PDA

View Full Version : What is Luke Telling Us?



Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 05:10 AM
What I am about to present to you is something that you most likely have never noticed before.

Has anyone noticed that the gospel of Luke paints a picture of a much closer relationship between the Lord and His disciples than the other two synoptic gospels do?

Here are some examples. Pay special attention to the underlined parts of these scriptures for a revealing truth. I will post the same account from each gospel:

Matthew 4
18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.
21Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him


Mark 1
16As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18At once they left their nets and followed him.
19When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.


Luke 5
8When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!" 9For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners. Then Jesus said to Simon, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men." 11So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.


With all of the similarities, only Luke tells us the disciples "left everything" to follow the Lord. The other two gospels simply tell us they left specific things left behind.

This type of theme is clear and consistent all throughout the book of Luke. I will post just a few more examples, but there are many that could be shown.


Matthew 9
9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.


Mark 2
14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.


Luke 5
27After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

In this case, Matthew and Mark don't mention Matthew leaving anything behind. However, Luke, again, mentions leaving everything.

Let's look at an interesting difference pertaining to what happened just after the transfiguration:

Matthew 17
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

Mark 9
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Luke 9
37The next day, when they came down from the mountain, a large crowd met him.

Luke has two differences that we notice here, but the primary one I want to focus on for now is the fact that Luke specifies to us that the Lord spent an extra night on that mountain with His disciples. The other two gospels give no indication that they spent the night together on the mountain.

Another example consistent with this theme:

Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14
24"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.

Luke 22
20In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


In Matthew and Mark, His blood is poured out for many. In Luke, His blood is poured out for the disciples.




Another interesting observation. After the Passover meal (and just before the crucifixion process was about to begin), we see the Lord telling His disciples in Matthew and Mark that they will all fall away.


Matthew 26
30When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
31Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' 32But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

Mark 14
26When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."



You can go ahead and read the Luke account in your bible, and you will see that He does not tell them that they will fall away.

Going further, we see:

Matthew 26
55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.


Mark 14
48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

By now, it should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that Luke does not mention the disciples deserting Him.

Luke 22
52Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns."

Nowhere in the Luke account of the Lord being arrested is it mentioned that the disciples deserted Him.

Here is another interesting difference to take into account. This pertains to the time in which the disciples realized that the Lord had risen.

Matthew 28
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Mark 16
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.

Luke 24
49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

In Matthew and Mark, He instructs them to "go," but in Luke, He instructs them to "stay." Also, only Luke mentions the disciples receiving what the Father promised, and only Luke mentions the disciples being clothed with power from on high.

One more thing I would like to mention (although, there are so many - maybe dozens more - similar differences that I could point out.):

Only in Luke do we see it mentioned that:

Luke 24
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

This statement is found nowhere in Matthew or Mark.

So, the question is, why do we see Luke's recollection of these events differing from the other two gospels in such a way that it paints a far closer relationship between the Lord and His disciples than do the other two gospels?

Why, in Luke ONLY:

-do the disciples "leave everything?"

-did He spend an extra night with the disciples on the mount of transfiguration?

-did He tell the disciples His blood was to be poured out for them, as opposed to "many?"

-did He NOT tell the disciples that they would desert Him?

-is it not mentioned that the disciples deserted Him?

-did He tell the disciples that they were to stay in the city until clothed with power from on high?

-is it mentioned that He opened their minds to understand the scriptures?

If anyone is interested in more of these differences, I will be happy to list more. I assure you, there are many more differences such as this, and they all fit the theme that we have seen here.

So, what is Luke trying to tell us here?

matthew94
Jul 15th 2008, 06:28 AM
I'd simply say that in those cases (and as a general rule, apparently) Luke is more interested in stressing issues of discipleship and relationship to Christ. Do you think there is a more complicated explanation for these observations?

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 12:32 PM
I'd simply say that in those cases (and as a general rule, apparently) Luke is more interested in stressing issues of discipleship and relationship to Christ. Do you think there is a more complicated explanation for these observations?

I don't know that I'd say "complicated." I would say there is a more "in depth" and "revealing" explanation for those observations.

Let me show you another example of a way in which Luke differs:

Matthew 24

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Mark 13
28"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
32"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Both Matthew and Mark show the Lord talking about how the time drawing near will be like a fig tree blooming, and then He talks about His words never passing away. In those two gospels, He talks about no one knowing the day or hour of His return, not even Himself.

Luke 21
29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.


Here in Luke, we can see the same things. But, instead of Him going on to say that no one knows the day or hour of His return, we see a different message:


34"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."


The statement about not knowing the time of His return is absent. Instead, we see Him talking about escaping "all that is about to happen."

Also, only in the Luke account do we see these statements:

22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."


What message do you suppose the Spirit of God is giving us by these diffrences?

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 03:18 PM
another interesting aspect of Luke. Count how many times he used the word "immediately". Then count that word in the other 4 Gospels.

RabbiKnife
Jul 15th 2008, 03:30 PM
I think you are grasping at straws that are not there.

Luke is a physician, a Greek, trained in the art of observation. He is a scientist of his day. His writing style is a natural outgrowth of his training with his emphasis on linear thought and detail.

Simply demonstrates the character of the man God chose to write this Gospel account.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 03:46 PM
another interesting aspect of Luke. Count how many times he used the word "immediately". Then count that word in the other 4 Gospels.

Actually, the three synoptics seem to use that word with relatively the same regularity. John only has it once. Unless I'm missing something? I just did a quick search on biblegateway.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 03:56 PM
I think you are grasping at straws that are not there.

Luke is a physician, a Greek, trained in the art of observation. He is a scientist of his day. His writing style is a natural outgrowth of his training with his emphasis on linear thought and detail.

Simply demonstrates the character of the man God chose to write this Gospel account.

I would suggest that you may be closing your eyes to what IS there, the clear and consistent and undeniable theme contained in these differences. What would "linear thought and detail" have to do with him not mentioning the disciples deserting Christ? If He was that concerned with detail, wouldn't he have mentioned the disciples fleeing?

Remember, these words were recorded by Yahweh's spirit, for a purpose. Any details that were included or excluded in these accounts were done so for a reason.

What differnce does him being a "Greek" make? In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

I would say to you and to everyone, look past the man of flesh who held the pen, and look into what the Spirit of Yahweh is telling us by these differences. He is saying something very important. And I haven't even shown half of them.

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 04:01 PM
Immediately for me speaks to the authority of Yeshua. Even in John, chapter 13 when He told Judas to leave and do what he must do.....

Joh 13:27 And after the morsel, then Satan entered into that one. Then Jesus said to him, What you do, do quickly.
Joh 13:28 But no one of those reclining knew this, for what He spoke to him;
Joh 13:29 for some thought, since Judas held the moneybag, that Jesus was saying to him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or that he should give something to the poor.
Joh 13:30 Then, receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. And it was night.

RabbiKnife
Jul 15th 2008, 04:15 PM
The words say what the words say.

Trying to "spiritualize" the Bible to find some deep, hidden meaning that the Spirit of God has revealed only to an elite few is the beginning of every cult ever conceived.

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 04:30 PM
I would suggest that you may be closing your eyes to what IS there, the clear and consistent and undeniable theme contained in these differences. What would "linear thought and detail" have to do with him not mentioning the disciples deserting Christ? If He was that concerned with detail, wouldn't he have mentioned the disciples fleeing?

Remember, these words were recorded by Yahweh's spirit, for a purpose. Any details that were included or excluded in these accounts were done so for a reason.

What differnce does him being a "Greek" make? In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

I would say to you and to everyone, look past the man of flesh who held the pen, and look into what the Spirit of Yahweh is telling us by these differences. He is saying something very important. And I haven't even shown half of them.

Not all true. Yeshua Himself said "To the Jew first". We are only one, because we Gentiles are grafted in. You take on the identity of Jesus, He doesn't take on yours.

Zack702
Jul 15th 2008, 05:28 PM
By now, it should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that Luke does not mention the disciples deserting Him.


So, the question is, why do we see Luke's recollection of these events differing from the other two gospels in such a way that it paints a far closer relationship between the Lord and His disciples than do the other two gospels?

Why, in Luke ONLY:

-do the disciples "leave everything?"

-did He spend an extra night with the disciples on the mount of transfiguration?

-did He tell the disciples His blood was to be poured out for them, as opposed to "many?"

-did He NOT tell the disciples that they would desert Him?

-is it not mentioned that the disciples deserted Him?

-did He tell the disciples that they were to stay in the city until clothed with power from on high?

-is it mentioned that He opened their minds to understand the scriptures?

So, what is Luke trying to tell us here?



Well it is a matter of interpretation. First I would like to point out that in Luke it does talk about the disciples deserting Jesus during the hour of darkness.

25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

I think that these passages try and elaborate as to the reason the disciples fled in the hour of darkness. Also as to why they must need to desert him in this hour because it was prophesy and because the benefactor is also made as the servant.
The disciples left everything meaning they left there former lives to follow Jesus meaning literally follow him and his words also meaning literally follow him in the hour of darkness. This is how they deserted him but Jesus prayed for them that they would not fail and they would be converted afterwards.

They spent the night in the mount whether or not this is a matter of interpretation.

I think he told them the blood was to be poured out as a example not as a literal saying. So as to who exactly it was poured out on is folly.

Again it is mentioned about the disciples deserting him in the hour of darkness. But that Jesus had prayed for them that they are converted even after this.

Luke has details mentioned in his scriptures they are well worth looking into. Could you elaborate more on exactly where your going with this?

Remember this verse
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 06:15 PM
Immediately for me speaks to the authority of Yeshua. Even in John, chapter 13 when He told Judas to leave and do what he must do.....

Joh 13:27 And after the morsel, then Satan entered into that one. Then Jesus said to him, What you do, do quickly.
Joh 13:28 But no one of those reclining knew this, for what He spoke to him;
Joh 13:29 for some thought, since Judas held the moneybag, that Jesus was saying to him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast; or that he should give something to the poor.
Joh 13:30 Then, receiving the morsel, he immediately went out. And it was night.




I see. I actually looked up the NIV version when searching the word. The KJV is a little different. I have not yet studied this issue with a concordance though.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 06:16 PM
Not all true. Yeshua Himself said "To the Jew first". We are only one, because we Gentiles are grafted in. You take on the identity of Jesus, He doesn't take on yours.


He instructed us to see past the flesh, which profits nothing. Physical, fleshly Israel was merely a type of the church - the true Israel. We must look at things spiritually at this point to have an understanding of what the Spirit may be trying to tell us.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 06:37 PM
Well it is a matter of interpretation. First I would like to point out that in Luke it does talk about the disciples deserting Jesus during the hour of darkness.

25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

I think that these passages try and elaborate as to the reason the disciples fled in the hour of darkness. Also as to why they must need to desert him in this hour because it was prophesy and because the benefactor is also made as the servant.
The disciples left everything meaning they left there former lives to follow Jesus meaning literally follow him and his words also meaning literally follow him in the hour of darkness. This is how they deserted him but Jesus prayed for them that they would not fail and they would be converted afterwards.

They spent the night in the mount whether or not this is a matter of interpretation.

I think he told them the blood was to be poured out as a example not as a literal saying. So as to who exactly it was poured out on is folly.

Again it is mentioned about the disciples deserting him in the hour of darkness. But that Jesus had prayed for them that they are converted even after this.

Luke has details mentioned in his scriptures they are well worth looking into. Could you elaborate more on exactly where your going with this?

Remember this verse
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.


I will get straight to the point of where I'm going.

The knowledge is in the differences of the gospels. When the gospels all harmonize on an account, we can take it for what it's worth. However, when certain details are included or excluded or changed by one writer or another, that is telling us something.

The issue with Peter denying the Lord is mentioned in all three synoptic gospels, so we can take that for what it's worth. But remember, it's the differences that tell us something.

Let me show you what I mean. In Luke at the Passover meal account, in direct contrast to "falling away," the Lord tells the disciples

Luke 22
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.

Only Luke mentions this. The other two gospels have the Lord telling His disciples that they will desert Him. You can be sure this is telling us something.

I'll get straight to the point. The gospel of Luke is directed towards the "end of the age" elect who will not desert Him, who will leave everything to follow Him (like Lot), stand by Him in His trials, and who will know the time of His coming (see above in the third post of this thread).

This group of elect will NOT taste death but will ascend alive because they will be prepared for His return, and stand by Him in His trials. This is why only in the Luke "Olivet Discourse" does the Lord say "Lift up your heads because your redemption is drawing near."

This is also why only the gospel of Luke ends with the disciples "continually in the temple, praising God." Our body is our temple. The elect will not leave their temple, but their temple will be transformed alive into an incorruptible body at which time they will ever worship God (See also the letter to the church in Philadelphia in Revelation This church represents the end time elect as well).

One more thing I would point out to you now (although there are many more things I could point out that would only further solidify this truth):

The last words of Christ on the cross as recorded in each gospel also give us an understanding of this.

In Matthew, it's: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

In Mark, it's: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

But in Luke, it's "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

Again, the revelation is in the differences.

There are many, many more points that I could highlight if anyone is interested in this at all.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 15th 2008, 06:50 PM
I would suggest that you may be closing your eyes to what IS there, the clear and consistent and undeniable theme contained in these differences. What would "linear thought and detail" have to do with him not mentioning the disciples deserting Christ? If He was that concerned with detail, wouldn't he have mentioned the disciples fleeing?

Remember, these words were recorded by Yahweh's spirit, for a purpose. Any details that were included or excluded in these accounts were done so for a reason.

What differnce does him being a "Greek" make? In Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

I would say to you and to everyone, look past the man of flesh who held the pen, and look into what the Spirit of Yahweh is telling us by these differences. He is saying something very important. And I haven't even shown half of them.

Actually, RabbiKnife is correct.

Luke didn't witness what Jesus did. Luke wasn't there. Luke had no interaction with Jesus. He even stated at the beginning of his gospel that he was writing down what happened from other eye witnesses. This means he most likely interviewed the disciples in a precise manner (being a Greek doctor) that gives us more accuracy than the other three Gospels.

We have to pay attention to the culture of Luke because it explains why he wrote the way he did and why he included what he did. He probably relied on Mark's Gospel as well as other eye witness accounts for completing his Gospel. This doesn't mean it's not inspired or that it's not true - it merely means we have to take these things into consideration when reading Luke so as to find a proper interpretation.

The reason it's more detailed is because it came form eye witnesses and, being a physician, he was a detailed man.


Also, as a side note: when the Bible tells us to "look past flesh" or that "the flesh profits nothing," it's referring to our sin nature, not to our physical bodies or to our culture. To assert otherwise is to accept a Gnostic rendering of the Bible (Marcion, for instance, believed the flesh was lower than the spirit). The fact is, the spirit and the physical world are equal, thus both must be considered when reading the Bible.

Zack702
Jul 15th 2008, 07:21 PM
Again, the revelation is in the differences.

There are many, many more points that I could highlight if anyone is interested in this at all.

This is interesting to me. I do see the difference and have always pondered at them but haven't put this much thought into it.

I will read over them again soon with these things you mentioned in mind.

And the fact that Luke was a Apostle makes Joey's point even more intriguing for me.

Joey Porter
Jul 15th 2008, 07:25 PM
Actually, RabbiKnife is correct.

Luke didn't witness what Jesus did. Luke wasn't there. Luke had no interaction with Jesus. He even stated at the beginning of his gospel that he was writing down what happened from other eye witnesses. This means he most likely interviewed the disciples in a precise manner (being a Greek doctor) that gives us more accuracy than the other three Gospels.

We have to pay attention to the culture of Luke because it explains why he wrote the way he did and why he included what he did. He probably relied on Mark's Gospel as well as other eye witness accounts for completing his Gospel. This doesn't mean it's not inspired or that it's not true - it merely means we have to take these things into consideration when reading Luke so as to find a proper interpretation.

The reason it's more detailed is because it came form eye witnesses and, being a physician, he was a detailed man.


Also, as a side note: when the Bible tells us to "look past flesh" or that "the flesh profits nothing," it's referring to our sin nature, not to our physical bodies or to our culture. To assert otherwise is to accept a Gnostic rendering of the Bible (Marcion, for instance, believed the flesh was lower than the spirit). The fact is, the spirit and the physical world are equal, thus both must be considered when reading the Bible.


The only thing that matters when discussing the gospel of Luke is that we accept that his words, and the details that he either included or excluded in his gospel account, are divinely inspired. And I trust that we both agree that his book was divinely inspired.
The gospel of Luke is not necessarity more detailed than the others as a whole. There are certain details that are mentioned in Matthew or Mark that aren't mentioned in Luke (such as the disciples deserting the Lord). And those differences mean something, too. Each gospel represents something different.
As far as the flesh profiting nothing, even Paul said:

Romans 2
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit

Physical Israel was only a type and shadow of the true spiritual Israel.
The only way we can come to understand heavenly things is by thinking heavenly. And the truths that are revealed to us by the gospel differences are very much heavenly things.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 15th 2008, 09:37 PM
The only thing that matters when discussing the gospel of Luke is that we accept that his words, and the details that he either included or excluded in his gospel account, are divinely inspired. And I trust that we both agree that his book was divinely inspired.
The gospel of Luke is not necessarity more detailed than the others as a whole. There are certain details that are mentioned in Matthew or Mark that aren't mentioned in Luke (such as the disciples deserting the Lord). And those differences mean something, too. Each gospel represents something different.
As far as the flesh profiting nothing, even Paul said:

Romans 2
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit

Physical Israel was only a type and shadow of the true spiritual Israel.
The only way we can come to understand heavenly things is by thinking heavenly. And the truths that are revealed to us by the gospel differences are very much heavenly things.


Did Jesus have a physical body?

keck553
Jul 15th 2008, 10:00 PM
I'll answer that. Yes. Yeshua had a physical body, and even in resurrection He did all the physical things anyone does (at least we know He ate).

Also, Jerusalem is the physical location where He will reign, and I will rejoice when I get my free fare there! Amen.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 01:04 AM
Did Jesus have a physical body?

He did. But there is something we all need to understand about His physical body. His physical earthly body was a living prophecy of what would eventually happen to His spiritual earthly body - the church who is His body!

Brace yourself. Are you ready for this?

Isaiah 52
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him —
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness

The world can't recognize Christ because His body (in the form of the church) is so marred that He is unrecognizable. How can we expect the world to know the Truth when the church, with its 20,000+ denominations, can't even agree on the truth? His physical flesh being marred and shredded apart was nothing less than a prophecy of what was going to happen to the body of Christ!

I assure you this is the case. Let me give you just one example of this:

Mark 4
18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful

What do thorns what represent? The worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desires for "other things."

What was placed upon Yahshua's head during His time of suffering? A crown of thorns, of course. The head represents that which controls us. The church, the body of Christ, wears a crown of the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desires for "other things."
The church does NOT seek him in SPIRIT and Truth, otherwise His body would no be so fragmented. They seek Him with their carnal, earthly minds, hence the division.

But you see, this is the way it must be, because it was prophecied in His flesh body.

As went the body of Christ, so goes the body of Christ.

The gospel of Mark represents the assembled body of Christ. There are many differences in that gospel that show us that is the case.

Have you ever noticed that the gospel of Mark consistently shows Christ saying He would rise "after three days" while Matthew and Luke consistently tell us He would rise "on the third day."

What do you make of that?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 16th 2008, 01:16 AM
Just so everyone can see - this is what happens when you attempt to "spiritualize" Scripture and devalue the physical world. You end up with a Gnostic interpretation. "Jesus' real body is the church."

His physical suffering is devalued, what He endured is ignored...all so we can find a spiritual interpretation. This is nothing more than the beginning of Gnosticism my friends.

This is why it's important to look at the most realistic explanation of Luke - he was more detailed because of his culture and vocation and has a different perspective on things because he interviewed different people.

Mograce2U
Jul 16th 2008, 01:20 AM
Just so everyone can see - this is what happens when you attempt to "spiritualize" Scripture and devalue the physical world. You end up with a Gnostic interpretation. "Jesus' real body is the church."

His physical suffering is devalued, what He endured is ignored...all so we can find a spiritual interpretation. This is nothing more than the beginning of Gnosticism my friends.

This is why it's important to look at the most realistic explanation of Luke - he was more detailed because of his culture and vocation and has a different perspective on things because he interviewed different people.How true. Such attempts to make metaphors where none exist is carnal however, not spiritual...

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:12 AM
Just so everyone can see - this is what happens when you attempt to "spiritualize" Scripture and devalue the physical world. You end up with a Gnostic interpretation. "Jesus' real body is the church."

His physical suffering is devalued, what He endured is ignored...all so we can find a spiritual interpretation. This is nothing more than the beginning of Gnosticism my friends.

This is why it's important to look at the most realistic explanation of Luke - he was more detailed because of his culture and vocation and has a different perspective on things because he interviewed different people.

No, this is taking an honest look at a church that claims to be led by one Spirit and and uses one book and yet sees 20,000 different truths. A church that likes to use labels such as "gnosticism" and "cult" but is not even willing to take an honest look at itself and confess that something is horribly wrong with such division. A lukewarm church that is full of hypocrisy because it condemns the world for believing in different "truths" while within its own walls is willing to accept many different conflicting and contradicting truths.

Mark 3
25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Those are the Lord's words, not my own. If you will not accept those words and confess that the church is a house divided, then I certainly won't try to force you. In time you will see.

And, where was Yahshua's suffering devalued in my post?

matthew94
Jul 16th 2008, 03:22 AM
Just because there are different locations where the church meets doesn't NECESSARILY mean each local church is divided from others. I attend a denomination called the Wesleyan Church, but I am in unity of mission with the independant, baptist, lutheran & methodists churches across town.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:30 AM
Just because there are different locations where the church meets doesn't NECESSARILY mean each local church is divided from others. I attend a denomination called the Wesleyan Church, but I am in unity of mission with the independant, baptist, lutheran & methodists churches across town.

The physical location is not what I'm referring to.

Let me ask you a serious question. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'm asking an honest question that everyone reading this should ask.

How can there be a "unity of mission" between Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists?

If an honest seeking person comes to a Baptist and Methodist who are together, and asks what he must do to be saved from "eternal hellfire," you know full well that there's a good chance that the Baptist may tell him that he must simply say a prayer and have his eternal destiny sealed, while the Methodist would tell him that he must believe and then live obediently to ensure his salvation.

So, right from the get go, confusion would start for this seeker. And this is no small issue. This is a person's eternal status we're talking about here.

This is what I have been talking about. Is this really the way things should be if the church as a whole is being led by the Spirit of Truth who will:

"guide you into all truth?" (John 16:13)

At the very least, shouldn't there be agreement on what a person must do to be saved? But there isn't.

Mograce2U
Jul 16th 2008, 03:30 AM
He did. But there is something we all need to understand about His physical body. His physical earthly body was a living prophecy of what would eventually happen to His spiritual earthly body - the church who is His body!

Brace yourself. Are you ready for this?

Isaiah 52
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him —
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man
and his form marred beyond human likeness

The world can't recognize Christ because His body (in the form of the church) is so marred that He is unrecognizable. How can we expect the world to know the Truth when the church, with its 20,000+ denominations, can't even agree on the truth? His physical flesh being marred and shredded apart was nothing less than a prophecy of what was going to happen to the body of Christ!

I assure you this is the case. Let me give you just one example of this:

Mark 4
18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful

What do thorns what represent? The worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desires for "other things."

What was placed upon Yahshua's head during His time of suffering? A crown of thorns, of course. The head represents that which controls us. The church, the body of Christ, wears a crown of the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desires for "other things."
The church does NOT seek him in SPIRIT and Truth, otherwise His body would no be so fragmented. They seek Him with their carnal, earthly minds, hence the division.

But you see, this is the way it must be, because it was prophecied in His flesh body.

As went the body of Christ, so goes the body of Christ.

The gospel of Mark represents the assembled body of Christ. There are many differences in that gospel that show us that is the case.

Have you ever noticed that the gospel of Mark consistently shows Christ saying He would rise "after three days" while Matthew and Luke consistently tell us He would rise "on the third day."

What do you make of that?The application you have drawn from Isa 52 is a spiritualizing of the text which makes it not exegesis but eisegesis = you have added something that is not there. Isaiah is prophesying what will literally happen to the physical body of Jesus. It need say nothing else about the things you have added.

Likewise the seed sown among thorns has nothing to do with the crown of thorns placed upon Jesus' head. Which Jesus even goes on to explain the parable for us - and the meaning you give is not in His interpretation.

Instead what you are trying to do is give support to your idea that the church of Christ is corrupt. We have other passages that show us the reason divisions exist in the body and it is due to heresy. Your creative interpretation, as interesting as it may be, is forcing the word of God to say something it does not. Which means it falls under "Has God really said?" not "Thus sayeth the Lord".

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 03:44 AM
The application you have drawn from Isa 52 is a spiritualizing of the text which makes it not exegeses but eisegesis = you have added something that is not there. Isaiah is prophesying what will literally happed to the physical body of Jesus. It need say nothing else about the things you have added.

Likewise the seed sown among thorns has nothing to do with the crown of thorns placed upon Jesus' head. Which Jesus even goes on to explain the parable for us - and the meaning you give is not in His interpretation.

Instead what you are trying to do is give support to your idea that the church of Christ is corrupt. We have other passages that show us the reason divisions exist in the body and it is due to heresy. Your creative interpretation, as interesting as it may be, is forcing the word of God to say something it does not. Which means it falls under "Has God really said?" not "Thus sayeth the Lord".

Well then I have another question for you. Or this may end up being a few questions.

Why is it that Yahshua rebuked not only the pharisees, but even His own disciples, for not understanding that the (what we now call the Old Testament) scriptures spoke of Him, or told what He would do.

Luke 18
31Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."
34The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

I will ask you an honest question, and hopefully you can give me an honest answer. Can you find anywhere in the Old Testament where it specifically says beyond question that the Son of Man would be "handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again?"

Be honest!

If you are being honest, which hopefully you are, then you will say no. And yet, Yahshua clearly states that this is what was written! But neither in that day, nor even this day, do we see that specifically written in the Old Testament.

He even rebuked Cleopas and the other disciple for not understanding.

Luke 24
25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?"

He rebuked them for not understanding what was not even understandable to them!

What do you think this tells us about the way Yahweh has inspired the scriptures to be written?

Mograce2U
Jul 16th 2008, 04:08 AM
Jesus had been teaching the disciples for 3 years during which time He no doubt expounded many things from the scriptures to them - more than what we have reported for us. Jonah for instance was said to be a sign given to Israel of His 3 days in the grave. Isaiah 53 certainly covers much of what they should have known the Messiah would suffer. Every where you find an OT quote mentioned you see how Jesus, or later the apostles applied it. What prevented their understanding pre-cross was because they had not yet accepted what He was telling them - as they had their own ideas still. Which can be seen even at the last supper they were still arguing amongst themselves who would be greatest in the earthly kingdom they thought was coming.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 04:15 AM
they had not yet accepted what He was telling them - as they had their own ideas still.

Does not the existence of 20,000 different denominatinos tell you that the same problem still exists today?

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 04:29 AM
The physical location is not what I'm referring to.

Let me ask you a serious question. I'm not trying to stir up trouble, I'm asking an honest question that everyone reading this should ask.

How can there be a "unity of mission" between Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists?

If an honest seeking person comes to a Baptist and Methodist who are together, and asks what he must do to be saved from "eternal hellfire," you know full well that there's a good chance that the Baptist may tell him that he must simply say a prayer and have his eternal destiny sealed, while the Methodist would tell him that he must believe and then live obediently to ensure his salvation.

So, right from the get go, confusion would start for this seeker. And this is no small issue. This is a person's eternal status we're talking about here.

This is what I have been talking about. Is this really the way things should be if the church as a whole is being led by the Spirit of Truth who will:

"guide you into all truth?" (John 16:13)

At the very least, shouldn't there be agreement on what a person must do to be saved? But there isn't.

Yea but I think they all agree on Jesus and they all use the Holy Bible right? I think the true division is between religions not churches.

Mograce2U
Jul 16th 2008, 04:38 AM
Does not the existence of 20,000 different denominatinos tell you that the same problem still exists today?Sure it does. Mainly because those false teachers in that day continued to multiply - you know those men who have an appearance of godliness but know not the power of it. I am surprised there are not more Popes running around than there are. But it is not the Church of Christ who is corrupt, because the Lord keeps and watches over her. The need to be a good Berean is still necessary.

Zack702
Jul 16th 2008, 04:39 AM
I will ask you an honest question, and hopefully you can give me an honest answer. Can you find anywhere in the Old Testament where it specifically says beyond question that the Son of Man would be "handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again?"

Be honest!


Thats not the way prophesy works. Prophesy works with tales of the things to come. Which include the entire scope of them but not many details. And in that way they cannot be completely known. The deepest prophesies have no details but carry with them a spirit.

I will point you to a place where I do find prophesy inline with this.
A place called Jehovahjireh where Isaac asked Abraham where is the offering?

7And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?
8And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

No this does not say specifically the details of the crucifixion but it does seam to be in line with it.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 05:07 AM
Well, I don't want to get too far off the topic. I'm sure we could go round and round about this issue of the modern church being Babylon. But what I will attempt to do is once again, using gospel differences, show that in fact we are now in the time in which the church is Babylon and that it is the time for the bride of Christ to come out of the body of Christ (Genesis 2:22).

To do this, we must go to the account of the Transfiguration as recorded in the book of Luke. ONLY in Luke do we see this detail mentioned:

Luke 9
32Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him.

Now, why would Luke, the gospel for the end time elect contain that detail? We must go to the book of Matthew for our answer.

The disciples asked Yahshua:

Matthew 24
"what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Of course He went on to say many things, but He told one particular parable that will help us make some sense of why the end time gospel of Luke tells us that the disciples became "fully awake."


Matthew 25
1"At that time (the time of His coming and the end of the age) the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.

6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

This is why Luke mentions the detail about the disciples waking up. Because right now He is "opening our minds to the scriptures" to understand them in a way that has not been considered before. The way that will show us that we are approaching the time of His coming and our redemption is drawing near - IF - we're keeping our lamps oiled.

matthew94
Jul 16th 2008, 05:28 AM
I was curious as to what your point was from the get-go. I am glad you shared it. That being said, I think your point, that Luke was inspired specifically for our present day (as opposed to all other days) is way off. In addition to this, while I think you have some good motivations for what you say, your comments since the opening post reveal other errors in your thinking as well. Just my opinion.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 05:33 AM
I was curious as to what your point was from the get-go. I am glad you shared it. That being said, I think your point, that Luke was inspired specifically for our present day (as opposed to all other days) is way off. In addition to this, while I think you have some good motivations for what you say, your comments since the opening post reveal other errors in your thinking as well. Just my opinion.

That's fine if you feel as though there are errors in my thinking. I expect that.

But I do want to clear one thing up. The teachings in Luke, the book as it stands, are profitable for any age. But it is only now, specifically by design in this time, that Yahweh is opening a deeper Truth about what the gospel of Luke points to.

Mograce2U
Jul 16th 2008, 03:45 PM
That's fine if you feel as though there are errors in my thinking. I expect that.

But I do want to clear one thing up. The teachings in Luke, the book as it stands, are profitable for any age. But it is only now, specifically by design in this time, that Yahweh is opening a deeper Truth about what the gospel of Luke points to.But if you do not see how 1st century Israel was in view in all these parables you will never see the type clearly for the spiritual truths which do apply to any age.

When we look back to prophecies about the Babylon Capitivity where the details of those events is given in scripture, we have a clearer picture of what transpired and why as well as Israel's hope. These things can then continue to teach future generations. And Exodus was memorialized in the feasts of Israel for that reason. The Lord's table is given to us to memorialize the cross and resurrection so that it can continue to teach us and keep faith and hope alive. And in all these historical events and the prophecies that concerned them we have this common purpose and goal in order to guide the people of God as they walk in this world.

So when we get to Revelation and see all the symbols which point us to past events in Israel's history, we find the pattern established in the OT to help us understand the events that were about to come to pass in that day. Those things are now history to us but they all have to do with the fulfillment of the prophecies which spoke about Jesus. Revelation will never be able to teach us if we cannot see clearly how those prohecies were fulfilled in the 1st advent by the Lord when He walked the earth and after His return to heaven. Jesus is Lord and reigns as King over Israel.

The events of 30-70AD glorify Him in what He has done for us and gives us faith and hope in what the future holds for us. But those things are not going to be repeated any more than there will be another Exodus or Bablylon captivity in our future. However there is spiritual truth contained in those past events which can continue to teach us and build our faith as we walk in this world. But our hope is now firmly upon the eternal after life which was not as clear in the OT but ought to be in the NT, since we have been given that life now and are become citizens of His kingdom.

If the prophecies of Revelation are all still in the future then there is nothing but speculation to be found there. A good guess is not a good teacher. But history properly understood is. And like the prophecies of old, our hope is held forth to us also - which is the New Jerusalem. This is the hope in which our faith is based, that Jesus has prepared this place for us. And we know it by faith because we understand all that He came to accomplish to make this hope a reality for His people.

I suspect that the reason you see the Church becoming corrupt and defiled is because she has not held fast to her faith in this hope. But faith is what the Lord purifies thru the washing of the water of His word. A muddied understanding of what He has done is not going to keep our feet clean as we walk in this world. And those who do not keep to the high and narrow path where the Lord leads are going to find themselves falling into this muddy ditch - where speculation and confusion abounds.

Joey Porter
Jul 16th 2008, 09:00 PM
But if you do not see how 1st century Israel was in view in all these parables you will never see the type clearly for the spiritual truths which do apply to any age.

When we look back to prophecies about the Babylon Capitivity where the details of those events is given in scripture, we have a clearer picture of what transpired and why as well as Israel's hope. These things can then continue to teach future generations. And Exodus was memorialized in the feasts of Israel for that reason. The Lord's table is given to us to memorialize the cross and resurrection so that it can continue to teach us and keep faith and hope alive. And in all these historical events and the prophecies that concerned them we have this common purpose and goal in order to guide the people of God as they walk in this world.

So when we get to Revelation and see all the symbols which point us to past events in Israel's history, we find the pattern established in the OT to help us understand the events that were about to come to pass in that day. Those things are now history to us but they all have to do with the fulfillment of the prophecies which spoke about Jesus. Revelation will never be able to teach us if we cannot see clearly how those prohecies were fulfilled in the 1st advent by the Lord when He walked the earth and after His return to heaven. Jesus is Lord and reigns as King over Israel.

The events of 30-70AD glorify Him in what He has done for us and gives us faith and hope in what the future holds for us. But those things are not going to be repeated any more than there will be another Exodus or Bablylon captivity in our future. However there is spiritual truth contained in those past events which can continue to teach us and build our faith as we walk in this world. But our hope is now firmly upon the eternal after life which was not as clear in the OT but ought to be in the NT, since we have been given that life now and are become citizens of His kingdom.

If the prophecies of Revelation are all still in the future then there is nothing but speculation to be found there. A good guess is not a good teacher. But history properly understood is. And like the prophecies of old, our hope is held forth to us also - which is the New Jerusalem. This is the hope in which our faith is based, that Jesus has prepared this place for us. And we know it by faith because we understand all that He came to accomplish to make this hope a reality for His people.

I suspect that the reason you see the Church becoming corrupt and defiled is because she has not held fast to her faith in this hope. But faith is what the Lord purifies thru the washing of the water of His word. A muddied understanding of what He has done is not going to keep our feet clean as we walk in this world. And those who do not keep to the high and narrow path where the Lord leads are going to find themselves falling into this muddy ditch - where speculation and confusion abounds.


This is not the proper outlook. It is true that 1st century Israel was in view in these parables - in the first century! The living and active aspect of Yahweh's word now shows us that these parables pertain to the church in out time.

These parables are not dead. God's word is not dead. These parables, the words of Christ, are as alive now as they were then. Physical Israel was merely a type, a foreshadowing, of the church. Paul plainly tells us this in 1 Corinthians chapter 10.

I honestly can't tell you how fatal of a mistake it is to pin the words of Yahshua into a different time, either past or future, or pin them onto a different people, other than ourselves. And almost everyone does this.
Until we can come to see that the scriptures apply to each one of us, until we can see and accept that we all have a self righteous pharisee praying in the temple inside ourselves, a rich man who pays no attention to Lazarus, a Cain who wants to slay his brother, a Peter who denies Christ, a hasty Martha, even a Judas, we will never start to "clean the inside of our dish" as Yahshua commanded. And we will be held accountable for it. All of these real life characters are types and shadows and representations of what we have inside of us, inside of our sinful nature. What I say here is true and it is very important.

But I digress...

Let me show a way in which the book of Luke, the gospel that petains to the end times elect, relates to the church in Philadelphia, which is also the church that pertains to and is made up of the end times elect.

Luke 24
53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

I don't know if you saw my previous post, explaining why Luke is the only gospel to end by saying that the disciples were "continually at the temple, praising God." Our body is our temple. The end time elect bride of Christ, at the time of His return, will not die, but be transformed alive, in the twinkling of an eye. They will never actually leave the "temple," their bodies.

See how this relates to the church of Philadelphia:

Revelation 3
12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.

Let's look at one more way in which Luke directly relates to this church:
Again, as I mentioned previously, only in Luke's version of the Olivet discourse do we see Yahshua saying:

Luke 21
22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Again, we see that this relates to the church of Philadelphia:

Revelation 3
10Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth.

It is so crucial to understand that Yahshua's words, the whole word of God, is living and active!

Scubadude
Jul 18th 2008, 07:25 AM
I honestly can't tell you how fatal of a mistake it is to pin the words of Yahshua into a different time, either past or future, or pin them onto a different people, other than ourselves. And almost everyone does this.
It is so crucial to understand that Yahshua's words, the whole word of God, is living and active!


I'm enjoying the discussion. It (God's word pinned down in time and space) seems to be the responses you've been getting . It lets people off the hook, while looking like they are addressing your thoughts. Cowardly, IMO.

The word of God is as living and active as we are. Some people change dramatically throughout the years. They experience grace, and rivers of living water flow from their innermost being. The scriptures become a doorway to other thoughts.

Others, through study of the scripture, do nothing more than develop stronger arguments for their bulwark positions. It shows a lack of inspiration. Hmmm? Inspiration?

Joey Porter
Jul 18th 2008, 07:47 AM
I'm enjoying the discussion. It (God's word pinned down in time and space) seems to be the responses you've been getting . It lets people off the hook, while looking like they are addressing your thoughts. Cowardly, IMO.

The word of God is as living and active as we are. Some people change dramatically throughout the years. They experience grace, and rivers of living water flow from their innermost being. The scriptures become a doorway to other thoughts.

Others, through study of the scripture, do nothing more than develop stronger arguments for their bulwark positions. It shows a lack of inspiration. Hmmm? Inspiration?

Scubadude!

I'm glad you've gotten something out of this discussion. The Word is SO living and active. When I first began to realize that all of the people in scripture actually make up what is in us, that we all have the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman in us, it completely changed the way I look at myself, and everyone else, as well as Yahweh Himself and all of creation.

Scubadude
Jul 18th 2008, 08:32 AM
What I am about to present to you is something that you most likely have never noticed before.



Hey, Joey

I'm curious, when or what caused you to start looking at Luke this way?

Kevin

Joey Porter
Jul 18th 2008, 09:48 AM
Hey, Joey

I'm curious, when or what caused you to start looking at Luke this way?

Kevin

Kevin,

About a year ago, I became acquainted with a gentleman who claims to have been given a revelation from Yahweh about the state of the church, how the church age began, how it will end, and what has been happening in the kingdom over the last 2,000 years.

Obviously, at first, I was skeptical. People who claim to get revelations from God are a dime a dozen. But his scriptural and spiritual insight was and is undeniable. After conversing with him for some time, and reading what he had to say about many things, I began to become more and more convinced.

He had also claimed to be given a revelation about the theme of gospel differences, and what those differences reveal. Each gospel represents a different group of people, or we could even say a different dispensation or different work of the kindgom. He had only pointed out about a dozen or so differences that all did fall in line very well. He claims that he doesn't search for any gospel differences, He just waits for Yahweh to reveal them to him.

Well, I wasn't that patient. I decided to study this issue, gospel by gospel, and see just how well this theme of differences held up throughout the 4 books. To my amazement, I have, as of now, found well over 100 gospel variations (including many that you see in this thread), that I am sure no one had ever noticed before, that all fall in line with the theme of what he claims each gospel represents. I have found many that he had not even found, much to his excitement.

I'll just give you a few brief examples here, but I can PM you much more on this issue. I assure you, what I have pointed out in this thread is only the very tip of the iceberg on this issue. I am beyond convinced that this man has received a revelation from Yahweh on this.

The book of Luke, as I have been saying throughout this thread, represents the age and disciples of the end time elect. The book of Matthew represents the disciples and early believers of the beginning of the church. The book of Mark represents the long church age in between the the early faithful church and the end time elect bride. (This 2,000 year church age has been a time of blindness, hence the 20,000 plus denominations in the church world. Clearly the church can not see things clearly with all of the discord and division.)

This time of blindness is what Yahshua spoke of in John when He said:

John 9
As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.


And, as for that gospel, John, we find it represents the pure Kingdom gospel, the kingdom of heaven.

So we have:

Matthew = early disciples, early believers, beginning of the church.
Mark = 2,000 year church age, "night," when no one has been able to work, or see in the dark
Luke = end time elect
John = Kingdom of God has come

How do we know that the gospel of John represents the pure kingdom? Well, first of all, there are no parables in the book of John. And, while many people will give different "earthly" reasons as to why this is so, the honest Truth of the matter is that there are no parables in John because the Spirit of Yahweh did not inspire there to be any parables in that gospel.

So, how does a lack of parables corrolate to John being the kingdom age gospel? Because, in the Kingdom, men will dwell with God, and they will see Him as He is. Truth will not be masked in parables and riddles in the pure kingdom. We will finally see all things clearly.

This is also why the gospel of John starts off so much differently than the other gospels, focusing on the divinity of Christ.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


This is also why the gospel of John ends so much differently than the other gospels:

John 21
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Men, particularly those in the church, have completely limited and understimated what Christ accomplished at the cross and what He will ultimately accomplish in His kingdom. None of our minds can even begin to fully comprehend what will be infinitely be accomlished in His Kingdom. Hence, John ends the way it does.


Contrast this with Luke's ending which I already pointed out, as well as the other two gospels. Everything, every detail, every word, has meaning, and is revealing something to us. This is what separates those who just want to sniff God's Word from those who want to bite into it, chew it, digest it, absorb it, meditate on it, and wrestle with it, at any cost.

This is also why the last recorded words of Christ on the cross in John are "It is finished." What a huge contrast this is with Matthew and Mark which give us His last words as being "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" This all means something. Yahweh is speaking to us by these differences.

Luke's last words are different than all the other gospels. "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Because that is what the end time elect will do. We will commit our spirit to Yahweh, and wait for Him to clothe us with power from on high. (Luke 24:29)

Not to mention the fact that John is the only gospel to specify that Christ carried His own cross (John 19:17), completely leaving Simon of Cirene out of the account altogether. This is because, in the kingdom, men will see that Christ has done all the work, having chosen us and sculpted us to be fit for the kingdom, purchasing us by His blood, working in us, so that we have no room to boast.

The key is to not stress so much on trying to harmonize the gospels, as most people do, but to understand what is being told to us by the ways in which they don't harmonize.

Let me give you just one more example, though I can PM you much more. Only the gospel of Luke features the account of the Lord saying to the thief "Today, you will be with me in paradise." Why? Because it IS the end time elect who will be with Him today in paradise. Those words are as living and active today as they were 2,000 years ago. They are speaking to a people now just as much as they were speaking to a person then. We are now early in the third day, the beginning of the third 1,000 year period since Christ set up His church. And it is in this third day that He is beginning to reveal to us these scriptural revelations that have been hidden from man for the last 2,000 years. For no reason other than the fact that it is the time for these things to be understood. No matter how dilligently men may have searched for these truths for the last 2,000 years, it was impossible for them to understand these things, because it was night. And because, only now, as is only mentioned in the gospel of Luke:

Luke 24
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures

It is time for us to understand these things, so He is opening our minds to the scriptures. IF - we do not harden ourselves to what He is clearly speaking to us by these gospel differences, we will understand them.

Scubadude
Jul 18th 2008, 04:03 PM
The key is to not stress so much on trying to harmonize the gospels, as most people do, but to understand what is being told to us by the ways in which they don't harmonize.


It is time for us to understand these things, so He is opening our minds to the scriptures. IF - we do not harden ourselves to what He is clearly speaking to us by these gospel differences, we will understand them.


I think it is very fascinating and fully within good hermeneutics to focus on how the gospels don't harmonize, and the implications that come from that study. I've owned a few parallel bibles, and found it very unengaging to try to harmonize the gospels. It's always seemed a bit presumptuous to 'harmonize' God's will. It's far more interesting to think God had a reason for the inconsistencies, and He wants us to hunt for the hidden nuggets of gold. A lot of your ideas are very interesting, and some I'm not on board with.

But, your point that God speaks as much in the hidden things and silence as well as in the "Thou shalt nots" is well taken. It can be a very threatening thought to those accustomed to only traditional religious expression. You could argue that the resistance you are getting on this thread is the result of the very thing you are talking about. Only a small elect will have eyes to see the differences, as they will represent the true church in the end times. The danger, and I imagine you understand this, is that your argument puts you in the right, no matter how right or wrong you insights might be. I'm not talking about the meat of your discussion on the differences between the gospels, there very interesting. I'm wondering out loud how these thoughts effect others, to what end has this new way of thinking changed the way you relate to others? Do you love differently because of these new thoughts? Odd questions? Please indulge me for a few replies.

Mograce2U
Jul 18th 2008, 05:13 PM
Joey Porter,
It is true that only the Holy Spirit can enlighten our eyes to the truth that scriptures contain. But that light must be IN the scripture in order to be found and it does not predispose that we must study them as well. There is not going to be anything to find which is not consistent with scripture as a whole. The NT light confirms its source is hidden in the OT details. So if one recognizes what has been given before then he has a place to put his new light to let scripture interpret scripture for him. But we ought not to take leaps with scripture and go beyond what we find to add what is not there already. IOW not putting the scriptures together in such a way to say something else other than what is intended to be revealed so that we might have the understanding we need.

For example, TODAY is not going to be revealed to mean anything other than what "today" is normally understood to mean. It is a bad hermeneutic that makes today really mean tomorrow. God is not contradicting Himself nor trying to confuse us. We ought not to try and make metaphors out of texts that give no inkling that they are metaphorical according to the context or the intent of the author. If today really means tomorrow then Jesus was not promising anything to the thief on the cross that he could expect to have.

Luke 24
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

What you have "revealed" is not what is in the text at all! Nor have you pointed us to other scripture which might be the source for this understanding which is related to that scripture. Instead you have taken a leap to put in something that is not there to make today really mean tomorrow which takes away what was said to the thief on the cross that Jesus was speaking to. Jesus and the thief were both about to die and because of his faith, the thief was forgiven and would be with Jesus where He was going. And that is consistent with Jesus' promise in John 14.

Mograce2U
Jul 18th 2008, 05:20 PM
(Psa 118:24 KJV) This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.

That is the TODAY Jesus is telling the thief about - the day of salvation!

Joey Porter
Jul 18th 2008, 08:50 PM
I think it is very fascinating and fully within good hermeneutics to focus on how the gospels don't harmonize, and the implications that come from that study. I've owned a few parallel bibles, and found it very unengaging to try to harmonize the gospels. It's always seemed a bit presumptuous to 'harmonize' God's will. It's far more interesting to think God had a reason for the inconsistencies, and He wants us to hunt for the hidden nuggets of gold. A lot of your ideas are very interesting, and some I'm not on board with.

But, your point that God speaks as much in the hidden things and silence as well as in the "Thou shalt nots" is well taken. It can be a very threatening thought to those accustomed to only traditional religious expression. You could argue that the resistance you are getting on this thread is the result of the very thing you are talking about. Only a small elect will have eyes to see the differences, as they will represent the true church in the end times. The danger, and I imagine you understand this, is that your argument puts you in the right, no matter how right or wrong you insights might be. I'm not talking about the meat of your discussion on the differences between the gospels, there very interesting. I'm wondering out loud how these thoughts effect others, to what end has this new way of thinking changed the way you relate to others? Do you love differently because of these new thoughts? Odd questions? Please indulge me for a few replies.

How does this affect others? Well, first let me say that the gospel differences are not the be-all end-all of this study. The ultimate Truth is that Yahshua is going to be soon returning for a bride, a bride that needs to come out of the body of the last Adam - out of the body of Christ. The gospel differences are just one aspect of this study that reveals the Truth of it.

The revelations of this are all throughout scripture. There was a time when all believers were one in heart and mind.

Acts 4
32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.

This is what Yahshua will be looking for in His bride. The fragmented and divided body of Christ does not fit this description. He is, at this time, awakening a people to come out and form a bride. (Matthew 25:6) Those who do not have oil in their lamps will not be a part of the bride.

Now is where things will get interesting:

Zechariah 13

8 In the whole land," declares the LORD,
"two-thirds will be struck down and perish;
yet one-third will be left in it. 9 This third I will bring into the fire;
I will refine them like silver
and test them like gold.
They will call on my name
and I will answer them;
I will say, 'They are my people,'
and they will say, 'The LORD is our God.' "

This is where not having an understanding of Yahweh's living and active word will be detrimental to people understanding what is being said here. These words must be taken to apply to our time now.

Christ established His church 2,000 years ago. And for those entire 2,000 years, everyone has died. (Two thirds have perished.) However, in this third day, those who remain in the body of Christ and do not come out to be a part of the bride will have to be refined by fire over the course of the next "day" (1,000 years). Men will not die during this 1,000 year period, because the devil, who holds the power of death (Hebrews 2:14), will be locked up in the abyss (Revelation 20:3).

There are many more scriptures and living parables we could look at that show us this, but we must move on.

As for the bride, she will make herself ready (Revelation 19:7), and will be rewarded with fine linen to wear (Revelation 19:8), that is "being clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). However, those who are still in the body, who are not a part of the bride, will not be given the fine linen to wear, and will be cast out among the nations, failing to receive their glorified bodies without first enduring purification for the 1,000 years. (Matthew 22:11-13)

Also, during this time, the faithful believers from the early church will be resurrected from the grave to be united with the end of the age elect, to form the complete two part bride of Yahshua. This two part bride is the water and the blood that poured from Yahshua's side as He slept on the cross.

See also the miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding feast on the "third day."

John 2
1On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee.

Remember, no words or details are coincidental or accidental. There is a reason why this miracle of turning water into wine (blood) happened at a wedding feast on the "third day." Because the third day is the day in which the two part bride of Christ (the water and blood from His side) will be glorified as one. (The transfiguration also represents this Truth, but that's a whole nother subject for a whole nother time.)

The body of Christ is sleeping, and doesn't know or understand or accept these Truths. Hence, just as a bride came out of the sleeping first Adam, so will a bride come out of the sleeping last Adam.

How can we say this about the body of Christ? How can we say that they will have to endure 1,000 years of purification? Well, it should come as no surprise that the gospel differences bear witness to this.

Remember, Matthew represents the early faithful disciples and believers who died, who will be resurrected and united with the end time faithful elect. Mark represents the church/body of Christ period, and Luke represents the end time elect who will never see die.

So, what does the gospel of Mark reveal to us about the body of Christ having to wait an extra "day" to receive their glorified bodies? Let's see the differences.

In Matthew and Luke, Yahshua consistently told His disciples:

Matthew 17
22When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. 23They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life."

Luke 18
32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."

But what does He say consistently in the gospel of Mark?

Mark 8
He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Feel free to read through each gospel pertaining to the times He said this to His disciples. We consistenly see in Matthew and Luke that He will rise on "the third day," but in Mark, He will rise "after three days."

This is the extra "day," the extra 1,000 years that the body of Christ will have to wait to receive their glorified bodies.

There are probably books more that could be written about this, but I will leave off there for now.

To answer your questions, I don't know that this has really changed how I relate to others. I still see them as brothers and sisters in Christ, but the only problem is that they are a part of the sleeping, divided body, and unless they see the need to "come out of her" and form a bride who will be united in mind and make herself ready, they will not receive their glorified bodies upon the Lord's return. I don't take any joy or pride in any of this. I'm simply one of a growing number of people who have been chosen to start understanding this.

I don't see anyone in the bride as being better than anyone in the body. I just look at it as the way Yahweh has ordained things to be, foreshadowed all the way back in the garden when Eve came out of Adam. He is in control of all of this, not ourselves.

Joey Porter
Jul 18th 2008, 09:10 PM
Joey Porter,
It is true that only the Holy Spirit can enlighten our eyes to the truth that scriptures contain. But that light must be IN the scripture in order to be found and it does not predispose that we must study them as well. There is not going to be anything to find which is not consistent with scripture as a whole. The NT light confirms its source is hidden in the OT details. So if one recognizes what has been given before then he has a place to put his new light to let scripture interpret scripture for him. But we ought not to take leaps with scripture and go beyond what we find to add what is not there already. IOW not putting the scriptures together in such a way to say something else other than what is intended to be revealed so that we might have the understanding we need.

For example, TODAY is not going to be revealed to mean anything other than what "today" is normally understood to mean. It is a bad hermeneutic that makes today really mean tomorrow. God is not contradicting Himself nor trying to confuse us. We ought not to try and make metaphors out of texts that give no inkling that they are metaphorical according to the context or the intent of the author. If today really means tomorrow then Jesus was not promising anything to the thief on the cross that he could expect to have.

Luke 24
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

What you have "revealed" is not what is in the text at all! Nor have you pointed us to other scripture which might be the source for this understanding which is related to that scripture. Instead you have taken a leap to put in something that is not there to make today really mean tomorrow which takes away what was said to the thief on the cross that Jesus was speaking to. Jesus and the thief were both about to die and because of his faith, the thief was forgiven and would be with Jesus where He was going. And that is consistent with Jesus' promise in John 14.

I just want to remind you again, that using OT scripture only, giant "leaps" must be taken to see how Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies that spoke of Him. The details of what He came to do were not plainly laid out in OT scripture.

I have seen far too many scriptural revelations that all tie together moreso than any other mainstream Christian doctrine for me to ever doubt or deny what I am discussing in this thread. (See my previous post)

Mograce2U
Jul 18th 2008, 10:39 PM
I just want to remind you again, that using OT scripture only, giant "leaps" must be taken to see how Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies that spoke of Him. The details of what He came to do were not plainly laid out in OT scripture.

I have seen far too many scriptural revelations that all tie together moreso than any other mainstream Christian doctrine for me to ever doubt or deny what I am discussing in this thread. (See my previous post)What was not as clear in the OT is made clear by the light of the NT. We can take that light we have in Christ back to them and see more clearly what was being said. Which is not how your previous post went about it to get your conclusions.

Scubadude
Jul 19th 2008, 03:11 AM
I don't see anyone in the bride as being better than anyone in the body. I just look at it as the way Yahweh has ordained things to be, foreshadowed all the way back in the garden when Eve came out of Adam. He is in control of all of this, not ourselves.

I'm a bit confused by your use of the word "bride". The woman was taken out of a man, but you are saying that the new woman, Christs church His bride, will come out of the woman Christs Church (the sleeping church). Is it the bride that the new rib will be taken from (woman from woman), or is it from Christ? There is some murkyness on your use of the word bride. Talk to me like I am a 1st grader. Is the new bride taken from the old bride? Are you saying that the bride is Christ, and Christ is the bride?

Scubadude
Jul 19th 2008, 03:37 AM
But we ought not to take leaps with scripture and go beyond what we find to add what is not there already. IOW not putting the scriptures together in such a way to say something else other than what is intended to be revealed so that we might have the understanding we need.


While I'm not sure how Joey is intending this information is going to change the way people live (I'm sure he has some thoughts, just haven't heard them yet), I also don't think you understand the freedom we have been given in Christ. No one has the full counsel of God on any passage. I'd appreciate it if you would say more about the quote above. Are you suggesting that you only interpret scripture with full revelation? Didn't Martin Luther hate the book of James? I think it was him. He was pretty useful to God in his interpretations.

I've heard several men, none of whom know each other, say that the Lord is up to something with His Church. Not the institutional church, but the body of believers, the remnant. The institutional church will be the source of our prosecution, death, dismemberment. All in the name of God. Even though they are blind, God has a use for them. Given that the institutional church will (has?) become the merchants of death and prosecution for the true believers, how then should we live? There is no question that cannot be asked? God cannot be shocked. In fact, He prefers his children get creative with Him, being The Infinitely Creative God. We were made in His image, and He is capable of instructing Joey as well as me, or you. Fear is the mind killer.

Mograce2U
Jul 19th 2008, 04:03 AM
Hi Scubadude,
I have no problem with people expressing their opinion, only when they try to say "thus saith the Lord" to support it. If we have the idea that a literal interpretation of scripture is needed, then our understanding must be drawn from the text itself. The Lord enlightens our understanding to what is there; anything else becomes private interpretation. At which point, one must claim to be a prophet of God in order to reveal this "truth" to us, for it cannot be found otherwise. Scripture will interpret scripture if we are diligent to compare our understanding with the whole counsel of God.

Joey Porter
Jul 19th 2008, 05:32 AM
I'm a bit confused by your use of the word "bride". The woman was taken out of a man, but you are saying that the new woman, Christs church His bride, will come out of the woman Christs Church (the sleeping church). Is it the bride that the new rib will be taken from (woman from woman), or is it from Christ? There is some murkyness on your use of the word bride. Talk to me like I am a 1st grader. Is the new bride taken from the old bride? Are you saying that the bride is Christ, and Christ is the bride?

The bride is formed from the body of Christ. There is only going to be one true bride. I believe that bride, after coming out, will be annointed in some way to be of one heart and mind, just as the early believers in Acts were. This will obviously be a miraculous act of Yahweh, because as we've seen for 2,000 years, man has not been able to accomplish this by his own efforts.

At that time, Yahshua's prayer will finally be answered, and the bride (who is also the "Elijah that is to come") can prepare the way for the return of the Lord.

John 17
May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

The church thinks that the world rejects Christ because of its "free will" or because it loves the darkness rather than light. While that last part may be true, the ultimate answer lies behind the fact that the body of Christ is so divided that it makes Him and His followers look foolish in the eyes of the world, and that is why the world does not believe that He came from God.

The only way that the world can then accept the Truth is when His followers (who will be the bride) are brought to complete unity. That can't happen in the body. Those in the body are too stubborn and set in their ways, as we have seen for 2,000 years.

And in reality, many in the church do not want to do this Because, to come to complete unity with one another is to put on the mind of Christ. And to do this, it will take a complete giving over of self will.

The bride will be the Elijah, even the "John the baptizer" who will prepare the way for the coming of the Lord. And, I suspect that just as crazy and possessed as John appeared to be to the pharisees, so will those in the bride appear to be to the church.

Joey Porter
Jul 19th 2008, 05:36 AM
What was not as clear in the OT is made clear by the light of the NT. We can take that light we have in Christ back to them and see more clearly what was being said. Which is not how your previous post went about it to get your conclusions.


But, there is nothing new under the sun. What had happened 2,000 years ago is happening again today. Don't you see? Just as the pharisees thought they understood the scriptures and had all the answers, they were completely blind to the Truth of what God was doing. And when someone, like John the baptizer, came along and spoke against them, they automatically thought he was possessed or crazy.

So it is today with the church. The church thinks it sees clearly and understands what God is doing. And anyone who comes along and speaks against them is labeled as a "cult" or dismissed as crazy. And in most cases that's probably true. But not in the case of the bride. It is the bride who will "make straight paths" to prepare for the return of the Lord.

Scubadude
Jul 19th 2008, 09:04 AM
Hi Scubadude,
I have no problem with people expressing their opinion, only when they try to say "thus saith the Lord" to support it. If we have the idea that a literal interpretation of scripture is needed, then our understanding must be drawn from the text itself. The Lord enlightens our understanding to what is there; anything else becomes private interpretation. At which point, one must claim to be a prophet of God in order to reveal this "truth" to us, for it cannot be found otherwise. Scripture will interpret scripture if we are diligent to compare our understanding with the whole counsel of God.

I don't disagree. I'm ambivalent with this thread. On the one hand, I find it a lot of fun to discuss (actually, read) the implications that can be seen from considering the contradictions, instead of trying to force a harmony where one does not exist. It is not an easy problem (disharmony) to address with simple answers like scripture must interpret scripture. Such an answer takes out the interpreter, me or you. And that is impossible. Someone has to be reading the words, trying to make sense of what is written. No one this side of heaven will ever have the whole counsel of God on anything. No even Joey.

He may be utterly convinced that everything he believes is correct, but then he would be no different than the 20,000 different denominations he keeps mentioning, all arguing the same 'we are the one's with the best understanding' argument. So, while I enjoy seeing where my mind takes me when I think about these riddles, I don't like the implication that I am lost and doomed to burn as a harlot at the end times if I don't see the truth in these riddles. I know contradictions exist, in my mind and most of humanities. They are there for a reason, and sometimes I think I stumble across one of those reasons.

Scubadude
Jul 19th 2008, 09:20 AM
So it is today with the church. The church thinks it sees clearly and understands what God is doing. And anyone who comes along and speaks against them is labeled as a "cult" or dismissed as crazy. And in most cases that's probably true. But not in the case of the bride. It is the bride who will "make straight paths" to prepare for the return of the Lord.

You had me all the way up until you used the phrase, "But not in the case of the bride." That word is beginning to grade on my ears. Joey, I like what you say for a while, then you make a turn somewhere and the mood changes (that sounds weird, doesn't it). Maybe it is a bit of the PTSD in me when it comes to debating with different religions. When I hear someone rigidly adhere to the use of a particular word or phrase, an interesting conversation quickly turns flat. I'm not trying to bust your chops by saying that. I am trying to say that I was expecting more from you.

trublvr
Jul 19th 2008, 04:58 PM
I can not express how much I have enjoyed this post. I have not signed on for quite a while but I will visit more frequently now. The Old Testament has always been a constant source of new knowledge and puzzles for me but the New Testament has been kind of boring. I read the Old the way you read the New. The Old is a inexhaustable wealth on the character of God. You have shown me the New is also a wealth . Thank you for sharing your perception and your method.

Mograce2U
Jul 19th 2008, 07:41 PM
But, there is nothing new under the sun. What had happened 2,000 years ago is happening again today. Don't you see? Just as the pharisees thought they understood the scriptures and had all the answers, they were completely blind to the Truth of what God was doing. And when someone, like John the baptizer, came along and spoke against them, they automatically thought he was possessed or crazy.

So it is today with the church. The church thinks it sees clearly and understands what God is doing. And anyone who comes along and speaks against them is labeled as a "cult" or dismissed as crazy. And in most cases that's probably true. But not in the case of the bride. It is the bride who will "make straight paths" to prepare for the return of the Lord.No it was John the Baptist who was called to this task; he is the one who prepared the way of the Lord by calling the people to repentance. After Pentecost was when the apostles took up this task with the preaching of the gospel. That is the same gospel we who have a part in the Bride also preach. Where do you find the need for a new gospel revelation given in scripture?

I could only find these passages:

(2 Cor 11:4 KJV) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

(Gal 1:6-10 KJV) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: {7} Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. {8} But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. {9} As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. {10} For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

If your end time view compromises this gospel we have been given, then it that view which needs to go.

Joey Porter
Jul 19th 2008, 10:59 PM
You had me all the way up until you used the phrase, "But not in the case of the bride." That word is beginning to grade on my ears. Joey, I like what you say for a while, then you make a turn somewhere and the mood changes (that sounds weird, doesn't it). Maybe it is a bit of the PTSD in me when it comes to debating with different religions. When I hear someone rigidly adhere to the use of a particular word or phrase, an interesting conversation quickly turns flat. I'm not trying to bust your chops by saying that. I am trying to say that I was expecting more from you.

Well, you shouldn't expect much of anything from me at all. I'm just an imperfect being in cursed flesh, as we all are. As all have been since Adam (excluding Christ, of course).

To all - this bride (sorry Kevin!) work is not something that has really begun in its fullness yet. Yahweh may yet call any of you to be a part of that work at some point. Basically, this has to be a work of God. Anything less is just men building a tower to the heavens, as has been happening for 2,000 years.

Yes, as of this point, I am not really different than those who are in the body. I am just speaking what I believe, not being able to see all things clearly at this point. That's why it's so important for Yahweh to send the Spirit of Truth to a people who will be united in heart and mind. Until that happens, those who consider themselves to be a part of the "bride" are really not any different than those who are a part of the body. (Except for being more awake, accepting the church for what it is, and being prepared for the eventual fall of Babylon)

We need to be transformed alive. We need out of this cursed flesh. We need Yahweh's mercy!

Joey Porter
Jul 19th 2008, 11:02 PM
I can not express how much I have enjoyed this post. I have not signed on for quite a while but I will visit more frequently now. The Old Testament has always been a constant source of new knowledge and puzzles for me but the New Testament has been kind of boring. I read the Old the way you read the New. The Old is a inexhaustable wealth on the character of God. You have shown me the New is also a wealth . Thank you for sharing your perception and your method.

I'm glad you're getting something from this. I hope you decide to keep studying this.

Yes, Yahweh does not speak to us plainly. He masks His Truth through parables, shadows, types, etc.

Joey Porter
Jul 19th 2008, 11:22 PM
No it was John the Baptist who was called to this task; he is the one who prepared the way of the Lord by calling the people to repentance. After Pentecost was when the apostles took up this task with the preaching of the gospel. That is the same gospel we who have a part in the Bride also preach. Where do you find the need for a new gospel revelation given in scripture?

I could only find these passages:

(2 Cor 11:4 KJV) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

(Gal 1:6-10 KJV) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: {7} Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. {8} But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. {9} As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. {10} For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

If your end time view compromises this gospel we have been given, then it that view which needs to go.


What "gospel?" The church itself can't even agree on exactly what the gospel is - eternal security, lose your salvation, sinner's prayer, believe only, believe and obey, obedience adds works to the gospel, repent and believe, repentance not necessary, baptism needed for salvation, baptism adds works to the gospel, etc.

The whole church preaches "a different gospel" within itself.

John the baptizer made straight paths for the Lord prior to His first coming. He was an "Elijah" type.

Matthew 11
13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.

But there will also be an Elijah who comes before the Lord returns to set up His Kingdom:

Matthew 17
10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished.

We can see that clearly the Lord is talking about two different "Elijah's" here. John the baptist was the Elijah who had already come, but there is also an Elijah who comes and will (future tense) "restore all things."

This is the same Elijah spoken of in the last passage of the Old Testament:

Malachi 4
5 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."

Again, this is not referring to John the baptizer. His is referring to a group of people who will prepare the way for Yahshua's return.

Mograce2U
Jul 20th 2008, 12:22 AM
In Mat 11 Jesus is speaking to disciples of John the Baptist; in Mat 17 He is speaking to His own disciples who had just seen Moses and Elijah on the mount - about the same prophecy in Malachi. This is not 2 comings of Elijah, rather Jesus confirms to both groups that John the Baptist fulfilled this role and its prophecy. How can you make Malachi be prophesying past the first advent of Christ when that was next to come? Do you think he skipped Elijah's /John's coming to speak of another one? That would make no sense to the intended audience who was waiting for Messiah.

Joey Porter
Jul 20th 2008, 01:07 AM
In Mat 11 Jesus is speaking to disciples of John the Baptist; in Mat 17 He is speaking to His own disciples who had just seen Moses and Elijah on the mount - about the same prophecy in Malachi. This is not 2 comings of Elijah, rather Jesus confirms to both groups that John the Baptist fulfilled this role and its prophecy. How can you make Malachi be prophesying past the first advent of Christ when that was next to come? Do you think he skipped Elijah's /John's coming to speak of another one? That would make no sense to the intended audience who was waiting for Messiah.

When Yahshua stood on the mountain, He stood amidst Moses and Elijah. These were not the actual men themselves. This was a vision that was given to the three disciples who went onto the mountain with Him.

But the important question is this - why Moses and Elijah? What was it about those two men that would make them the two who stood with the Lord on that mountain?

Well, the answer is that each man represents the elect at the beginning and end of the church age.

Moses represents the disciples and faithful believers at the beginning of the church age, who believed that Christ would return in their lifetime. In fact, Yahshua even told the disciples that there were some standing there who would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kindgom. This was NOT referring to the transfigutation. People have changed it around to imply that's what He was referring to, in order to make it appear as though Yahshua's promise came to pass.

But the honest truth is, all of those disciples died, and none of them remained alive until His coming. They are the "Moses" group, who could not enter into the promise land alive. They "saw the kingdom from a distance," but died before entering in.

Deuteronomy 34
4I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it."
5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.

But there is also a group at the end of the church age, the Luke end time elect who are the Elijah. Why are they "Elijah?" Because, in type, Elijah "ascended alive" to heaven.

That's why the Lord stood with Moses and Elijah in the transfiguration. They represent the elect at the beginning of the church period who died without entering the kingdom, and the elect at the end of the church age who will ascend alive into spiritual immortality without experiencing death. This is the water and blood "bride" that poured from Yahshua's side when He slept on the cross.

The Lord's promise (of not dying) to the early church "Moses" disciples will be fulfilled in the end of the age "Elijah" elect who will ascend alive. The two groups will be united as one to meet the Lord in the air and prepare to reign with Him.

Let me set forth for you another gospel difference that shows us how and why Luke represents the end time "Elijah" elect.

Coming down from the mountain after the transfiguration, Matthew and Mark both record the disciples asking a question to the Lord. We already covered this a bit in the previous post, but what I want to show you this time is the variation that occurs in Luke.

Matthew 17
10The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

Mark 9
And they asked him, "Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

However, Luke 9 does not record this question at all. It is totally absent from Luke's account. Why is this so?

Because again, the Luke end time elect ARE the Elijah who is to come before the return of the Lord. They have no reason to ask why Elijah must come, because they ARE the Elijah and they know why they must come. The Elijah group will know what they are to do to prepare for the return of the Lord.

Let me show you one more gospel difference in Luke that shows us that this gospel DOES in fact represent the Elijah bride who will prepare for the Lords return.

When Yahshua was set to make His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on the colt (or donkey and colt, depending on the gospel), there is one detail that is contained only the in the book of Luke, absent from the other gospels. (Actually, there are many, but one I want to focus on right now.) What is that detail?

Luke 19
35They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.

The underlined detail is absent from the other gospels. Why does only Luke tell us that the disciples "put Jesus on" the colt? Because this is showing us that that Luke represents the end time Elijah who will prepare the way for the Lord's coming!

Mograce2U
Jul 20th 2008, 02:28 AM
Joey,
This is all quite imaginative eisegesis because you are not drawing this from what the text says but adding a preconceived idea to the text. And it matters not what special revelation it came from because it is a foreign idea to scripture. Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus on the mount to discuss His impending death. Did you ever have to get on a horse and have somebody help you up? You are reading way too much into these things and I am surprised you don't know better.