed from the face of the land (by being taken into captivity in Babylon), and scattered among the nations (v.9). This came to pass in their scattering amongst the 127 provinces of Esther 3:8. The words of v. 11 are therefore a prophecy of how the temple was to be rebuilt and the gaps in the wall closed. "They shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof" (v. 14) could have come true at this time; indeed, it was intended to. But the Jews who returned were disobedient to Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, and did not fulfil the prophecies. So the fulfilment was not merely rescheduled until a later date. Acts 15:16 cites Am. 9:11 as now having a spiritual fulfilment- in the raising up of Jesus. Thus God’s word is not falsified even if the initially intended fulfilment does not come about due to human failure.
http://www.carelinks.net/books/dh/bl/11-2-5Prophecies_With_Changed_Fulfillment.htm
Amo 9:11¶In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Acts 15:
14: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15: And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16: After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
How do you get around Acts 15 that states that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Prophency that David's tabernacle be restored. Was not this temple of Ezekial a part of David's Kingdom??
Jesus was to be born to sit on the throne of David, of which He now is reigning.
It seems to me that Ezekial 43 is a failure of Israel and part of the reason that Christ came, because of the weakness of the flesh. God gave them a vision, but they were too lazy or busy with other things.
BBob,
Last edited by a moderator:
Just so you will know, I've seen it (aaand seen it "Amened" by multiple sources, on the BB)- again, and again and aging and again and again and agagging and again and agai...!Brother Bob said:
Nevertheless, Linda64, please don't mind being quoted on my part.
I see no reaosn that I should have to ccontinually 'douse flames', by refuting unoprovable and unproven accusations and have to correct "false facts".
It is time to "put up, or shut up", on this, Brother Bob!
You are the one who keeps on making all sorts of allegations, and when one is answered after another, merely ignoring them and repeating basically the same baseless garbage, again and again.
For the fifth and last time, - there is no record anywhere, that I've ever found that has Justin before any church council of any sort, to explain his views on any subject.
In the first place, it is kind of hard to appear before a church council 40 years before you are born (Jerusalem), or long after you are dead (in 165 A.D.), when the next coucil would not be held until 325 A.D., in Nicea, and Justin had long since been martyred, as were Stephen (Acts 7), James the Great, by Herod (Acts 12:2, for which the Lord soon "get even" Acts. 12:23) Paul and Peter by Nero, James the Just (the Brother of the Lord), Thomas, Andrew, etc. In fact from what we know, every Apostle of these 15, with the sole exception of the exiled John, were matryred. Add to that number, Antipas (Rev. 2:13), Polycarp, Ignatius, Cyprian, and on and on we go, with an innumerable multitude, for nearly 2000 years, all the way through Cassie Bernell and Rachel Scott at Columbine 8 years ago, thru that of Phillip Crouse, Tiffany Johnson, Stephanie and Rachel Works in the YWAM shootings, right here in the US, the last only 4 mos. ago, and even beyond, today, in other parts of the world.
I do apologize for getting sidetracked speaking about the faithful martyrs, who have given their lives for the cause of Christ, whether directly or indirectly.
My point is, Justin did not have to appear before anyone, as far as I can tell, and was not considered an apostate, nor did he ever get accused of any heresy, in the church, again, as far as I have been able to ascertain. In fact, apart from Irenaeus, at Number 1, he was one of the leading figures in combatting and opposing heresy in the early church!
And his being martyred, by Rome, does not count as "appear", in this allegation!
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I suggest now is the time to present it, and not hide behind some remark such as - "Well, I know I've seen it, but just don't remember exactly where."
In oher words, again, it's time to "Put up or shut up!".
If you are going to keep making these charges, and inferences, in the manner you have, both on this subject, and, also recently about certain a political candidate, you might want to at least check to see if there is any substance to them.
FTR, I have never said that I agreed with Justin on his eschatology. I have merely presented what history shows to be true, namely that he did in fact, proclaim a "Literal Millenium". (Actually, I have said, indirectly, that I do not agree with the "Historical Millenialsim" views akin to those of Justin, and that is because EdSutton is, similar to Linda64, as regards eschatology, which is the doctrines and teachings of "things to come", a "dispensationalist".)
Nor do I recall suggesting that I particularly agree with any other teachings of Justin, either.
I do find it strange that I have to wind up defending people with whom I definitely disagree, even on the BB, from varied attacks, and 'faulty' so-called facts. And this is even more abominable when the individual is no longer around to defend him or herself.
If one wants to "attack" me, have at it. I am here. I can defend myselk, both personally, and with what I believe and teach. Justin can't do that.
But let's let such as Justin, Origen, Pelagius, Arius, and Augustine [with whose beliefs, BTW, apart from your disagreeing with Justin on eschatology, you would probably be in much closer agreement, with all of them, than I ever thought of being, to any of them. That might not be the case with Papias, or Irenaeus, for a couple oif examples. FTR, the primary teachings of both Pelagius, whose teachings were first adjudged orthodox at Diospolis, then later condemed, as heresy at Carthage) and Arius (at Alexandria and Nicea) were, in fact, rightly condemned by these 'church councils', as heresy.]
The same is also true on the BB. I suspect you are in far closer agreement with Linda64, since she is also on the thread, for a quick example, than I. Think of the teaching of "repentance", "free grace", and "Lordship salvation", for easy references, here.) But let Justin, Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon alone on a personal basis, and instead, merely go after their teachings, which are debatable. They, being dead, are not 'fair game', in their persons!
Ed
"Sister Linda64", I really hope you do not answer this self-styled 'request'. I have now, already at least four - if not five- times, by count, refuted this charge. Frankly, I think that is enough!
I see no reaosn that I should have to ccontinually 'douse flames', by refuting unoprovable and unproven accusations and have to correct "false facts".
It is time to "put up, or shut up", on this, Brother Bob!
You are the one who keeps on making all sorts of allegations, and when one is answered after another, merely ignoring them and repeating basically the same baseless garbage, again and again.
For the fifth and last time, - there is no record anywhere, that I've ever found that has Justin before any church council of any sort, to explain his views on any subject.
In the first place, it is kind of hard to appear before a church council 40 years before you are born (Jerusalem), or long after you are dead (in 165 A.D.), when the next coucil would not be held until 325 A.D., in Nicea, and Justin had long since been martyred, as were Stephen (Acts 7), James the Great, by Herod (Acts 12:2, for which the Lord soon "get even" Acts. 12:23) Paul and Peter by Nero, James the Just (the Brother of the Lord), Thomas, Andrew, etc. In fact from what we know, every Apostle of these 15, with the sole exception of the exiled John, were matryred. Add to that number, Antipas (Rev. 2:13), Polycarp, Ignatius, Cyprian, and on and on we go, with an innumerable multitude, for nearly 2000 years, all the way through Cassie Bernell and Rachel Scott at Columbine 8 years ago, thru that of Phillip Crouse, Tiffany Johnson, Stephanie and Rachel Works in the YWAM shootings, right here in the US, the last only 4 mos. ago, and even beyond, today, in other parts of the world.
I do apologize for getting sidetracked speaking about the faithful martyrs, who have given their lives for the cause of Christ, whether directly or indirectly.
My point is, Justin did not have to appear before anyone, as far as I can tell, and was not considered an apostate, nor did he ever get accused of any heresy, in the church, again, as far as I have been able to ascertain. In fact, apart from Irenaeus, at Number 1, he was one of the leading figures in combatting and opposing heresy in the early church!
And his being martyred, by Rome, does not count as "appear", in this allegation!
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I suggest now is the time to present it, and not hide behind some remark such as - "Well, I know I've seen it, but just don't remember exactly where."
In oher words, again, it's time to "Put up or shut up!".
If you are going to keep making these charges, and inferences, in the manner you have, both on this subject, and, also recently about certain a political candidate, you might want to at least check to see if there is any substance to them.
FTR, I have never said that I agreed with Justin on his eschatology. I have merely presented what history shows to be true, namely that he did in fact, proclaim a "Literal Millenium". (Actually, I have said, indirectly, that I do not agree with the "Historical Millenialsim" views akin to those of Justin, and that is because EdSutton is, similar to Linda64, as regards eschatology, which is the doctrines and teachings of "things to come", a "dispensationalist".)
Nor do I recall suggesting that I particularly agree with any other teachings of Justin, either.
I do find it strange that I have to wind up defending people with whom I definitely disagree, even on the BB, from varied attacks, and 'faulty' so-called facts. And this is even more abominable when the individual is no longer around to defend him or herself.
If one wants to "attack" me, have at it. I am here. I can defend myselk, both personally, and with what I believe and teach. Justin can't do that.
But let's let such as Justin, Origen, Pelagius, Arius, and Augustine [with whose beliefs, BTW, apart from your disagreeing with Justin on eschatology, you would probably be in much closer agreement, with all of them, than I ever thought of being, to any of them. That might not be the case with Papias, or Irenaeus, for a couple oif examples. FTR, the primary teachings of both Pelagius, whose teachings were first adjudged orthodox at Diospolis, then later condemed, as heresy at Carthage) and Arius (at Alexandria and Nicea) were, in fact, rightly condemned by these 'church councils', as heresy.]
The same is also true on the BB. I suspect you are in far closer agreement with Linda64, since she is also on the thread, for a quick example, than I. Think of the teaching of "repentance", "free grace", and "Lordship salvation", for easy references, here.) But let Justin, Calvin, Luther, and Spurgeon alone on a personal basis, and instead, merely go after their teachings, which are debatable. They, being dead, are not 'fair game', in their persons!
Ed
Brother Bob
New Member
EdSutton said:
It is not your call to tell me not to quote or talk about Justin or whom ever I want to. I will make that decision myself. I wish you would quit following me around to see if I mentioned Justin's name. It really gets old after a while, especially now that I find you don't even agree with him.
You have been exposed. You used his name to defend Millennium and now, I find that he even used the 1 day as a thousand years for a while. I don't blame you for not wanting me to read about him, for the more I read, the more it is a joke you used him to defend Millennium.
Continued:
Last edited by a moderator: