Rapture or Apostacy?

[OldRegular]

jesus returns first time for His Church, then returns to establish His Kingdom reign upon the earth!

Hebrews 9:28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The first time Jesus Christ came was the incarnation. The second time will be to to bring about the General Resurrection followed by the White Throne Judgment and then Eternity in the New Heavens and Earth! You have Him coming three times!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hebrews 9:28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The first time Jesus Christ came was the incarnation. The second time will be to to bring about the General Resurrection followed by the White Throne Judgment and then Eternity in the New Heavens and Earth! You have Him coming three times!

No, just that His second coming has 2 seperate aspects to it!

 

[OldRegular]

No, just that His second coming has 2 seperate aspects to it!

Is that what is called eisegesis or "cooking the books"?

 

[agedman]

I believe God called Israel for one purpose, the vessel through which He would accomplish the Incarnation! After the crucifixion the standing of Israel before God was the same as all peoples! Those of Israel are saved just like anyone else.

I would point out that many of the leaders in the dispensational movement teach a parenthesis Church.

I agree that God separated a person, created a family, blessed a nation, selected a family, selected a member, that Christ would be born of a specific "root."

However, salvation remains unchanged in that from the beginning ALL people no matter the ethnicity "are saved" the same way.

Israel as a group, though known as the "people called by My name," was not "saved" - though individuals certainly were. The group were and are "preserved" for specific purpose and God's eye is not weak nor arm of strength slack concerning is promises to them.

All the sacrifices and offerings were but a symbol of what was to come - the full blood payment made on the cross and now the atonement being offered to two distinct groups - to the Israeli, although most remain purposely blinded (as the Scriptures teach until the fulness of the gentiles) and to the Gentiles.

But the "kingdom of God" is not divided by ethnicity (Jews and Gentile). In the future millennial reign, there is ONE group - the saved - as shown by both Paul and John.

There are those who desire that the "church" replaces Israel, but that isn't the teaching of the Scriptures found in Romans, nor in Gospels and the Revelations.

Sadly, I would agree that the "teaching of a parenthesis church" is still used.

As I showed, the word is unfortunate, and some have used it to an unfortunate teaching.

But, even in your own scheme (as I recall) you place the church in an "age" as separate from the folks currently called the Israeli.

 

[Yeshua1]

Is that what is called eisegesis or "cooking the books"?

not really, for there is coming for the Church, and another for isreal and the World!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

jesus returns first time for His Church, then returns to establish His Kingdom reign upon the earth!

That's it! Well, except the first "return" isn't really a return, as His feet do not touch the Earth. We rise to meet Him in the air. And these events are at least seven years apart.

 

[agedman]

I don't agree. You are placing the general resurrection go John 5:28, 29 after the so-called tribulation.

Not only after the "so-called tribulation" but after the millennial reign.

There will be those who die during the millennial reign, for there is no scripture that indicates the lifting of the 70 year life span designated after the flood by God.

Those are raised at the last judgement are not just the ones who are condemned.

That is what the Scriptures teach, in BOTH John and the Revelations.

John being the author of both books, would not disagree with himself on this very important topic discussed by Christ and by revelation to John.

The action revealed is in Verse 15:

Revelation 11:15. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

You see the action as taking place then, because you desire to see it that way.

If you want to see how the next chapters fit in with this verse, then go here.

You will see that I am correct in stating that the quote you give is the brief in which is followed by detailed support and historical account given that it be shown valid by the past, present, and therefore future prophecy is reliable.

Christ (while on this earth) often taught this way. He would present the topic statement to the public, and then explain in more detail later how the statement was to apply.

The link provides bold headings and the most accurate translation work to date of the Scriptures.

Of course, you may desire to disagree, but then, IF one takes the following statements of Rev. 12 to the end as to other than the timeline presented BY those Scriptures, then the whole matter of the Revelation is suspect of inaccuracies and interpretations bent to every whim.

The ONLY way to hold to the validity and authority of the quote you gave is to hold the balance as factually given in a timeline fashion expressing detail to the quote you give.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree that God separated a person, created a family, blessed a nation, selected a family, selected a member, that Christ would be born of a specific "root."

However, salvation remains unchanged in that from the beginning ALL people no matter the ethnicity "are saved" the same way.

Israel as a group, though known as the "people called by My name," was not "saved" - though individuals certainly were. The group were and are "preserved" for specific purpose and God's eye is not weak nor arm of strength slack concerning is promises to them.

All the sacrifices and offerings were but a symbol of what was to come - the full blood payment made on the cross and now the atonement being offered to two distinct groups - to the Israeli, although most remain purposely blinded (as the Scriptures teach until the fulness of the gentiles) and to the Gentiles.

But the "kingdom of God" is not divided by ethnicity (Jews and Gentile). In the future millennial reign, there is ONE group - the saved - as shown by both Paul and John.

There are those who desire that the "church" replaces Israel, but that isn't the teaching of the Scriptures found in Romans, nor in Gospels and the Revelations.

Sadly, I would agree that the "teaching of a parenthesis church" is still used.

As I showed, the word is unfortunate, and some have used it to an unfortunate teaching.

But, even in your own scheme (as I recall) you place the church in an "age" as separate from the folks currently called the Israeli.

well, paul answered if the Lord had forever cast away/off His people isreal didn't he in Romans?

And how would we see the Kingdom fully established here on earth as the OT prophets foresaw/told, based upon just how much evil and sin is allowed in world right now by the Lord, and that is NOT what the reign of Messiah look like!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There will be those who die during the millennial reign, for there is no scripture that indicates the lifting of the 70 year life span designated after the flood by God.

It was 120 years.

Genesis 6, NASB
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."​

Some think that's the time limit God set for Noah to build the Ark, but if you look at the last verse of chapter five, Noah was 500 years old. When the rains came, he was 600. So this is not the period of grace, but the sentence upon man for his disobedience, that he would live only a maximum -- and not necessarily that long -- of 120 years of age.

Also, in the millennial reign, the "age of accountability" will be 100 years of age.

Isaiah 65
20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed.​

God restores the antediluvian life expectancy in the Thousand Year Reign.

 

[agedman]

So I'm curious; while God was kinda sorta ignoring the Gentiles were they all destined for hell?

What other do you suggest?

Did God offer the gentile some salvation that was not offered to the Jews?

Were the heathen Jews saved just because they were of the bloodline of Abraham?

Did God present the same way of atonement (sacrifices and offerings) to all nations?

If so, where and when - is this not the Mormon thinking that the Native Americans were one of the tribes of Israel and brought with them the temple worship?

To whom did God select to present His avenue of atonement?

Was the atonement available to all people of all the world before the Cross, or was the message given to the Jews - with extremely limited access by the Gentiles?

Was there ANY indication that the Jews were to carry the message to the whole world?

Was there not an "outer court" for the gentiles, a partition in which they could not cross less they "pollute" sacred ground?

When was "the great commission given?"

Certainly, there are indications in the OT that some gentiles were believers, and some were actually included in the bloodline of Christ.

However, just as the gentiles were mostly left out during the "Times of the Jew" (my term for old testament Biblical recorded history), the Jews are mostly left out during the "Times of the Gentiles."

When is the ONLY time there is no ethnic separation of believers?

The millennium.

 

[agedman]

It was 120 years.

Genesis 6, NASB
3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."​

Some think that's the time limit God set for Noah to build the Ark, but if you look at the last verse of chapter five, Noah was 500 years old. When the rains came, he was 600. So this is not the period of grace, but the sentence upon man for his disobedience, that he would live only a maximum -- and not necessarily that long -- of 120 years of age.

In context, the verse does speak of the length of the days until the flood.

I think you are making more of the statements of Noah's life than what is indicated by Scripture.

Chapter five is not the start of the building of the ark, it states:

32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

​

However, there is no indication that the work started on the ark given in that verse.

Rather, it states the exact day, month, year that Noah entered the ark and the age of Noah at that time.

6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth. 7 Then Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him entered the ark because of the water of the flood. 8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground, 9 there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah. 10 It came about after the seven days, that the water of the flood came upon the earth. 11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
​

Now if Noah began building the Ark when the children were born, you might have a case, however, that is indicated. The children were most likely in their twenties when Noah started the Ark - the age of the children not given at the time of the flood - only that of Noah.

Also, in the millennial reign, the "age of accountability" will be 100 years of age.

Isaiah 65
20 "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
Or an old man who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of one hundred
And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed.​

God restores the antediluvian life expectancy in the Thousand Year Reign.

I think it is important to the reader to recall that the typical life span of the pre-flood time as between 500 to 700 years. If one takes the "generations" from Adam to Noah, then Methuselah must certainly have known both men.

The verse I referenced was:

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

​

Historically speaking, this verse has proven most accurate to the length of especially those living in these times.

Isaiah is a most interesting account, and may in fact be applicable to the length of age expected during the millennium. If so, it would allow perhaps 9 to11 generations to be included in the 1000 years - from the generation going into and the final generation of the millennium.

So, actually, your post's Scriptures can show support of what I posted.

Thank you.

 

[kyredneck]

So I'm curious; while God was kinda sorta ignoring the Gentiles were they all destined for hell?

What other do you suggest?...

That there were far more redeemed, born from above, children of the heavenly Zion among the Gentiles than there ever were from among the physical descendants of Abraham, old AND new covenants:

….more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. Isa 54:1

….more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband Gal 4:21

…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold… Jn 10:16

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him. Acts 10

25 whereof I was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given me to you-ward, to fulfil the word of God,
26 even the mystery which hath been hid for ages and generations: but now hath it been manifested to his saints,
27 to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Col 1

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

In context, the verse does speak of the length of the days until the flood.

Impossible. I called your attention to the verses that prove that. You've deliberately misrepresented their context, without realizing your own post disproves your point.

Chapter five is not the start of the building of the ark, it states:

32 Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

​

However, there is no indication that the work started on the ark given in that verse.

Rather, it states the exact day, month, year that Noah entered the ark and the age of Noah at that time.

6 Now Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of water came upon the earth.​

If there is, in fact, a time lag between v. 32 and v. 6 of the next chapter, then it was less than 120 years in which Noah built the Ark, and it was even less than the 100 years I spoke of. Your problem is the context that you claim states it was 120 years before the flood actually proves it was less than that.

And we are far off topic, so we should move on, or open a new thread.​

 

[agedman]

Is there something that you really wanting to present Scriptures that would refute what I posted?

Or, were you posting supportive Scriptures for what I posted.

If you were, thank you.

That there were far more redeemed, born from above, children of the heavenly Zion among the Gentiles than there ever were from among the physical descendants of Abraham, old AND new covenants:

….more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. Isa 54:1

DOES NOT speak of the Gentiles, but of the Jews who were dispersed. As the CONTEXT shows:

4 “Fear not, for you will not be put to shame;
And do not feel humiliated, for you will not be disgraced;
But you will forget the shame of your youth,
And the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more.
5 “For your husband is your Maker,
Whose name is the Lord of hosts;
And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel,
Who is called the God of all the earth.
6 “For the Lord has called you,
Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit,
Even like a wife of one’s youth when she is rejected,”
Says your God.
7“For a brief moment I forsook you,
But with great compassion I will gather you.
8 “In an outburst of anger
I hid My face from you for a moment,
But with everlasting lovingkindness I will have compassion on you,”
Says the Lord your Redeemer.

​

….more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband Gal 4:21

In CONTEXT the verse has NOTHING to do with Gentile salvation in the OT, rather is addressing the problem of the mixing of Jewish Law into Salvation:

21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear;
Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor;
For more numerous are the children of the desolate
Than of the one who has a husband.”
​

28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say?

“Cast out the bondwoman and her son,
For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.”
​

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
​

…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold… Jn 10:16

CONTEXT shows that the Gentiles are ALSO accepted into the "fold" and it is stated as yet future to when Christ made the statement. The CONTEXT also shows agreement with what I have posted as applied to the unity of all believers (no matter the ethnicity) will take place - ONE flock - ONE shepherd - can ONLY happen during the millennium:

14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
​

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

And this disproves what I posted?

Nope - it further shows proof that I posted correctly.

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.

Again, this does not disprove what I stated. But further enhances what I posted.

Acts 10

25 whereof I was made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which was given me to you-ward, to fulfil the word of God,
26 even the mystery which hath been hid for ages and generations: but now hath it been manifested to his saints,
27 to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Col 1

Again, this only proves what I posted as accurate.

 

[agedman]

Impossible. I called your attention to the verses that prove that. You've deliberately misrepresented their context, without realizing your own post disproves your point.

I suggest you rethink who you consider "deliberately misrepresented" the context.

What I showed was accurate.

That you disagree with the accuracy, isn't a warrant to proclaim that my post was evil intended, nor deceitful -- which is what is meant by "deliberately misrepresented."

If there is, in fact, a time lag between v. 32 and v. 6 of the next chapter, then it was less than 120 years in which Noah built the Ark, and it was even less than the 100 years I spoke of. Your problem is the context that you claim states it was 120 years before the flood actually proves it was less than that.

And we are far off topic, so we should move on, or open a new thread.

That would be best.

 

[kyredneck]

....DOES NOT speak of the Gentiles, but of the Jews who were dispersed....

The blinders of Dispensationalism at it's worst. Gal 4 Paul reveals these are the children of the Jerusalem that is above, the mother of us all.

Again, this only proves what I posted as accurate.

What? That Gentiles went to hell under the old covenant because they never had the atonement from animal sacrifices? Again, the blinders of Dispensationalism at it's worst.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

That would be best.

I agree. Let's move on. There is already one statement here that is inflammatory. Let's not make anymore.

 

[kyredneck]

....There is already one statement here that is inflammatory. Let's not make anymore.

Enlighten me, what statement is that?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Enlighten me, what statement is that?

I tried to answer that in PM, but your mailbox is full.

 

[kyredneck]

Why the need for privacy? What is this 'inflammatory statement' you're referring to?