When is "fulness of the Gentiles"

[Brother Bob]

EdSutton; Most of us would agree, I think, that the "Church age' is one part of the overall "Kingdom of God".

Well why, will they not say it then Ed? At least you did say it, but for some reason, the others will not say it.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

BobB,

"Fulness of the Gentiles" does NOT mean that they are allowed to come into the kingdom --- it means that LAST ONE has come in. Try it yourself. What was the "fulness of times, God sent forth His Son?" Fulness of the dispensation of law, not the beginning. "Fulness" doesn't mean inception, Bob.

Nor does it mean that NO Jews will convert while the Gentiles are being called out.

As to "eschatology of men," you have ignored scripture (Rev 20 millennium) and now claim the fulness of the Gentiles came in long ago. Friend, these are your interpretational faults. You are "willingly ignorant." The words are there but they aren't talking to you apparently.

skypair

 

[EdSutton]

I can see here that you didn't get the message of the vision. Before the vision, Peter would not accept Gentiles, after the message, he went and preached unto them. He became converted, that the Gentiles did indeed have a right to salvation, which is what the "fulness of the Gentiles" is talking about.

BBob,

Oh, I got the message of the vision, alright. I don't get what you are referring to as when Peter "became converted". Jesus said that there would come a time when Peter would indeed 'be converted' (in the language of the KJV). And this would be after he had 'departed' from where he was at the time, for Satan had already desired Peter, and Peter was predicted to deny the Lord. Get the chronology, here.

24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.
28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”Jesus Predicts Peter’s Denial

31 And the Lord said,[a] “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and *when you have returned to Me* [*when thou art converted* (KJV, KJ21); *when you have turned back* (NIV, TNIV, HCSB, ~ NASB & ESV); *when once thou hast been restored* (DARBY); *when once thou hast turned again*(ASV)], strengthen your brethren.”
33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.”
34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”(Lk. 22:24-34 - NKJV)

Likewise, the "fullness of the Gentiles" is also spoken of, by Paul, as (yet) in the future tense, meaning that it had not happened as He was telling (dictating) the letter to the Romans, while the "sheet vision" of Peter, was several years in the past, at this time. You can't have it be both past and future, simultaneously. And Peter's 'conversion' likewise would be followed by his strengthening the brethren. Peter had already done this for several years before the vision of the sheet, as well.

Have to go work on fence.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

It is a Spiritual Kingdom as was preached for hundreds of years until your friend Darby came along, a couple hundred years ago. With the exception of a "few", who were not allowed to expouse thier belief of a literal Kingdom.

Just out of curiosity, just how many times do you intend to keep on repeating the lie that the belief in a literal kingdom was invariably "supressed", and keep on attempting to blame this belief on the late John Nelson Darby, also? The fact that this was not a 'majority view' does not mean that it was not preached, or that they were silenced, and in fact the two main 'groups' that 'supressed' this viewpoint were the Roman Catholic Church, after it became institutionalized, and John Calvin, and his followers, and later adherents of similar doctrines. They are not the two main groups I especially want to be associated with, but maybe that is just me.

Although I gotta' admit, the martyrdom of Justin, and the allowing of the execution of Michael Servetus, by Calvin, at the hands of his followers at Geneva, for two examples, do go a very long way toward someone's not being "allowed to espouses thier (sic) belief of a literal Kingdom."

At least, any more! Or to be allowed to espouse their belief on anything, for that matter.

FTR, I did not get any of my basic teachings from any of Darby, Scofield, Larkin, Pettingill, Gabelein, Chafer, or Walvoord, as I had been a Christian for several years, and had come to this basic position for better than a year, before I even heard any one of these names. And I had already come to the position that what I later found out they espoused was generally in accordance with what I had come to see was generally a valid "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". My testimony, in this regard, is greatly akin to that of Ed Edwards, on the BB, and the Mathers in Colonial America. Kinda' hard to adopt something from someone else, when you don't even know they exist. Or in the case of the Mathers, Darby would not even be yet born for about a century.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

BobB,

"Fulness of the Gentiles" does NOT mean that they are allowed to come into the kingdom --- it means that LAST ONE has come in. Try it yourself. What was the "fulness of times, God sent forth His Son?" Fulness of the dispensation of law, not the beginning. "Fulness" doesn't mean inception, Bob.

Nor does it mean that NO Jews will convert while the Gentiles are being called out.

As to "eschatology of men," you have ignored scripture (Rev 20 millennium) and now claim the fulness of the Gentiles came in long ago. Friend, these are your interpretational faults. You are "willingly ignorant." The words are there but they aren't talking to you apparently.

skypair

If I am willingly ignorant, then so was the whole church until 18th century. I think you are the one who is ignorant to the fact that scripture says "they will be blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles", and you say that has not come but yet some of them can be saved.
Thats like falling off a log backwards. You can't see you are crossing yourself.


You better be glad you are living now, instead of before the 17th Century, or you would of been silenced and not allowed to preach your literal Kingdom.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Just out of curiosity, just how many times do you intend to keep on repeating the lie that the belief in a literal kingdom was invariably "supressed", and keep on attempting to blame this belief on the late John Nelson Darby, also? The fact that this was not a 'majority view' does not mean that it was not preached, or that they were silenced, and in fact the two main 'groups' that 'supressed' this viewpoint were the Roman Catholic Church, after it became institutionalized, and John Calvin, and his followers, and later adherents of similar doctrines. They are not the two main groups I especially want to be associated with, but maybe that is just me.

Although I gotta' admit, the martyrdom of Justin, and the allowing of the execution of Michael Servetus, by Calvin, at the hands of his followers at Geneva, for two examples, do go a very long way toward someone's not being "allowed to espouses thier (sic) belief of a literal Kingdom."

At least, any more! Or to be allowed to espouse their belief on anything, for that matter.

FTR, I did not get any of my basic teachings from any of Darby, Scofield, Larkin, Pettingill, Gabelein, Chafer, or Walvoord, as I had been a Christian for several years, and had come to this basic position for better than a year, before I even heard any one of these names. And I had already come to the position that what I later found out they espoused was generally in accordance with what I had come to see was generally a valid "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". My testimony, in this regard, is greatly akin to that of Ed Edwards, on the BB, and the Mathers in Colonial America. Kinda' hard to adopt something from someone else, when you don't even know they exist. Or in the case of the Mathers, Darby would not even be yet born for about a century.

Ed

There were a few who advocated the literal Kingdom, but you know history says it was not hardly ever preached.

Philip Schaff (1877)
"Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

How many times you going to post your heretical sects????

BBob,

 

[EdSutton]

There were a few who advocated the literal Kingdom, but you know history says it was not hardly ever preached.

Philip Schaff (1877)
"Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

How many times you going to post your heretical sects????

BBob,

I do not recall posting any 'heretical sects', whatever that is supposed to mean. Posting something that happens to be historical is not posting a 'heretical sect.' And because a particular "heretical sect" happens to believe one particular heretical doctrine, does not make another doctrine the group believes necessarily heretical. Who is making the decision on what is or is not heresy, anyway? Rome? Geneva? Dordt? Salt Lake City? Nashville? The early church councils did not make any such pronouncements, at all, as to eschatology and/or millenialism, at least not those for the first 1000 years, that I have been able to find, and I have not had a chance to study the others in great detail, beyond that. That it was not the most popular view does not make it 'heresy'. I seem to recall hearing of a time when justification by faith was not popular, and 'indulgences' was a very popular view around. I have repeatedly posted that contrary to what you are citing, there was no such 'ban' in the early church. Nor were such as Justin, Irenaeus, et. al., ever brought before any council, unless it is an unrecorded one in a local church, that no one thought important enough to record.

But one council did condemn some of the teachings of Marcion, and some of Celsus, both of whom did, in fact, hold to a 'kingdom' view that denied a 'literal kingdom', but you seem to have overlooked that, somehow.

Aren't there two standards, here? BTW, Schaff tells of this 'partial condemnation' of Marcion and Celsus, as well.

So I kinda' suspect that Schaff's summation is a bit colored by his own personal beliefs, in this. FTR, I happen to own the entire set of The History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff, have owned it for nearly 40 years, and personally have read most of it over that 40 year span. So I know a bit of where I speak, I'd suggest, and not that I just recently "goo-goo eyed" something up.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

I do not recall posting any 'heretical sects', whatever that is supposed to mean. Posting something that happens to be historical is not posting a 'heretical sect.' And because a particular "heretical sect" happens to believe one particular heretical doctrine, does not make another doctrine the group believes necessarily heretical. Who is making the decision on what is or is not heresy, anyway? Rome? Geneva? Dordt? Salt Lake City? Nashville? The early church councils did not make any such pronouncements, at all, as to eschatology and/or millenialism, at least not those for the first 1000 years, that I have been able to find, and I have not had a chance to study the others in great detail, beyond that. That it was not the most popular view does not make it 'heresy'. I seem to recall hearing of a time when justification by faith was not popular, and 'indulgences' was a very popular view around. I have repeatedly posted that contrary to what you are citing, there was no such 'ban' in the early church. Nor were such as Justin, Irenaeus, et. al., ever brought before any council, unless it is an unrecorded one in a local church, that no one thought important enough to record.

But one council did condemn some of the teachings of Marcion, and some of Celsus, both of whom did, in fact, hold to a 'kingdom' view that denied a 'literal kingdom', but you seem to have overlooked that, somehow.

Aren't there two standards, here? BTW, Schaff tells of this 'partial condemnation' of Marcion and Celsus, as well.

So I kinda' suspect that Schaff's summation is a bit colored by his own personal beliefs, in this. FTR, I happen to own the entire set of The History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff, have owned it for nearly 40 years, and personally have read most of it over that 40 year span. So I know a bit of where I speak, I'd suggest, and not that I just recently "goo-goo eyed" something up.

Ed

I never called anyone anything. The historian did.

I don't know anything about Phillip Schaff, other than his statements on literal reign. I have been told he is a highly thought of, "Historian".

Of course there are others, but we rolled this wheel over several times.

BBob, :BangHead:

 

[Brother Bob]

BobB,

"Fulness of the Gentiles" does NOT mean that they are allowed to come into the kingdom --- it means that LAST ONE has come in. Try it yourself. What was the "fulness of times, God sent forth His Son?" Fulness of the dispensation of law, not the beginning. "Fulness" doesn't mean inception, Bob.

Nor does it mean that NO Jews will convert while the Gentiles are being called out.

As to "eschatology of men," you have ignored scripture (Rev 20 millennium) and now claim the fulness of the Gentiles came in long ago. Friend, these are your interpretational faults. You are "willingly ignorant." The words are there but they aren't talking to you apparently.

skypair

It was the "end" of making a way for the Gentile nations to be saved. It was a "big" thing in those days, for the Gentiles were aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel and after the middle wall of partition was broken down, then did "salvation" come to the Gentiles. Nothing left to be set in motion. It was all finished. Then Gentile nations now had a right to be saved. If it had not of been completed, you and I would still be on the outside looking in.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Oh, I got the message of the vision, alright. I don't get what you are referring to as when Peter "became converted". Jesus said that there would come a time when Peter would indeed 'be converted' (in the language of the KJV). And this would be after he had 'departed' from where he was at the time, for Satan had already desired Peter, and Peter was predicted to deny the Lord. Get the chronology, here.Likewise, the "fullness of the Gentiles" is also spoken of, by Paul, as (yet) in the future tense, meaning that it had not happened as He was telling (dictating) the letter to the Romans, while the "sheet vision" of Peter, was several years in the past, at this time. You can't have it be both past and future, simultaneously. And Peter's 'conversion' likewise would be followed by his strengthening the brethren. Peter had already done this for several years before the vision of the sheet, as well.

Have to go work on fence.

Ed

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
It was in the future at this point.

Act 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
He was converted here, and the "fulness of the Gentiles had begun", it took some time to convince all that the Gentiles also could receive salvation.

the "fullness of the Gentiles" is also spoken of, by Paul, as (yet) in the future tense

Paul spoke of the past when Jesus came to His own, and he spoke of the present and future, "that he might save some of them (sometime in his life time". My emphasis)
Paul may have also spoken of the future, but in his lifetime.

All that you have for the fulness of the Gentiles to be end times, is the word fulness. You are using it as when all Gentiles are saved, when it is talking about fulness of salvation coming to the Gentile nations. Show me scripture that the "fulness of Gentiles" is when the last Gentile is saved???


BBob,

 

[skypair]

If I am willingly ignorant, then so was the whole church until 18th century. I think you are the one who is ignorant to the fact that scripture says "they will be blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles", and you say that has not come but yet some of them can be saved.

Bob -- look at Israel. You know, that little sliver of land west of the Med. What religion do they practice?

They're NOT come in, are they.

How about the Jewish religion. Do they worship on Saturday or Sunday? Passover or Eucharist? And what about that parable I cited you way back when -- Luke 20:15-16? Are you saying that those "husbandmen" came in?

You better be glad you are living now, instead of before the 17th Century, or you would of been silenced and not allowed to preach your literal Kingdom.

You mean by the Catholic Church?? Are you now Catholic? Get a grip, Bob. Don't look around and ask "what does man say." What does God's word say, Bob? You're just being a "lazy" Christian letting history and men tell you what to believe.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob -- look at Israel. You know, that little sliver of land west of the Med. What religion do they practice?

They're NOT come in, are they.

Thats your problem, you are like that little sliver of land where they would not receive the Messiah, but are looking for a natural Kingdom, just like you.

Rom 9:6¶Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:


How about the Jewish religion. Do they worship on Saturday or Sunday? Passover or Eucharist? And what about that parable I cited you way back when -- Luke 20:15-16? Are you saying that those "husbandmen" came in?

Luk 16:16The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

You are as the Jews, still preaching what has already happened. The Messiah has already come Sky, you need to learn that and get with it!!

Jhn 4:24God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

He is no longer looking for you to worship Him in some human kingdom, but spiritual.

You mean by the Catholic Church?? Are you now Catholic? Get a grip, Bob. Don't look around and ask "what does man say." What does God's word say, Bob? You're just being a "lazy" Christian letting history and men tell you what to believe.
I am not Catholic, but they sure kept better records than anyone else.

Philip Schaff (1877)
"Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

A very respected historian, no less.

skypair

Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Eph 2:13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

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;

Fellowcitizens with who??

If we haven't already come together in one, we are in a terrible condition, for we are still without God in the world and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel!!!

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.

Have you yet been circumcised of the heart Sky, or are you still waiting?????

You have it backwards Sky, you talk as if the Gentiles "replaced" Israel and sometime in the future God is going to let Israel come in. We didn't replace anyone, we were aliens to the commonwealth of israel and God broke down the wall between us and Israel and made us "one people", where we are no longer aliens, but were grafted in with them. Jesus did not "come" to the Gentiles and if it were as you say, the Gentiles would still be without God and having no hope. We would still be lost. You need to get your scripture right, you have it backwards.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Bob,

Apparently we are just talking past each other.

"Fulness of the Gentiles" -- try to concentrate -- you say it happened when they were just barely "notified" of the gospel! Peter had just opened the door with his "keys to the kingdom." And that's when you say was the "fulness of the Gentiles???"

No, Bob. Not by any sane Christian's definition. But let's test your theory -- Rom 11:25-26 -- What happens after the "fulness of the Gentiles." "And so shall ALL ISRAEL be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Do you see that Bob? All Israel will be saved and/when the Deliverer comes. OK, when -- post-cross -- did the Deliverer come?? Do you not realize that according to Dan 9:24 the Deliverer "takes away ungodliness from Jacob" when He returns?

I mean, you are wrong on so many levels I don't understand why continue arguing -- except for the obvious reason, pride. :tear:

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

Apparently we are just talking past each other.

"Fulness of the Gentiles" -- try to concentrate -- you say it happened when they were just barely "notified" of the gospel! Peter had just opened the door with his "keys to the kingdom." And that's when you say was the "fulness of the Gentiles???"

I said that was the beginning of the fulness of the Gentiles, it still took Apostle Paul, who was sent to the Gentile nations and then was salvation come to all Gentiles who will believe on Jesus Christ. You do believe that all Gentiles now have a right to be saved don't you.

No, Bob. Not by any sane Christian's definition. But let's test your theory -- Rom 11:25-26 -- What happens after the "fulness of the Gentiles." "And so shall ALL ISRAEL be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Do you see that Bob? All Israel will be saved and/when the Deliverer comes. OK, when -- post-cross -- did the Deliverer come?? Do you not realize that according to Dan 9:24 the Deliverer "takes away ungodliness from Jacob" when He returns?

All Israel is not Israel, that is where you fail.

Rom 9:6¶Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Luk 3:8Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

I mean, you are wrong on so many levels I don't understand why continue arguing -- except for the obvious reason, pride. :tear:

It is not pride, it is scripture, please explain all of the scriptures below, how do you excuse them?
skypair

Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Eph 2:13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

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;

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.



Are all these scripture somewhere in the future, or have we already become a part of the commonwealth of Israel??? Did Jesus break down the wall between us and Isreal, so we become as one, or are we still aliens, no hope and without God. Lost????

Answer the scriptures, it is not BBob's words, it is scripture. Answer them please. Prove your point that Israel is still blinded. Give scripture where it will be an earthly Kingdom. Are you one of those who is looking for all those sensual desires of the flesh, during this MK??

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Are all these scripture somewhere in the future, or have we already become a part of the commonwealth of Israel??? Did Jesus break down the wall between us and Isreal, so we become as one, or are we still aliens, no hope and without God. Lost????

I see your POV --- the problem with it is we church didn't come over to Israel's religion but they to ours. However, Rom 11:25 speaks of Israel coming through their own religion after Elijah "comes to restore all things," Mal 4:5/Acts (???) Perhaps you are unaware of the 70 weeks of Daniel's people and the holy city -- 69 till His crucifixion, 7 yet to come when the temple is rebuilt (Dan 9:24-27). Have you read Isa 60-66 yet? Or Ezek 40-48? Have you seen any of this yet? These are MK passages, Bob. I would have thought "mandatory reading" when you were in college.

Answer the scriptures, it is not BBob's words, it is scripture. Answer them please. Prove your point that Israel is still blinded. Give scripture where it will be an earthly Kingdom. Are you one of those who is looking for all those sensual desires of the flesh, during this MK??

Are you saying the Jews are not blind? Or are you saying that only those who practice their religion are saved? A sampling of the scriptures re: the earthly kingdom given above.

Do I really need to answer that last question? I mean, I don't even think we will be on earth at that time. Further, we will be in glorified bodies "as the angels" unable to procreate, Mt 19 ("who's wife is she?").

skypair

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

I see your POV --- the problem with it is we church didn't come over to Israel's religion but they to ours. However, Rom 11:25 speaks of Israel coming through their own religion after Elijah "comes to restore all things," Mal 4:5/Acts (???) Perhaps you are unaware of the 70 weeks of Daniel's people and the holy city -- 69 till His crucifixion, 7 yet to come when the temple is rebuilt (Dan 9:24-27). Have you read Isa 60-66 yet? Or Ezek 40-48? Have you seen any of this yet? These are MK passages, Bob. I would have thought "mandatory reading" when you were in college.

Are you saying the Jews are not blind? Or are you saying that only those who practice their religion are saved? A sampling of the scriptures re: the earthly kingdom given above.

Do I really need to answer that last question? I mean, I don't even think we will be on earth at that time. Further, we will be in glorified bodies "as the angels" unable to procreate, Mt 19 ("who's wife is she?").

skypair

skypair

I see your POV --- the problem with it is we church didn't come over to Israel's religion but they to ours. However, Rom 11:25 speaks of Israel coming through their own religion after Elijah "comes to restore all things," Mal 4:5/Acts (???) Perhaps you are unaware of the 70 weeks of Daniel's people and the holy city -- 69 till His crucifixion, 7 yet to come when the temple is rebuilt (Dan 9:24-27). Have you read Isa 60-66 yet? Or Ezek 40-48? Have you seen any of this yet? These are MK passages, Bob. I would have thought "mandatory reading" when you were in college.

I have read where Jesus Christ is the Temple.

Are you saying the Jews are not blind? Or are you saying that only those who practice their religion are saved? A sampling of the scriptures re: the earthly kingdom given above.

I am saying the vail has been lifted now, and they better get with it, if they want to go to Heaven.

Rom 10:3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Rom 10:13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.



You never answered not one scripture, not one. I didn't think you could to start with. If we are not aliens to the commonwealth of Israel and have become one, it throws your eschatology in a tail spin, doesn't it???

It is really simple, the first one:
1.
Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Question: Are we still aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, without God in the World?


2.
Eph 2:13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Question: were we made nigh to Israel by the blood of the Lamb?

3.
Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Question: has the middle wall of partition been broken down between Israel and the Gentiles??

4.
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;
Question: Has God brought together Israel and the Gentile, so they are one??


5.
Eph 2:19¶Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Question: Are we still strangers and foreigners or are we fellowcitizens with the saints and the household of God??


6.
Rom 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Question: Are the only Jews the ones who have been circumcised outwardly???


7.
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.
Question: Have we been circumcised of the heart???


70 years in Daniel, has nothing to do with these questions. No need to run off to some other scripture, just answer these please.



BBob,

 

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Bob:
//Paul, must of believed the fulness of the Gentiles
had come, for he believed he might save some
of them that were blinded, which couldn't
be saved until the "fulness of the Gentiles.//

I've read two of your posts and can't see what
you are talking about.
I think one problem is that 'blindness' is NOT
the best translation either in Romans 11:25
nor nor Eph 4:18

Here is an older, more correct translation.

Rom 11:25-26 ; (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this secret (least ye should bee arrogant in your selues)
that partly obstinacie is come to Israel, vntill
the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shalbe saued, as it is written,
The deliuerer shall come out of Sion, and shall
turne away the vngodlinesse from Iacob.

Eph 4:18 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
Hauing their vnderstanding darkened, and being
strangers from the life of God through
the ignorance that is in them,
because of the hardnesse of their heart:

Anything after your incorrect statement can
be invalidated because of your wrong turn???

 

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Bob:
//Answer the scriptures, it is not BBob's words,
it is scripture. Answer them please. Prove your
point that Israel is still blinded.//

There is a phrase other
than "fullness of the gentiles" that
reminds me of "fullness of the Gentiles"
The phrase is: "times of the Gentiles".
The times of the Gentiles will be over
when Jerusalem is NOT trodden down
by the gentiles. It will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levites) give the
daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem.

Luke 21:24 (KJV1611 Edition):
And they shall fall by the edge
of the sword, and shall bee led away
captiue into all nations, and Hierusalem
shall be troden downe of the Gentiles,
vntill the times of the Gentiles bee fulfilled.

There is also a clue here when the
fulness of the Gentiles is completed:

Rom 11:25-26 ; (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this secret (least ye should bee arrogant in your selues)
that partly obstinacie is come to Israel, vntill
the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shalbe saued, as it is written,
The deliuerer shall come out of Sion, and shall
turne away the vngodlinesse from Iacob.

This is rather obvious: the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel.
All all Jewish/Israeli saved by Messiah Jesus today?
No, because those who are blinded are NOT
being saved.

In the 70th week of Daniel, when the Antichrist is building his
strength the first 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc) just
after the pretribulation rapture2 of the church age, mostly
gentile folks -- then will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levities) give the daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem -- that will be when the fulness of the gentiles
is come.

In the middle of the 70th week of Daniel,
when the Antichrist switches from gaining control to ruling
the second 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc)
-- then will be a time when the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel
-- that will be when the times of the gentiles ends.

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob:
//Answer the scriptures, it is not BBob's words,
it is scripture. Answer them please. Prove your
point that Israel is still blinded.//

There is a phrase other
than "fullness of the gentiles" that
reminds me of "fullness of the Gentiles"
The phrase is: "times of the Gentiles".
The times of the Gentiles will be over
when Jerusalem is NOT trodden down
by the gentiles. It will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levites) give the
daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem.

Luke 21:24 (KJV1611 Edition):
And they shall fall by the edge
of the sword, and shall bee led away
captiue into all nations, and Hierusalem
shall be troden downe of the Gentiles,
vntill the times of the Gentiles bee fulfilled.

Times of the Gentiles is for sure at the end time, when there will be great tribulations and this time will be fulfilled.

In no way is this the fulness of the Gentiles when Salvation has come to the Gentiles and then comes to Israel that is born of God.


There is also a clue here when the
fulness of the Gentiles is completed:

Rom 11:25-26 ; (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this secret (least ye should bee arrogant in your selues)
that partly obstinacie is come to Israel, vntill
the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shalbe saued, as it is written,
The deliuerer shall come out of Sion, and shall
turne away the vngodlinesse from Iacob.

In this very chapter, Paul speaks he might save some of them and Paul died and the end times is not here yet!

This is rather obvious: the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel.
All all Jewish/Israeli saved by Messiah Jesus today?
No, because those who are blinded are NOT
being saved.

In the 70th week of Daniel, when the Antichrist is building his
strength the first 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc) just
after the pretribulation rapture2 of the church age, mostly
gentile folks -- then will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levities) give the daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem -- that will be when the fulness of the gentiles
is come.

In the middle of the 70th week of Daniel,
when the Antichrist switches from gaining control to ruling
the second 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc)
-- then will be a time when the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel
-- that will be when the times of the gentiles ends.

Why did you not continue on with what Paul wrote on the matter? You are placing Romans 11:25 end times, when Paul goes on to show that mercy had already come to the Gentiles. That is fulness of the Gentiles. Which is a time of Salvation, Times of the Gentiles is a time of tribulations. A lot of difference.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.

Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief (fulness of the Gentiles)

Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Rom 9:6¶Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 11:7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Rom 11:23And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

What is they remain in unbelief Ed. Edwards, then will all of Israel not be saved???


If the election were saved, who are the rest who were blinded Ed Edwards??

I hope you come back and answer, I know you usually hit and run.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Bob:
//Answer the scriptures, it is not BBob's words,
it is scripture. Answer them please. Prove your
point that Israel is still blinded.//

There is a phrase other
than "fullness of the gentiles" that
reminds me of "fullness of the Gentiles"
The phrase is: "times of the Gentiles".
The times of the Gentiles will be over
when Jerusalem is NOT trodden down
by the gentiles. It will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levites) give the
daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem.

Luke 21:24 (KJV1611 Edition):
And they shall fall by the edge
of the sword, and shall bee led away
captiue into all nations, and Hierusalem
shall be troden downe of the Gentiles,
vntill the times of the Gentiles bee fulfilled.

There is also a clue here when the
fulness of the Gentiles is completed:

Rom 11:25-26 ; (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this secret (least ye should bee arrogant in your selues)
that partly obstinacie is come to Israel, vntill
the fulnesse of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shalbe saued, as it is written,
The deliuerer shall come out of Sion, and shall
turne away the vngodlinesse from Iacob.

This is rather obvious: the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel.
All all Jewish/Israeli saved by Messiah Jesus today?
No, because those who are blinded are NOT
being saved.

In the 70th week of Daniel, when the Antichrist is building his
strength the first 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc) just
after the pretribulation rapture2 of the church age, mostly
gentile folks -- then will be a time when Jews
shall return to Temple Mount and
the priests (Levities) give the daily sacrifice & oblation and
the Temple is being rebuilt on Temple Mount
in Jerusalem -- that will be when the fulness of the gentiles
is come.

In the middle of the 70th week of Daniel,
when the Antichrist switches from gaining control to ruling
the second 3½-years (half, 1260 days, etc)
-- then will be a time when the fulness of the Gentiles
will be come in before God saves All Israel
-- that will be when the times of the gentiles ends.

Ed Edwards;
Why don't you answer these questions?? I am shocked that you can't see the difference between the fulness of the Gentiles and the Times of the Gentiles. One is Salvation, the other is tribulations.

It is really simple, the first one:
1.
Eph 2:12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Question: Are we still aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, having no hope, without God in the World?


2.
Eph 2:13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Question: were we made nigh to Israel by the blood of the Lamb?

3.
Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];
Question: has the middle wall of partition been broken down between Israel and the Gentiles??

4.
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;
Question: Has God brought together Israel and the Gentile, so they are one??


5.
Eph 2:19¶Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Question: Are we still strangers and foreigners or are we fellowcitizens with the saints and the household of God??


6.
Rom 2:28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Question: Are the only Jews the ones who have been circumcised outwardly???


7.
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.
Question: Have we been circumcised of the heart???

I hope this is not a hit and run Ed Edwards and you will answer the questions, they are very important to support or tear down your eschatology. After all you posted, surely you can answer these questions. Has the wall been broken down between the Jew and the Gentile, where they have become One???


BBob,