ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Danoh]

I hear ya. I promise I will try and do a better job of re-reading my posts to make sure they come across as intended before I hit the post button.


Ok.


Sorry, I also skip replies to some of my important points as well. I guess I try to keep the post short so you don’t have to crunch through a lot. I will try and not do that.



I would like to address the last sentence but I know you wanted to expand on it so maybe it will come up later.

I agree Israel was cut off but I see it as fleshly Israel. I suggest that just as the law was a shadow so were the people. This is what I understand Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9 to be telling us. In Jeremiah 18 he says “so he made it again another vessel”. I believe Israel has to be converted to a new creature to continue. Paul says the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation and the bible tells us the gospel of Jesus Christ began with John the Baptist, Mk. 1:1. John the Baptist told Israel the time is coming that they will no longer be able to rely on the fact that they are descendants of Abraham, Lk. 3:7-8. Jesus basically told Nicodemus the same thing that he could not rely on his birth as a Jew to enter the kingdom but that he had to be born again of water and the Spirit. So in order for Israel to be saved they have to become Christian. Jesus created in himself one new man: that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two.
He did that at the cross: reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross.

Romans 9 tells us they are not all Israel which are of Israel. 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. They are not all children (heirs) because of their heritage but only those who are like Isaac. Paul tells us Christians are like Isaac, children of promise, Gal. 4.
In Romans 11 we can see not all of Israel will be saved but only a remnant will be saved. 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Again, out of the same lump not all children of the flesh are heirs except those who are called. 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. I see that in the tree analogy in that they have to be converted and only a remnant will do that. A natural branch (Israelite) that accepted Jesus was not broken off but stayed attached. Israelites that were broken off can be grafted back in if they accept Jesus, if they do not they are lost. Gentiles that accepted Jesus were grafted in. Fleshly Israel was cut off but God has not rejected his people. Paul uses himself as an example of that. He was converted and became a Christian. They can be saved. Saved from what? Sin. I don’t see anywhere talk about being saved from the physical things of life.

I believe the church is the kingdom. Paul tells us that Christians have been transferred to Jesus’s kingdom, Col. 1:13. Jesus tells Peter he was going to build his church and give him the keys to the kingdom. In Acts 2 we see him using those keys and letting 3,000 souls in.

What doesn’t make sense to me is that if Israel didn’t receive the kingdom because they rejected their king, why then the two opposing prophecies? God tells us through Daniel’s prophecy that during the time of the Roman Empire God would set up a kingdom all the while knowing the Jews would reject Jesus and therefore it would not be set it up?
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

I look forward to your comments

Nope.

In Romans "in Isaac" is literal and has to do with those Israelites who believed before Israel was concluded under sin (in rebellion) with the Gentile nations (at the end of Acts 7, see also Romans 3), but before Paul was saved.

Paul says Israel's Believing remnant had obtained what their nation had rejected.

Said Believing remnant was the remnant "at this time" that he was referring to.

In other words, Peter and company.

"The rest" proved blind.

Paul was after getting some of them saved.

Lost Jews and Gentiles.

Neither of which are the Believing Remnant of Israel.

Whereas in Galatians, Paul is using Isaac as a figure, or an allegory.

Just as Abraham was not actually the literal father of the Gentiles, but rather of Israelites, but is the father of those Gentiles that believe, but only as a figure, or allegory.

You assert you want to hear these things out, but then keep yourself from actually "hearing" them due to so much that you have long since figured out incorrectly.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's the way I understand it. I understand the branches that were broken off were those Israelites that didn't accept Jesus.

Except that's not what I said.

I said:

The tree is Christ.
The natural branches are Israel.

I didn't say Israelites. I said Israel. Israel is a nation. Israelites are individuals who are members of the nation of Israel.

Israel as a whole was cut off. The people, the covenant relationship they had.

The only ones who were not cut off were the "remnant", those who became believers during the period of time between Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion. When Israel was cut off (at Paul's conversion), no longer could anyone enter into a CORPORATE relationship (the kind Israel had) with God through Israel, but instead they could have a personal and direct relationship with Him, not requiring any priests or high priests, because Christ would be their High Priest.

There's one of the big problems. It's individual Jews. It can't be Israel the total.

Except it was. You fail to understand the different kind of relationships that the nation of Israel had versus what believers post-Acts 9 had with God.

IT never has been that point was made since ch 3 about the unbelief of Israel,

Chapter 3? Of what book? You failed to specify...

and it is made about the future in 11:26

Romans?

because 'in this way' means that Israel the nation will always be partly hard, and Israel the new creation will always have both Jews and Gentiles in it.

If no one has recommended it to you (and I'm sure someone has before, if not myself, so if so, I'll recommend it again), I encourage you to obtain a copy of Bob Enyart's The Plot: An Overview of the Bible is the Key to it's Details. Of course, you don't have to, and instead you could read through the Bible cover to cover without adding any of your own personal beliefs to it, reading it "as-is", and still come to the same conclusion Bob did. Heck, I'll even offer to purchase you a copy if you promise to read it.

It's a real eye-opener.

 

[Danoh]

Except that's not what I said.

I said:



I didn't say Israelites. I said Israel. Israel is a nation. Israelites are individuals who are members of the nation of Israel.

Israel as a whole was cut off. The people, the covenant relationship they had.

The only ones who were not cut off were the "remnant", those who became believers during the period of time between Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion. When Israel was cut off (at Paul's conversion), no longer could anyone enter into a CORPORATE relationship (the kind Israel had) with God through Israel, but instead they could have a personal and direct relationship with Him, not requiring any priests or high priests, because Christ would be their High Priest.



Except it was. You fail to understand the different kind of relationships that the nation of Israel had versus what believers post-Acts 9 had with God.



Chapter 3? Of what book? You failed to specify...



Romans?



If no one has recommended it to you (and I'm sure someone has before, if not myself, so if so, I'll recommend it again), I encourage you to obtain a copy of Bob Enyart's The Plot: An Overview of the Bible is the Key to it's Details. Of course, you don't have to, and instead you could read through the Bible cover to cover without adding any of your own personal beliefs to it, reading it "as-is", and still come to the same conclusion Bob did. Heck, I'll even offer to purchase you a copy if you promise to read it.

It's a real eye-opener.

Other than Bob's book, which I've never read - Yep to much of your post, there.

:thumb:

Also, if you google the words...

pdf craig macdonald understanding your bible

...you get a link to a really nice, easy to follow intro to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in book form (about 100 pages or so).

Rom. 5:6-8

 

[JudgeRightly]

Other than Bob's book, which I've never read - Yep to much of your post, there.

:thumb:

I highly recommend reading it, or even just listening to him teach through it via the audio albums.

 

[turbosixx]

I didn't say Israelites. I said Israel. Israel is a nation. Israelites are individuals who are members of the nation of Israel.

Israel as a whole was cut off. The people, the covenant relationship they had.

I agree Israel as a whole was cut off. What confuses me about your comment is I don't see how the natural branches are Israel as a nation yet some were broken off and some remained. If as a whole nation instead of individuals, then all the branches would be either broken off or remain.

The only ones who were not cut off were the "remnant", those who became believers during the period of time between Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the remnant became believers, believers in Christ and non-believers were cut off.

When Israel was cut off (at Paul's conversion), no longer could anyone enter into a CORPORATE relationship (the kind Israel had) with God through Israel,

Could you please expand on relationship 'through Israel'.

but instead they could have a personal and direct relationship with Him, not requiring any priests or high priests, because Christ would be their High Priest.

The way I understand it, the remnant became believers in Jesus and Jesus became high priest at his DBR. Those before Paul had that direct relationship because Jesus couldn't be high priest under the old law so the law had to change, Heb. 7:11-14. He entered the true tabernacle to offer himself for our sins by his blood.
Heb. 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I agree Israel as a whole was cut off. What confuses me about your comment is I don't see how the natural branches are Israel as a nation yet some were broken off and some remained. If as a whole nation instead of individuals, then all the branches would be either broken off or remain.

It's just a metaphor, Turbo. No need to take it too far. Though, I suppose if you were, you could think of it like this:

Have you ever tried breaking off a mostly dead branch from a still living tree?

Is the break always a clean break?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the remnant became believers, believers in Christ and non-believers were cut off.

They became believers through the covenant relationship they had before Israel was cut off. Jews believed, Gentiles converted to Jews and became proselytes.

After Israel was cut off (from Paul's conversion to now), NO ONE could (or can) enter into a relationship with God (ie, become a believer) through that covenant. It is only by Grace through faith that we can enter into a relationship with God now.

Could you please expand on relationship 'through Israel'.

See Genesis 17.

The way I understand it, the remnant became believers in Jesus and Jesus became high priest at his DBR. Those before Paul had that direct relationship because Jesus couldn't be high priest under the old law so the law had to change, Heb. 7:11-14. He entered the true tabernacle to offer himself for our sins by his blood.
Heb. 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

 

[Danoh]

It's just a metaphor, Turbo. No need to take it too far. Though, I suppose if you were, you could think of it like this:

Have you ever tried breaking off a mostly dead branch from a still living tree?

Is the break always a clean break?



They became believers through the covenant relationship they had before Israel was cut off. Jews believed, Gentiles converted to Jews and became proselytes.

After Israel was cut off (from Paul's conversion to now), NO ONE could (or can) enter into a relationship with God (ie, become a believer) through that covenant. It is only by Grace through faith that we can enter into a relationship with God now.



See Genesis 17.

What's your understanding of the meaning of the last seven words in...

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So the abomanation that desolates is only a reference to a past event to you?

I find that odd as I believe everything in scripture is relavent to the current alive believer. That in no way means I support a private interpretation; just the attempted understanding of what is plainly written.

I don't see any texts limiting the abomination of desolation to the first century. Most seem to reference near end times to me.....that's two meanings right there.

Daniel 12: 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 5. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7. And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. 13. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I don't find that kind of progression when you look at Gal 3's organization of all biblical material up to the (its) present. Nor in the shadow vs reality concepts of Col 2 and Hebrews. All there is in both is a maturation. We are now in the time of reality, the law was the shadow of the past, of 'childhood.'

On a minor note, there is some similarity between the final conflict of darkness against believers in Rev 20, but darkness is swiftly destroyed and the NHNE are placed. I say that to show there is no protracted set of events there, where a person could say 'all the things in Mt24A are going to happen all over again' as though Mt 24A was a thing that had several layers.

Another thing that happens Pops is that the people who try to find several meanings to 'the abomination that desolates' find contradictory ones. Christ in Mt 24 said it only meant one thing: the rebellion of 1st century Judea would have the leader mentioned in Dan 8:13 and he would ruin the country. The expression was originally: the rebellion that desolates.

The emphasis on 'let the reader understand' was the "reader" for a church group (very few people could read; most communication was oral). They were to understand there was one meaning. That meaning was entirely anchored in what was happening in the 1st century Judean turmoil.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

I agree Israel was cut off but I see it as fleshly Israel.

Fleshly Israel?

Is that a biblical term? If so, I'm pretty sure I missed it.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Law is all about the flesh and the "cutting off" of its desires. It has nothing to do with what you're getting at but you'd probable find a study of the phrase "cut off" or "cutting off" to be illuminating.

I suggest that just as the law was a shadow so were the people.

Based on what?

This is what I understand Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9 to be telling us.

The addition of the phrase "I understand" in that sentence gets right to the crux of what we are discussing. What you understand (or don't) is not relevant to what is actually said. This is a major pillar upon which the Mid-Acts system is based. We do NOT formulate our doctrine and then attempt to make sense of the bible in that context. It is quite the other way around. We let the bible say what it says whenever possible. (The phrase "whenever possible" is required because there are passages that are intentionally and clearly figurative or generalizations or some other form of speech that is not intended to be taken literally.)

As for Jeremiah 18, it couldn't be any clearer. God Himself states that if He makes a promise (or a threat) and circumstances change, He reserves the right to not do what He said He would do. It's as clear as can be and God has, in fact, done precisely that on more than one occasion. He promised to drive out all of Israel's enemies (all the different "ites") but He didn't do it. He prophesied through Jonah the destruction of Nineveh and then, when they repented, God changed His mind and didn't destroy them as He said. A result, by the way, that Jonah anticipated to the point that he refused to go to Nineveh until God forced him and then he was still angry with God afterward. (How Calvinism survives even a cursory reading of the book of Jonah, I'll never know. But that's a different thread!)

The point here being that Jeremiah 18 means exactly what it seems to mean, your understanding of it not withstanding, and Romans 9 is Paul telling everyone that Israel got the Jeremiah 18 treatment and deserved it.

In Jeremiah 18 he says “so he made it again another vessel”. I believe Israel has to be converted to a new creature to continue.

Again, what you believe is all well fine and good but it isn't persuasive against the plain reading of the passage.

Paul says the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation and the bible tells us the gospel of Jesus Christ began with John the Baptist, Mk. 1:1. John the Baptist told Israel the time is coming that they will no longer be able to rely on the fact that they are descendants of Abraham, Lk. 3:7-8. Jesus basically told Nicodemus the same thing that he could not rely on his birth as a Jew to enter the kingdom but that he had to be born again of water and the Spirit. So in order for Israel to be saved they have to become Christian. Jesus created in himself one new man: that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two.
He did that at the cross: reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross.

The bible never taught anyone that they would be saved on the basis of their birth as a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, not just by birth but by practice and He taught people to practice Judaism and to obey not only Moses and the whole law but to also obey those that sat in Moses' seat. There is not one single syllable of anything Jesus said to anyone that was not what every saved Jew in history believed and practiced. The only thing new was that Jesus was the Messiah and that He would die on the cross. But not even His own disciples believed He would be killed until He was hanging on the cross! You cannot get Christianity from the four gospels. The foundation is laid there but nothing of salvation by grace through faith is found on the lips of Jesus Christ during His Earthly ministry.

Romans 9 tells us they are not all Israel which are of Israel. 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. They are not all children (heirs) because of their heritage but only those who are like Isaac. Paul tells us Christians are like Isaac, children of promise, Gal. 4.
In Romans 11 we can see not all of Israel will be saved but only a remnant will be saved. 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Again, out of the same lump not all children of the flesh are heirs except those who are called. 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. I see that in the tree analogy in that they have to be converted and only a remnant will do that. A natural branch (Israelite) that accepted Jesus was not broken off but stayed attached. Israelites that were broken off can be grafted back in if they accept Jesus, if they do not they are lost. Gentiles that accepted Jesus were grafted in. Fleshly Israel was cut off but God has not rejected his people. Paul uses himself as an example of that. He was converted and became a Christian. They can be saved. Saved from what? Sin. I don’t see anywhere talk about being saved from the physical things of life.

I believe the church is the kingdom. Paul tells us that Christians have been transferred to Jesus’s kingdom, Col. 1:13. Jesus tells Peter he was going to build his church and give him the keys to the kingdom. In Acts 2 we see him using those keys and letting 3,000 souls in.

What doesn’t make sense to me is that if Israel didn’t receive the kingdom because they rejected their king, why then the two opposing prophecies? God tells us through Daniel’s prophecy that during the time of the Roman Empire God would set up a kingdom all the while knowing the Jews would reject Jesus and therefore it would not be set it up?
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

I look forward to your comments

So all of that to say that Israel wasn't really cut off - right?

I mean, that is what you're saying, isn't it? Israel wasn't cut off, it was just morphed into the church.

The only reason any such convoluted confusing kind of theological back flipping is necessary is in order to force the Pauline epistle say and/or mean the same thing as the rest of the New Testament.

THERE IS NO WAY TO GET TO WHERE YOU ARE BY TAKING THE NEW TESTAMENT TO MEAN WHAT IT SAYS - PERIOD!

Now, that might be just fine and dandy as far as you are concerned. You might be just pleased as punch with whatever machinations have to be made in order to "harmonize" Paul with Peter, James and John. Just understand that you are making a choice. That choice being to preserve a fully harmonious New Testament with a single group of believers all teaching the same thing rather than choosing to take the bible for what it plainly states and configuring a doctrine around that principle. You cannot do both.

So, you already cannot answer why the Twelve (and God) forced the believers in Jerusalem to sell their possessions and give all the money to the Twelve. You also have no explanation whatsoever why the Twelve would agree with Paul to disregard the great commission in relation to their own ministry. And you cannot give a cojent theory as to why Paul was given his gospel by revelation and was then told by God to go explain that gospel to the Twelve. And probably a half dozen other things that most Christian don't even know happened unless and until they're presented with a defense of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

But! In addition to all of that biblical material that is left basically ignored in your system (i.e. most of Christianity) but now you have a more fundamentally hermeneutical question to answer.

Why is it more preferable to preserve a fully monolithic New Testament with a single group of believers all teaching the same thing over and above the plain reading of the text?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[popsthebuilder]

But I thought the natural branches where the Jew and those grafted into the same tree where the gentile; effectively making them the same.

Why is the law of the Spirit written on the hearts and minds if not to be heeded?

Fleshly Israel?

Is that a biblical term? If so, I'm pretty sure I missed it.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Law is all about the flesh and the "cutting off" of its desires. It has nothing to do with what you're getting at but you'd probable find a study of the phrase "cut off" or "cutting off" to be illuminating.


Based on what?


The addition of the phrase "I understand" in that sentence gets right to the crux of what we are discussing. What you understand (or don't) is not relevant to what is actually said. This is a major pillar upon which the Mid-Acts system is based. We do NOT formulate our doctrine and then attempt to make sense of the bible in that context. It is quite the other way around. We let the bible say what it says whenever possible. (The phrase "whenever possible" is required because there are passages that are intentionally and clearly figurative or generalizations or some other form of speech that is not intended to be taken literally.)

As for Jeremiah 18, it couldn't be any clearer. God Himself states that if He makes a promise (or a threat) and circumstances change, He reserves the right to not do what He said He would do. It's as clear as can be and God has, in fact, done precisely that on more than one occasion. He promised to drive out all of Israel's enemies (all the different "ites") but He didn't do it. He prophesied through Jonah the destruction of Nineveh and then, when they repented, God changed His mind and didn't destroy them as He said. A result, by the way, that Jonah anticipated to the point that he refused to go to Nineveh until God forced him and then he was still angry with God afterward. (How Calvinism survives even a cursory reading of the book of Jonah, I'll never know. But that's a different thread!)

The point here being that Jeremiah 18 means exactly what it seems to mean, your understanding of it not withstanding, and Romans 9 is Paul telling everyone that Israel got the Jeremiah 18 treatment and deserved it.


Again, what you believe is all well fine and good but it isn't persuasive against the plain reading of the passage.


The bible never taught anyone that they would be saved on the basis of their birth as a Jew. Jesus was a Jew, not just by birth but by practice and He taught people to practice Judaism and to obey not only Moses and the whole law but to also obey those that sat in Moses' seat. There is not one single syllable of anything Jesus said to anyone that was not what every saved Jew in history believed and practiced. The only thing new was that Jesus was the Messiah and that He would die on the cross. But not even His own disciples believed He would be killed until He was hanging on the cross! You cannot get Christianity from the four gospels. The foundation is laid there but nothing of salvation by grace through faith is found on the lips of Jesus Christ during His Earthly ministry.



So all of that to say that Israel wasn't really cut off - right?

I mean, that is what you're saying, isn't it? Israel wasn't cut off, it was just morphed into the church.

The only reason any such convoluted confusing kind of theological back flipping is necessary is in order to force the Pauline epistle say and/or mean the same thing as the rest of the New Testament.

THERE IS NO WAY TO GET TO WHERE YOU ARE BY TAKING THE NEW TESTAMENT TO MEAN WHAT IT SAYS - PERIOD!

Now, that might be just fine and dandy as far as you are concerned. You might be just pleased as punch with whatever machinations have to be made in order to "harmonize" Paul with Peter, James and John. Just understand that you are making a choice. That choice being to preserve a fully harmonious New Testament with a single group of believers all teaching the same thing rather than choosing to take the bible for what it plainly states and configuring a doctrine around that principle. You cannot do both.

So, you already cannot answer why the Twelve (and God) forced the believers in Jerusalem to sell their possessions and give all the money to the Twelve. You also have no explanation whatsoever why the Twelve would agree with Paul to disregard the great commission in relation to their own ministry. And you cannot give a cojent theory as to why Paul was given his gospel by revelation and was then told by God to go explain that gospel to the Twelve. And probably a half dozen other things that most Christian don't even know happened unless and until they're presented with a defense of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.

But! In addition to all of that biblical material that is left basically ignored in your system (i.e. most of Christianity) but now you have a more fundamentally hermeneutical question to answer.

Why is it more preferable to preserve a fully monolithic New Testament with a single group of believers all teaching the same thing over and above the plain reading of the text?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

I'm not changing the topic.

You said if one crafts a belief system.....I'm asking what about one who didn't craft a belief system nor was ever indoctrinated by man.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

And now I remember why you're on my ignore list.

Wow!

 

[popsthebuilder]

And now I remember why you're on my ignore list.

Wow!

Wow indeed;

I ask you genuine sincere personal questions about the Faith and this is your delayed response?

Telling

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Interplanner]

So the abomanation that desolates is only a reference to a past event to you?

I find that odd as I believe everything in scripture is relavent to the current alive believer. That in no way means I support a private interpretation; just the attempted understanding of what is plainly written.

I don't see any texts limiting the abomination of desolation to the first century. Most seem to reference near end times to me.....that's two meanings right there.

Daniel 12: 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 5. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7. And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. 13. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Whose end times? What was the 'end' the disciples asked about in Mt24A?

Things are not dead just because they happened in the historic past.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What's your understanding of the meaning of the last seven words in...

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

God is not held captive by the things He does. God cut off Israel, and Paul is giving a warning to the Gentiles: if God can cut off His own people, then it wouldn't be too far fetched to think that He could cut off the Gentiles as well, and move back to Israel.

 

[Interplanner]

God is not held captive by the things He does. God cut off Israel, and Paul is giving a warning to the Gentiles: if God can cut off His own people, then it wouldn't be too far fetched to think that He could cut off the Gentiles as well, and move back to Israel.

GOd is not working with ALL of anyone. He is not working with ALL Gentiles now nor NONE of Israel now. That is artificial think. He works with and blesses those who believe. You have made it racial.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God is not working with ALL of anyone. He is not working with ALL Gentiles now nor NONE of Israel now. That is artificial think. He works with and blesses those who believe. You have made it racial.

The only one who has mentioned "race" so far is yourself.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:26-29&version=NKJV

IP:
Could God stop working with ALL of mankind and go back to working with His chosen people? OF COURSE HE COULD!

 

[Interplanner]

The only one who has mentioned "race" so far is yourself.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:26-29&version=NKJV

IP:
Could God stop working with ALL of mankind and go back to working with His chosen people? OF COURSE HE COULD!

JR:
you don't have to use the word race to be racial. Look at the problem in Jn 1 'not born of a husband's will or decision or ancestry' The word racial is not there. But it is about the racial problem.

THe chosen people is believers. Heb 11-13 says it always was, and he pleads with those born in the 'nation' to believe, not to be more energetic in Judaism!

 

[Interplanner]

"If you are christ's you are Abraham's seed." What could be more clear?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Whose end times? What was the 'end' the disciples asked about in Mt24A?

Things are not dead just because they happened in the historic past.

What end times!?!?


Do you not believe that the end is soon?

Do you not believe that the earth and the heavens will be rolled up like a scroll in the hands of GOD?

I showed what end times with scripture friend.

Study the previous book if you cannot make the link to the abomination of desolation.

We have two seemingly contrary views. This in itself supports my claim or double entendres.

peace

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

Wow indeed;

I ask you genuine sincere personal questions about the Faith and this is your delayed response?

Telling

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

It was only delayed BECAUSE you're on my ignore list and so I don't get notifications about any responses from you. I had to go through all of your latest posts to find it.

You say its a sincere question. Okay fine, I can believe it was sincere but it shows an inability on your part to follow rather simple conversations and don't have sufficient social intelligence to realize that making lateral jumps in thought require you to explain whatever tenuous connection remains to the original conversation. I, frankly, still do not understand what you're asking me or what it has to do with what I said. "...the one who didn't craft a belief system"? Who is that exactly and what does he have to do with biblical hermeneutics or Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?

Clete