PDA

View Full Version : Apostasy in the church (Replacement Belief)



bikelite
Dec 5th 2008, 02:18 AM
In the end times apostacy will run like a river in the church has any one come across the replacement belief?

bikelite
Dec 5th 2008, 03:34 AM
It is said in the end times man will not follow sound doctrine the church will be mostly apostated. And you do not have to look far they say Mr Bush and many other people in the US believe in the Replacement belief. Those who teach that the church is heir to all of the promises given to Israel. Your thoughs

TrustingFollower
Dec 5th 2008, 03:46 AM
I am at a loss here, I have never heard of replacement belief. Could you educate a less educated brother on what this belief is.

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 03:53 AM
Replacement theology abounds these days. Yet, I don't believe this to be a main cause of apostasy. To me the parable of the wheat and tares describes apostasy accurately. In professed Christianity are wheat and tares. The tares look so much like the wheat it is hard to tell them apart. When the Lord separates the saved from the unsaved, the tares will be seen for who they really were and are...never saved. In apostasy, those who tried to act and talk as Christians, will fall from a faith they never really had.

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 04:03 AM
I am at a loss here, I have never heard of replacement belief. Could you educate a less educated brother on what this belief is.
In short, it means a belief that the Church has replaced Israel and has separated Israel from God's promises to them because of their disobedience. (More than that but a close meaning to it)

TrustingFollower
Dec 5th 2008, 04:10 AM
In short, it means a belief that the Church has replaced Israel and has separated Israel from God's promises to them because of their disobedience. (More than that but a close meaning to it)
So it is excluding the 144000 spoken of in Revelation?

bennie
Dec 5th 2008, 04:18 AM
It is said in the end times man will not follow sound doctrine the church will be mostly apostated. And you do not have to look far they say Mr Bush and many other people in the US believe in the Replacement belief. Those who teach that the church is heir to all of the promises given to Israel. Your thoughs


hi

well brother, i do believe in the "replacement believe"
Matter of interpretation i believe. But then i believe the church now is mostly apostate. Rejecting Israel as the chosen nation is not popular, that is why not one mane stream church will do it. If you believe in a any 7 year pre, mid or post trib period, you have to sort of include israel.

bennie:hug:

bennie

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 04:19 AM
So it is excluding the 144000 spoken of in Revelation?
I'm not sure that replacement theology excludes them, they just don't see them as being Jewish, but only as being saints. I could be wrong on that. I just know the general belief of what so called replacement theology is. I'm not one of them so you'd have to ask someone who is.

bennie
Dec 5th 2008, 04:23 AM
So it is excluding the 144000 spoken of in Revelation?


Hi TF

I believe the 144000 will be regular run of the mill people that Jesus will choose to spread the gospel in the last 1335 days of life as we know it.
but this is what i believe the bible teaches. if it is "replacement believe", then it is.

bennie

jeffweeder
Dec 5th 2008, 04:26 AM
Gods desire for Israel was always for them to believe the truth, and this is what Messiah had to say to them. Every true Israelite becomes a follower of Christ Jesus.

Gods true Israel recieve their king, and they are from all nations.

bennie
Dec 5th 2008, 04:35 AM
Gods desire for Israel was always for them to believe the truth, and this is what Messiah had to say to them. Every true Israelite becomes a follower of Christ Jesus.

Gods true Israel recieve their king, and they are from all nations.


AMEN
(15 characters)

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 05:00 AM
In the Old Testament, Israel always asked for a King, but the Church has a Saviour.

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 05:02 AM
Hi TF

I believe the 144000 will be regular run of the mill people that Jesus will choose to spread the gospel in the last 1335 days of life as we know it.
but this is what i believe the bible teaches. if it is "replacement believe", then it is.

bennie
The 144,000 come from the 12 tribes of Israel and can be nothing less unless one spiritualizes what the tribes of Israel really means, only then does it become something else.

JesusMySavior
Dec 5th 2008, 05:04 AM
I truly believe those who aren't sound in what the Word of God has to say will fall away quickly, taking heed to doctrines instead of the Word.

That is why it is so important to study our Word and not be dragged away or swayed to something "easier to swallow" or something new and popular. Give me the good old fashioned Gospel where Christ shed His blood for our sins, rose from the dead by the Father's hand, and is coming again to the earth. Give me salvation by grace, sanctification by abiding in the Vine, and the narrow path of faith in Christ.

I feel sad for those who don't really know what their Bible says - just hearsay and psalm 23... of course the flesh is lazy and doesn't want to read the Bible because it strains the flesh and the flesh can't understand it, yet - it is the crucifixion of that flesh by the power of God through Christ Jesus that allows the spiritual man to thirst after righteousness.

:dunno: Praise God for all things.

My heart's Desire
Dec 5th 2008, 05:12 AM
It is said in the end times man will not follow sound doctrine the church will be mostly apostated. And you do not have to look far they say Mr Bush and many other people in the US believe in the Replacement belief. Those who teach that the church is heir to all of the promises given to Israel. Your thoughsTo clarify. If you are asking if the belief that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people as defined as "chosen people" in the O.T is the apostasy that is coming then I'm not sure.
A true believer with faith in Christ as Savior is not an apostate.

quiet dove
Dec 5th 2008, 05:32 AM
To clarify. If you are asking if the belief that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people as defined as "chosen people" in the O.T is the apostasy that is coming then I'm not sure.
A true believer with faith in Christ as Savior is not an apostate.

I would state very strongly that no, that is not the apostacy. And getting into what I do believe will be the apostacy would derail the thread, however, it is permeating the churches and feeding folks a false salvation because it dethrones Jesus Christ and it goes by many names so I can just pop off a name, but I think it is safe to say it, in it's many forms and terminology takes us back to THE LIE as you stated in an earlier post and that lie was told to Adam and Eve in the Garden.

wpm
Dec 5th 2008, 06:34 AM
Gods desire for Israel was always for them to believe the truth, and this is what Messiah had to say to them. Every true Israelite becomes a follower of Christ Jesus.

Gods true Israel recieve their king, and they are from all nations.

Well put, and how true. :pp

JaneA
Dec 6th 2008, 01:47 AM
The apostasy is that humanisium has come into the church. It is teaching that "man is above God". God is to them a means to meet every need whether for purpose or what ever. Every one that is born again purpose is to spread the gospel( Matthew 28:18-20). This is our God ordained commisssion, you don't need to read the purpose filled life to know this. Also, we are to spread the true Gospel that Jesus Christ camed to save sinners through his death, burial, and ressurection. He was Virgin Born, etc. If anyone teaches otherwise they having fallen from the faith and decieved. The apostate church does not want doctrine taught, etc. in fact they don't even believe the Bible. I also think that Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church(true born again christians), God never say that will change.

My heart's Desire
Dec 6th 2008, 04:04 AM
The apostasy is that humanisium has come into the church. It is teaching that "man is above God". God is to them a means to meet every need whether for purpose or what ever. Every one that is born again purpose is to spread the gospel( Matthew 28:18-20). This is our God ordained commisssion, you don't need to read the purpose filled life to know this. Also, we are to spread the true Gospel that Jesus Christ camed to save sinners through his death, burial, and ressurection. He was Virgin Born, etc. If anyone teaches otherwise they having fallen from the faith and decieved. The apostate church does not want doctrine taught, etc. in fact they don't even believe the Bible. I also think that Israel is Israel and the Church is the Church(true born again christians), God never say that will change.
I agree wholeheartedly. Apostasy involves the same as an antichrist. Denying the Deity of Jesus Christ, that He came in the flesh and denying that He is the ONLY way of Salvation + nothing else. These may not outright say, but by their "doctrine" and motives they deny Him.

HisLeast
Dec 8th 2008, 02:31 PM
Just a quick observation....

I don't think the OP was talking about Replacement Theology, but rather the false religion that he assumes people will leave Christianity for.

My heart's Desire
Dec 9th 2008, 03:48 AM
Just a quick observation....

I don't think the OP was talking about Replacement Theology, but rather the false religion that he assumes people will leave Christianity for.If that is the case, then which belief that replaces true Christianity are they referring to? Any belief that basicly denies that Christ is the way, truth and life and salvation by faith alone, or that denies Christ is God or etc would a replacement belief. The OP seems to be referring to a belief that is well known and the only one I know is Replacement Theology. But, as you say, they could be meaning otherwise.

third hero
Dec 9th 2008, 04:30 AM
Just a quick observation....

I don't think the OP was talking about Replacement Theology, but rather the false religion that he assumes people will leave Christianity for.

Agreed. I know it says replacement theology in the title, but if this thread was about defining the replacement theology, I am sure I would respond, but quite a few people will be upset at what my definition is.

And so, I'll await until this thread goes in that direction.

markdrums
Dec 9th 2008, 04:06 PM
It is said in the end times man will not follow sound doctrine the church will be mostly apostated. And you do not have to look far they say Mr Bush and many other people in the US believe in the Replacement belief. Those who teach that the church is heir to all of the promises given to Israel. Your thoughs


Well, first off let me say that I don't think "Replacement" is a good description...
I personally believe that the church / ALL believers ARE heirs according to the promise God made to Abraham.
The Church didn't necessarily "replace" Israel as a nation, but rather became the FULFILLMENT of Israel through Jesus.

It's true that Abraham & all the other people BEFORE the crucifixion had no idea or understand of "the church".... but GOD did.

The people of the Old Testament were still saved by grace, through faith... looking forward in time, to the fulfillment of the law through the promised messiah. (The same way you & I look BACK in time, to the cross.)

Paul also tells us that "In Christ we are ALL heirs according to the promise."

So, the church isn't a replacement, so to speak... but rather, the fulfillment.

;)

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 12:37 PM
Well, first off let me say that I don't think "Replacement" is a good description...
I personally believe that the church / ALL believers ARE heirs according to the promise God made to Abraham.
The Church didn't necessarily "replace" Israel as a nation, but rather became the FULFILLMENT of Israel through Jesus.

It's true that Abraham & all the other people BEFORE the crucifixion had no idea or understand of "the church".... but GOD did.

The people of the Old Testament were still saved by grace, through faith... looking forward in time, to the fulfillment of the law through the promised messiah. (The same way you & I look BACK in time, to the cross.)

Paul also tells us that "In Christ we are ALL heirs according to the promise."

So, the church isn't a replacement, so to speak... but rather, the fulfillment.

;)


So believing that, would you agree or disagree that God still has plans for the "Nation" of Israel?

Eaglenester
Dec 10th 2008, 01:54 PM
There are MANY MANY shades and forms of apostasy running rampant in what calls itself christianity - replacement theology is just but 1 group of apostasy threads woven into peoples theology and doctrines.

Replacement theology runs deeper and more rampant than most will see oe acknowledge:

Replacing The Feasts of Yahweh with man-made ones (like christmas and easter)

Replacing God's eternal name Yahuweh with a title given to every land holder in England

Eliminating Shabbat and replacing it with Sunday as the christian day of "worship"

Replacing Yahweh's ekklesia with today's church focused on a building, a denominational hierarchy, centered on a pastor as the head rather than a plurality leadership.

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 02:58 PM
So believing that, would you agree or disagree that God still has plans for the "Nation" of Israel?

Sure... he still has plans. But they're not "different / separate" plans than what he has for you & me.

Those plans have been extended to the gentiles & the rest of the nations.
ALL believers have become "Israel" in God's eyes. But to say that a certain ethnic group of people from a small piece of land are favored in any way, is missing the point of God's promise, & Jesus' sacrifice for us.

;)

Eaglenester
Dec 10th 2008, 03:03 PM
Sure... he still has plans. But they're not "different / separate" plans than what he has for you & me.

Those plans have been extended to the gentiles & the rest of the nations.
ALL believers have become "Israel" in God's eyes. But to say that a certain ethnic group of people from a small piece of land are favored in any way, is missing the point of God's promise, & Jesus' sacrifice for us.

;)

But Yahweh STILL has plans for the physical nation of Israel, that differ from the other nations of the world.

bennie
Dec 10th 2008, 03:21 PM
But Yahweh STILL has plans for the physical nation of Israel, that differ from the other nations of the world.


JESUS HAD plans for the nation of israel. 2000 years ago. they refused to follow the plan. It got extended to ALL nations. It is up to everybody, jew and gentile to get with the program.

bennie

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 03:24 PM
Sure... he still has plans. But they're not "different / separate" plans than what he has for you & me.

Those plans have been extended to the gentiles & the rest of the nations.
ALL believers have become "Israel" in God's eyes. But to say that a certain ethnic group of people from a small piece of land are favored in any way, is missing the point of God's promise, & Jesus' sacrifice for us.

;)


So was John lying when he wrote in Revelation about 144,000 Being sealed 12 thousand from 12 tribes of Israel?

Eaglenester
Dec 10th 2008, 03:27 PM
JESUS HAD plans for the nation of israel. 2000 years ago. they refused to follow the plan. It got extended to ALL nations. It is up to everybody, jew and gentile to get with the program.

bennie

Yahweh's plan for the nation of Israel did NOT get extended to every nation - we differ greatly in our theology, as you follow replacement theology.

Yahweh will restore the nation of Israel, and they will see and accept Yahushua as their Messiah.

That's what the last days are all about - the NATION of Israel.

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 03:34 PM
But Yahweh STILL has plans for the physical nation of Israel, that differ from the other nations of the world.

I don't think that's the case.
Besides, the "land" promise HAS been fulfilled already... so that's not an issue. ALL of the promises to "Israel the nation" have been kept.

Jos 21:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/43)And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

Jos 21:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/44)And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Jos 21:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/45)There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.


The "Apostasy" is a "falling away" from the relationship & worship of our God. And I would agree that there seems to be an increase in THAT.

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 03:48 PM
So was John lying when he wrote in Revelation about 144,000 Being sealed 12 thousand from 12 tribes of Israel?

No, John wasn't lying.... but I also don't believe John was giving a "literal" description when he wrote about the 144,000.

Revelation is a very SYMBOLIC / Apocalyptic book.
What / who is the 144,000? Where does the number come from?
It represents the 12 original tribes of Israel multiplied by the 12 apostles (= 144) multiplied by 1 thousand; giving us "144,000".

The number 1000 throughout the entire Bible represents an unspecified amount; whether it's time or people, or whatever.
Look up "one thousand" as a search query on any online Bible... You'll notice it doesn't mean a literal 1000 when you read the passages that you come up with.
;)

BUT...... I don't want to railroad the original post, dealing with APOSTASY, & what that means, so I'll leave my explanation at that for now.
:)

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 03:58 PM
I don't think that's the case.
Besides, the "land" promise HAS been fulfilled already... so that's not an issue. ALL of the promises to "Israel the nation" have been kept.

Jos 21:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/43)And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

Jos 21:44 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/44)And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Jos 21:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/45)There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.


The "Apostasy" is a "falling away" from the relationship & worship of our God. And I would agree that there seems to be an increase in THAT.


No, John wasn't lying.... but I also don't believe John was giving a "literal" description when he wrote about the 144,000.

Revelation is a very SYMBOLIC / Apocalyptic book.
What / who is the 144,000? Where does the number come from?
It represents the 12 original tribes of Israel multiplied by the 12 apostles (= 144) multiplied by 1 thousand; giving us "144,000".

The number 1000 throughout the entire Bible represents an unspecified amount; whether it's time or people, or whatever.
Look up "one thousand" as a search query on any online Bible... You'll notice it doesn't mean a literal 1000 when you read the passages that you come up with.
;)

BUT...... I don't want to railroad the original post, dealing with APOSTASY, & what that means, so I'll leave my explanation at that for now.
:)


I'm going to disagree with you, and will provide passages from Genesis:


Some notes on the Promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12:1-3
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Genesis 12:6-7
6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. 7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are--northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15 for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. 16 And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17 Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you." 18 Then Abram moved his tent, and went and dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to the Lord.

In order to believe that God is done with Israel you would have to believe that God's promise that Abraham's descendants would be given the land of Canaan forever is either lax or broken. Since I do not believe God ever breaks his word, even if it is Man who is at fault, I find it hard to believe he is done with Israel.

And yes, There is some debate relating to the number 144K on whether it is literal or figurative or symbolic. Personally I don't think the number itself matters, its what makes up the number that matters, and that it is of the tribes. If it is not the nation of Israel, why go through the trouble to list the 12K from this tribe or that tribe? Seems like a waste of ink if in fact this promise is not pertaining to Israel.


So I'm going to disagree that God is done with Israel. The word may have passed to the gentiles for now, but I believe the Lord will revisit his people again in the end days, and then, only then will they turn and realize the truth according to Revelation (that's a rather cumbersome summary I admit).

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 04:14 PM
I'm going to disagree with you, and will provide passages from Genesis:


Some notes on the Promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12:1-3
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Genesis 12:6-7
6 Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem, as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh. And the Canaanites were then in the land. 7 Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." And there he built an altar to the Lord, who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-18
14 And the Lord said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are--northward, southward, eastward, and westward; 15 for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. 16 And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants also could be numbered. 17 Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you." 18 Then Abram moved his tent, and went and dwelt by the terebinth trees of Mamre, which are in Hebron, and built an altar there to the Lord.

In order to believe that God is done with Israel you would have to believe that God's promise that Abraham's descendants would be given the land of Canaan forever is either lax or broken. Since I do not believe God ever breaks his word, even if it is Man who is at fault, I find it hard to believe he is done with Israel.

And yes, There is some debate relating to the number 144K on whether it is literal or figurative or symbolic. Personally I don't think the number itself matters, its what makes up the number that matters, and that it is of the tribes. If it is not the nation of Israel, why go through the trouble to list the 12K from this tribe or that tribe? Seems like a waste of ink if in fact this promise is not pertaining to Israel.


So I'm going to disagree that God is done with Israel. The word may have passed to the gentiles for now, but I believe the Lord will revisit his people again in the end days, and then, only then will they turn and realize the truth according to Revelation (that's a rather cumbersome summary I admit).

Genesis 12:3 plainly states that the promise includes ALL believers... it's not just a nation of people...but ALL nations, ALL families, of ALL the Earth. *see the highlighted part in your reply above

And again: Jos 21:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/43) And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

God DID keep that promise.... but even Abraham knew that the promise was more than just a piece of land on this Earth. God promised Abraham the ENTIRE WORLD. Which is yet to be fulfilled.... but WILL BE with the NEW Heaven & NEW Earth.

And Paul tells us that it's not about Israel as a nation... but Israel in RELATION to God, through Jesus...
Rom 9:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/6)Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/7)Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/8)That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul was essentially saying, "Look... it AIN'T about a nation & it ain't about the land people!! It doesn't matter where you're born; the only thing that counts is whether or not you belong to CHRIST."

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 04:23 PM
Genesis 12:3 plainly states that the promise includes ALL believers... it's not just a nation of people...but ALL nations, ALL families, of ALL the Earth. *see the highlighted part in your reply above


Genesis 12:1-3
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."


It talks about making Abraham a Great nation, about how those who bless them will be blessed, and those who cursed them would be cursed. That through him they would be blessed. I do not subscribe to the belief that this is referring to the promised land, but instead to Christ, through whom the entire world is now blessed.



And again: Jos 21:43 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=21&v=43&t=KJV#comm/43) And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

God DID keep that promise.... but even Abraham knew that the promise was more than just a piece of land on this Earth. God promised Abraham the ENTIRE WORLD. Which is yet to be fulfilled.... but WILL BE with the NEW Heaven & NEW Earth.

And Paul tells us that it's not about Israel as a nation... but Israel in RELATION to God, through Jesus...
Rom 9:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/6)Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Rom 9:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/7)Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=9&v=6&t=KJV#comm/8)That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul was essentially saying, "Look... it AIN'T about a nation & it ain't about the land people!! It doesn't matter where you're born; the only thing that counts is whether or not you belong to CHRIST."

Right in Joshua they finally took possession of the land, where before Abraham lived there, but so did the canaanites (not all were driven out by Joshua though, for example the Philistines). I'm not sure where you get that Abraham was promised the entire world as if that is a land promise. It might be a promise of many peoples (Read gentiles who come to faith because of Abraham's seed), but again not a land promise.



Romans 9 is talking about how those who are of Abraham's physical lineage, who would be seen as Israel by men, were not all part of the Promise. Why? Because many had rejected Christ. Some are not Israel because they were egyptians, or gibeonites, or others who did not come through Isaac. SO verse 7 is true. Verse 8 is talking about the difference between those born of the flesh and spirit. God was calling Israel to be a peculiar set apart people from God, but after Joshua they strayed from God, they in effect committed adultery. They demanded kings, and the kings then lead them astray too, and resulted in them being sent into captivity for 70 years.

Now I believe what Paul is saying, is that only those of Isaac's Seed who also hold to the Promise are the real nation. The rest are in essence in residence. Now you obviously don't agree with me on that point, and that's fine, but I still believe God intends Israel to posess that land even now to the end of days.

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 05:04 PM
Genesis 12:1-3
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."


It talks about making Abraham a Great nation, about how those who bless them will be blessed, and those who cursed them would be cursed. That through him they would be blessed. I do not subscribe to the belief that this is referring to the promised land, but instead to Christ, through whom the entire world is now blessed.



Right in Joshua they finally took possession of the land, where before Abraham lived there, but so did the canaanites (not all were driven out by Joshua though, for example the Philistines). I'm not sure where you get that Abraham was promised the entire world as if that is a land promise. It might be a promise of many peoples (Read gentiles who come to faith because of Abraham's seed), but again not a land promise.



Romans 9 is talking about how those who are of Abraham's physical lineage, who would be seen as Israel by men, were not all part of the Promise. Why? Because many had rejected Christ. Some are not Israel because they were egyptians, or gibeonites, or others who did not come through Isaac. SO verse 7 is true. Verse 8 is talking about the difference between those born of the flesh and spirit. God was calling Israel to be a peculiar set apart people from God, but after Joshua they strayed from God, they in effect committed adultery. They demanded kings, and the kings then lead them astray too, and resulted in them being sent into captivity for 70 years.

Now I believe what Paul is saying, is that only those of Isaac's Seed who also hold to the Promise are the real nation. The rest are in essence in residence. Now you obviously don't agree with me on that point, and that's fine, but I still believe God intends Israel to posess that land even now to the end of days.


You & I ARE "Israel" & part of the promise.

Gal 3:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=29&t=KJV#comm/28)There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=29&t=KJV#comm/29) And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Again, Paul is making it very clear that there is no ethnic separation nor any distinction.
God's message is, "You're ALL equal & ONE in Christ. You're ALL heirs according to THE promise".
To say that God still has distinct/seperate plans for the nation of Israel is in contradiction to what GOD is saying. See the problem?

I believe the CHURCH is "Israel". We're believers in Christ, which is what the entire plan of salvation was all about from the very beginning.
The church didn't "replace" anybody.... (and that's not the Apostasy.) The church was grafted into the ONE CULTIVATED Olive Tree which makes us EQUAL in every way to "Israel" and ALL the promises given to Abraham.

Paul didn't say we're heirs according to "A" promise, or "a DIFFERENT" promise.... he said we're heirs according to THE promise. The SAME promise.
So, where does a different / seperate plan fit in? And WHAT IS the supposed seperate plan?

A "nation" of people aren't going to be saved merely because of who they are & where they're born. They have to go about it just like you & I do... which is through Christ; and while there's still time. Because, when Jesus returns, that's it! It's all over, no more chances. It's judgment day; and whatever you chose when you had the chance, is what you'll have for eternity.

Those who fall away, (The Apostate group of people) are told what their eternity will consist of.
And the rest of us, as believers, know what's in store as well.
;)

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 06:04 PM
You & I ARE "Israel" & part of the promise.

Gal 3:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=29&t=KJV#comm/28)There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=29&t=KJV#comm/29) And if ye Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Again, Paul is making it very clear that there is no ethnic separation nor any distinction.
God's message is, "You're ALL equal & ONE in Christ. You're ALL heirs according to THE promise".
To say that God still has distinct/seperate plans for the nation of Israel is in contradiction to what GOD is saying. See the problem?

No Spiritually there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. The bible is clear on that, however, what you say is a contradiction I see as being necessary or there would be a contradiction.




I believe the CHURCH is "Israel". We're believers in Christ, which is what the entire plan of salvation was all about from the very beginning.
The church didn't "replace" anybody.... (and that's not the Apostasy.) The church was grafted into the ONE CULTIVATED Olive Tree which makes us EQUAL in every way to "Israel" and ALL the promises given to Abraham.

Paul didn't say we're heirs according to "A" promise, or "a DIFFERENT" promise.... he said we're heirs according to THE promise. The SAME promise.
So, where does a different / seperate plan fit in? And WHAT IS the supposed seperate plan?
I don't believe the Church is "Israel" at least in the natural sense. Though Spiritually we are all part of the same vine, we are not originally of the vine but grafted in. At one time I believed as you did, but I've come to believe that God has something special in mind for Israel, and I believe revelation makes it clear that they will be of use to God in the last days. He has not totally forgotten Israel the nation.

Paul also warned us about boasting against the root:

Romans 11: 11-22

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [B]16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.


Thus I say the tree which is Israel is still there. God has not created a new Tree he has only grafted us into the Old one. Thus God still has a plan for this Tree "Israel"



A "nation" of people aren't going to be saved merely because of who they are & where they're born. They have to go about it just like you & I do... which is through Christ; and while there's still time. Because, when Jesus returns, that's it! It's all over, no more chances. It's judgment day; and whatever you chose when you had the chance, is what you'll have for eternity.

Those who fall away, (The Apostate group of people) are told what their eternity will consist of.
And the rest of us, as believers, know what's in store as well.
;)No they will be saved because of belief, that much I agree with you on, but to say that God is going to ignore the people that who strove with personally for so long. That I cannot believe, I don't believe scripture supports it either. Now in the context of Revelation, it does seem clear that the 144K are sealed before Christ physicall comes and lands on the Mt of Olives, I think it was.

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 06:51 PM
Paul also warned us about boasting against the root:

Romans 11: 11-22

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.


Thus I say the root which is Israel is still there. God has not created a new Tree he has only grafted us into the Old one. Thus God still has a plan for this Tree "Israel"




This is where you are missing it. The boasting is not against the root (which is Christ) as you claim but the natural branches (natural Israel). Read Romans 11:15-20 carefully: “For if the casting away of them (unbelieving Israelites) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them (unbelieving Israelites) be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit (Christ) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root (Christ) be holy, so are the branches (Old & New Testament saints). And if some of the branches be broken off (unbelieving Israelites), and thou (the believing New Testament Gentiles), being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (believing Israelites), and with them (believing Israelites) partakest of the root and fatness (Christ) of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root (Christ), but the root (Christ) thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.”

The actual tree as a whole is an Israeli covenant tree, but the existing (or surviving) branches in this symbol are actually the believing Israelites, not the root. The grafted branches from the “wild olive tree” are the believing Gentiles. The branches therefore refer to people that belong to this tree. Under the old covenant Jews were born under the covenant arrangement. They were a chosen race selected to manifest the glory of God and fulfil His purposes in this life. God largely worked through a national theocracy and natural Israel was viewed as His people. However, being a citizen of natural Israel did not denote salvation, but rather that they were born into this covenant people. Salvation still had to be appropriated by grace through faith. We are therefore looking at an Israeli tree, but one that only sustains true Israel (Romans 9:6).

So what about the root? What is it or who is it? It seems obvious from this reading that it has to be something other than the believing Jew and Gentile, because they are shown in this illustration to be united in gaining sustenance from the root. Speaking to Gentiles Paul said, "thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

So, Gentiles were brought into union with Jews, (obviously in a spiritual sense, because the condition for surviving within this tree is shown to be faith – believing). Believing Gentiles are said now to be “among them” – speaking about believing Israelis. Paul shows this in the preceding chapter Romans 10:11-13: “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 07:26 PM
No Spiritually there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. The bible is clear on that, however, what you say is a contradiction I see as being necessary or there would be a contradiction.



I don't believe the Church is "Israel" at least in the natural sense. Though Spiritually we are all part of the same vine, we are not originally of the vine but grafted in. At one time I believed as you did, but I've come to believe that God has something special in mind for Israel, and I believe revelation makes it clear that they will be of use to God in the last days. He has not totally forgotten Israel the nation.

Paul also warned us about boasting against the root:

Romans 11: 11-22

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.


Thus I say the root which is Israel is still there. God has not created a new Tree he has only grafted us into the Old one. Thus God still has a plan for this Tree "Israel"



No they will be saved because of belief, that much I agree with you on, but to say that God is going to ignore the people that who strove with personally for so long. That I cannot believe, I don't believe scripture supports it either. Now in the context of Revelation, it does seem clear that the 144K are sealed before Christ physicall comes and lands on the Mt of Olives, I think it was.


The one point I'll make is this:
Yes, We ARE grafted in.. making us part of THE SAME "tree". Not a separate tree, but one in the same.
JESUS is the "root", & it's through him that the promises are fulfilled.

Paul was saying, (paraphrasing) "Just because you're born of Israel, that does not mean you ARE Israel, & doesn't automatically qualify you as part of the promise."
So, it's not about a particular ethnic nation.....
Well then, WHO IS "Israel"? :hmm:

The Nation of Israel rejected Jesus. They turned away from him & held to their traditions instead. They made that choice as a nation.

God's "plan" is (and always was) salvation for EVERYONE, regardless of nationality.

I guess the description of "Spritual" (or "TRUE") Israel would be accurate. To say that the NATION has a special / separate promise & plan, is forcing literalism into something that isn't supposed to be literal.

I think the main problem is, people are too focused on "Israel", & not focused enough on Jesus.

Revelation only mentions "Israel" three times... but only as "the Children of Israel".... and in different contexts.

1st- as a historic narrative- not having anything to do with End "Times".
Rev 2:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=14&t=KJV#14)But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

2nd- the ONLY reference having anything to do with "Prophecy" in the context of "End Times".
Rev 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=4&t=KJV#4)And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

3rd- in the New Heaven / New Earth - Not having anything to do with "End Times"... but rather, New Creation.
Rev 21:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=21&v=12&t=KJV#12)And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

So, I guess I'm confused about why you said Revelation makes it clear that they will be of use, or have some specific purpose, or separate plan...?

:hmm:

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 07:58 PM
This is where you are missing it. The boasting is not against the root (which is Christ) as you claim but the natural branches (natural Israel). Read Romans 11:15-20 carefully: “For if the casting away of them (unbelieving Israelites) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them (unbelieving Israelites) be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit (Christ) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root (Christ) be holy, so are the branches (Old & New Testament saints). And if some of the branches be broken off (unbelieving Israelites), and thou (the believing New Testament Gentiles), being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (believing Israelites), and with them (believing Israelites) partakest of the root and fatness (Christ) of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root (Christ), but the root (Christ) thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear.”

The actual tree as a whole is an Israeli covenant tree, but the existing (or surviving) branches in this symbol are actually the believing Israelites, not the root. The grafted branches from the “wild olive tree” are the believing Gentiles. The branches therefore refer to people that belong to this tree. Under the old covenant Jews were born under the covenant arrangement. They were a chosen race selected to manifest the glory of God and fulfil His purposes in this life. God largely worked through a national theocracy and natural Israel was viewed as His people. However, being a citizen of natural Israel did not denote salvation, but rather that they were born into this covenant people. Salvation still had to be appropriated by grace through faith. We are therefore looking at an Israeli tree, but one that only sustains true Israel (Romans 9:6).

So what about the root? What is it or who is it? It seems obvious from this reading that it has to be something other than the believing Jew and Gentile, because they are shown in this illustration to be united in gaining sustenance from the root. Speaking to Gentiles Paul said, "thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

So, Gentiles were brought into union with Jews, (obviously in a spiritual sense, because the condition for surviving within this tree is shown to be faith – believing). Believing Gentiles are said now to be “among them” – speaking about believing Israelis. Paul shows this in the preceding chapter Romans 10:11-13: “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”


I'm scratching my head here, because I just read everything you said, and I don't disagree with a word of it that I can see. I've never said that Israel is automatically saved, although it seems that you are inferring that I have said that. My only contention on this point is that I believe God has one final remnant of the nation of Israel that will be set aside and harvested in the End times.

But honestly, other than our disagreeing on whether God is done with the people of Israel the Nation I'm really not seeing where you think I've erred in my interpretation of this passage, because my reading is nearly identical to yours.


The one point I'll make is this:
Yes, We ARE grafted in.. making us part of THE SAME "tree". Not a separate tree, but one in the same.
JESUS is the "root", & it's through him that the promises are fulfilled.

Paul was saying, (paraphrasing) "Just because you're born of Israel, that does not mean you ARE Israel, & doesn't automatically qualify you as part of the promise."
So, it's not about a particular ethnic nation.....
Well then, WHO IS "Israel"? :hmm:

The Nation of Israel rejected Jesus. They turned away from him & held to their traditions instead. They made that choice as a nation.

God's "plan" is (and always was) salvation for EVERYONE, regardless of nationality.

I guess the description of "Spritual" (or "TRUE") Israel would be accurate. To say that the NATION has a special / separate promise & plan, is forcing literalism into something that isn't supposed to be literal.

I think the main problem is, people are too focused on "Israel", & not focused enough on Jesus.

Revelation only mentions "Israel" three times... but only as "the Children of Israel".... and in different contexts.

1st- as a historic narrative- not having anything to do with End "Times".
Rev 2:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=2&v=14&t=KJV#14)But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

2nd- the ONLY reference having anything to do with "Prophecy" in the context of "End Times".
Rev 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=4&t=KJV#4)And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

3rd- in the New Heaven / New Earth - Not having anything to do with "End Times"... but rather, New Creation.
Rev 21:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=21&v=12&t=KJV#12)And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

So, I guess I'm confused about why you said Revelation makes it clear that they will be of use, or have some specific purpose, or separate plan...?

:hmm:


In a spiritual sense I agree that God's chosen are both bond and free, gentile and jew, we are all part of one body, I don't disagree on this point. And I never said we were a separate tree. We are branches grafted into The one tree. I think maybe your confusing my hypothetical about God ending the line of the tree of Israel and planting another that's the Church, is that where I confused you?


Perhaps it would help to bring the passage in so here:


Revelation 7:1-12
1 After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads."

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:

5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;
6 of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
7 of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" 11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen."

Now I've already said I'm open to the possibility that the numbers themselves are symbolic perhaps of the completion of God's remnant, but if that 144K is not Israel as the nation, then why mention another great multitude? I believe these 144K are sealed and protected during the Great Tribulation for a reason, and that reason is most likely to proclaim the coming of God's kingdom on earth. Now, you seem to disagree with me that these are Israel, well it says they are Israel and are denoted by the tribes. I don't understand why you would say they were someone else.

I also have seen a pattern, that among those a remnant was preserved. IN eve, by seth, through noah, through abraham, through isaac, through jacob, through Judah, through david, and through Jesus. Even in the Babylonic captivity God preserved a remnant for himself. I see no reason to believe he will not do the same as it says here in Revelation.

wpm
Dec 10th 2008, 08:13 PM
I'm scratching my head here, because I just read everything you said, and I don't disagree with a word of it that I can see. I've never said that Israel is automatically saved, although it seems that you are inferring that I have said that. My only contention on this point is that I believe God has one final remnant of the nation of Israel that will be set aside and harvested in the End times.

But honestly, other than our disagreeing on whether God is done with the people of Israel the Nation I'm really not seeing where you think I've erred in my interpretation of this passage, because my reading is nearly identical to yours.

What I was disagreeing with was the following statement:


Thus I say the root which is Israel

The root is actually Christ.

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 08:16 PM
What I was disagreeing with was the following statement:



The root is actually Christ.


doH! you're right, The tree was Israel the root is Christ. Not sure How I did that... time to take some time away from the forum though. too much time on this today :D

David Taylor
Dec 10th 2008, 08:22 PM
doH! you're right, The tree was Israel the root is Christ. Not sure How I did that... time to take some time away from the forum though. too much time on this today :D

Isn't Israel represented as the natural branches?

Doesn't the tree have 3 parts:


The Root/Trunk: Jesus Christ
Natural Branches: Believing Israel
Unnatural Branches: Believing Gentiles

The two later graffed into the root, and together partaking of the fatness of the tree...Right?

markdrums
Dec 10th 2008, 08:33 PM
I'm scratching my head here, because I just read everything you said, and I don't disagree with a word of it that I can see. I've never said that Israel is automatically saved, although it seems that you are inferring that I have said that. My only contention on this point is that I believe God has one final remnant of the nation of Israel that will be set aside and harvested in the End times.

But honestly, other than our disagreeing on whether God is done with the people of Israel the Nation I'm really not seeing where you think I've erred in my interpretation of this passage, because my reading is nearly identical to yours.




In a spiritual sense I agree that God's chosen are both bond and free, gentile and jew, we are all part of one body, I don't disagree on this point. And I never said we were a separate tree. We are branches grafted into The one tree. I think maybe your confusing my hypothetical about God ending the line of the tree of Israel and planting another that's the Church, is that where I confused you?


Perhaps it would help to bring the passage in so here:


Revelation 7:1-12
1 After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads."

4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:

5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;
6 of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
7 of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" 11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen."

Now I've already said I'm open to the possibility that the numbers themselves are symbolic perhaps of the completion of God's remnant, but if that 144K is not Israel as the nation, then why mention another great multitude? I believe these 144K are sealed and protected during the Great Tribulation for a reason, and that reason is most likely to proclaim the coming of God's kingdom on earth. Now, you seem to disagree with me that these are Israel, well it says they are Israel and are denoted by the tribes. I don't understand why you would say they were someone else.

I also have seen a pattern, that among those a remnant was preserved. IN eve, by seth, through noah, through abraham, through isaac, through jacob, through Judah, through david, and through Jesus. Even in the Babylonic captivity God preserved a remnant for himself. I see no reason to believe he will not do the same as it says here in Revelation.


I gotcha'! I'm understanding you better now. :)
The one thing I think you're misunderstanding though, is the 144,000 & the "multitude".
They're not two different groups, but rather, the same group. The 144,000 IS the multitude.

Just as John, in Rev. 5:5-6 is told of a Lion & turns to see a Lamb. The Lion & Lamb are the same figure... which is Jesus.

Rev 5:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=5&v=5&t=KJV#comm/5)And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=5&v=5&t=KJV#comm/6)And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Now, in Rev Chapter 7, the same principle applies....

Rev 7:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/3)Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
Rev 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/4)And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


(Verses 5-8 describe the 12 tribes....) THEN-

Rev 7:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/9)After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

So, Just as John describes Jesus as, both a Lion & a Lamb, he also describes those who are sealed as, both 144,000 & a Great Multitude.

Make sense? :)

Veretax
Dec 10th 2008, 09:05 PM
Isn't Israel represented as the natural branches?

Doesn't the tree have 3 parts:


The Root/Trunk: Jesus Christ
Natural Branches: Believing Israel
Unnatural Branches: Believing Gentiles

The two later graffed into the root, and together partaking of the fatness of the tree...Right?


Maybe I have my definitions different. Roots = in the ground Trunk is sprung forth from the root out of the ground, and is in essence a primary branch. We are arguing definitions then. I'm tiring of the discussion on this topic though, so I'm mistyping at times today, you already noticed one such mistake though it was unintentional.


I gotcha'! I'm understanding you better now. :)
The one thing I think you're misunderstanding though, is the 144,000 & the "multitude".
They're not two different groups, but rather, the same group. The 144,000 IS the multitude.

Just as John, in Rev. 5:5-6 is told of a Lion & turns to see a Lamb. The Lion & Lamb are the same figure... which is Jesus.

Rev 5:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=5&v=5&t=KJV#comm/5)And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=5&v=5&t=KJV#comm/6)And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

Now, in Rev Chapter 7, the same principle applies....

Rev 7:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/3)Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
Rev 7:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/4)And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


(Verses 5-8 describe the 12 tribes....) THEN-

Rev 7:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=9&t=KJV#comm/9)After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

So, Just as John describes Jesus as, both a Lion & a Lamb, he also describes those who are sealed as, both 144,000 & a Great Multitude.

Make sense? :)

We will have to disagree, I've always understood the 144K to be a remnant from Israel, and the great multitude to be innumerable gentiles.

markedward
Dec 14th 2008, 02:04 AM
Matthew 21:33-45
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.

But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"

"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.



So... was Jesus teaching or not teaching that they ("the chief priests and the Pharisees") would be replaced?

markdrums
Dec 14th 2008, 03:08 AM
Maybe I have my definitions different. Roots = in the ground Trunk is sprung forth from the root out of the ground, and is in essence a primary branch. We are arguing definitions then. I'm tiring of the discussion on this topic though, so I'm mistyping at times today, you already noticed one such mistake though it was unintentional.



We will have to disagree, I've always understood the 144K to be a remnant from Israel, and the great multitude to be innumerable gentiles.


Sorry for the delay... It's been a busy week / weekend!
Anyway, there's only one thing to point out to you in your reply.....

Remember, In Christ, there IS NO Jew Nor Gentile.... (Romans Chap. 9)
So, why would the 144,000 be "Ethnic Isrealites / Jews" & the Great Multitude be "Gentiles"???? There's NO distinction.... remember? ;)

There's not 2 separate groups being described in Revelation Chap. 7. It's the SAME group being described in 2 different ways.
Otherwise, with Paul saying, there's no distinction and we, as Christians, are saying there IS a distinction, we end up in complete contradiction.

Romulus
Dec 15th 2008, 04:15 PM
Matthew 21:33-45
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.

But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"

"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.



So... was Jesus teaching or not teaching that they ("the chief priests and the Pharisees") would be replaced?

I am going to piggyback here (since I agree.) The Pharisees and chief priests were "unbelieving Israel" they were broken off the tree and new branches were grafted in of "believing gentiles". There was a grafting in that went on and scripture does state this.

The problem that occurs is that when you hear the term "replacement theology" most think that if Israel does not have any additional promises or think that Israel doesn't have a different plan then the Church that this is suddenly replacement theology. That is not the case. Replacement theology believes that the Church replaced Israel and is now heir to the promises of Abraham of which Israel no longer has a share in due to disbelief somehow not fulfilling the Old Covenant promises.

I must state this ademantly, the Church did not replace anybody. Gentiles were always meant to be part of the tree. Just because most of Israel did not receive the Gospel does not suddenly throw gentiles a bone and they now had the Gospel available to them. Even for the sake of argument let us say that Most of Israel DID receive the Gospel, then the believing Jews would have eventually brought the Gospel to all the world fulfilling that all the nations would be blessed by Israel which would have included those original believing Jews of the 1st century and the believing gentiles of the 1st century continuing for the past 2000 years.

Notice how I said "most" of Israel did not receive the Gospel. It is a matter of fact that scripture was clear that there would be a remnant of Israel that would receive the Gospel. We do not need to look 2000+ years later to see the remnant. Why do most forget those Jews that did receive the Gospel. Do we forget about the disciples and those Jews that they did preach to and baptise? Was not Peter's mission to preach to the Jews and did not many receive Christ? Was not this the remnant spoken of?

Many Jews did receive the Gospel of Christ. Because many Jews(remnant) did receive the Gospel there cannot be any replacement, only addition. To say there was no remnant or no believing Israel is to discount every Jew that did become the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises. They became the natural branches because of faith and only faith in Christ and. They were the faithful remnant of Israel and the firstfruits of the Gospel. Believing gentiles were then grafted in sharing the same inheritance because of the same faith. Unbelieving Israel was never part of the tree because they did not have in Christ and were broken off. Those of Israel without faith in Jesus were told by Jesus that their father was not Abraham but the devil because if they were they would receive Him. There is now a distinction of who Israel truly was. Those of faith were Israel, those without were not of Israel.

God only sees those in Christ and those not in Christ. There is no special plan because of race or any other distinction. All now have access to the Gospel. Replacement theology is incorrect in that it does not understand that the Church did not replace anybody. The Church was an addition always meant to be added to believing Israel. The Gospel went to Israel first and believing Israel(remnant) did receive it.

There was never a replacement.

kenrank
Dec 16th 2008, 05:23 AM
In the end times apostacy will run like a river in the church has any one come across the replacement belief?

Who would believe a new Christian-like system if it was suddenly thrusted upon us? Could it be that the false system is in place and has been under construction since Messiah left?

Peace.
Ken

Veretax
Dec 16th 2008, 12:52 PM
Sorry for the delay... It's been a busy week / weekend!
Anyway, there's only one thing to point out to you in your reply.....

Remember, In Christ, there IS NO Jew Nor Gentile.... (Romans Chap. 9)
So, why would the 144,000 be "Ethnic Isrealites / Jews" & the Great Multitude be "Gentiles"???? There's NO distinction.... remember? ;)

There's not 2 separate groups being described in Revelation Chap. 7. It's the SAME group being described in 2 different ways.
Otherwise, with Paul saying, there's no distinction and we, as Christians, are saying there IS a distinction, we end up in complete contradiction.


Okay then let me boil this down into a very concise question. If God no longer has anything specific for Israel, and the 144K are not of Ethnic ISrael (of the 12 tribes) then why all the symbolism? Why listing their number by tribe? Why the mentioning of 24 elders (12x2 = 24) I find a lot of Symbolism in Revelation that points directly at israel, and not so much at the church.

Now I agree, spiritually Paul said there is no distinction, but that does not mean that God is done with Israel. I am not one who believes that Gods word is without effect. I believe when he said to Abraham that he would make a covenant with him, and that through that covenant his seed (through isaac) would inherit the Land, I don't believe that was a one time fulfillment, but that that land would always be their inheritance.


God's plan of Salvation the prescription has always been the same for gentile and israel, however, God's plans for the nations have always been different. Israel was judged through Assyria, Judea was judged through Babylon. Both were judged by conquering nations, but they were different nations, and were judged at different times. Therefore where you see a conflict here I don't, when speaking of the Nation of Israel I see it as the people of Israel (Ethnicly speakinG) that live in the area some call Palestine that is the Nation of Israel, and I believe God still has a plan for that Nation.

markedward
Dec 16th 2008, 01:50 PM
Okay then let me boil this down into a very concise question. If God no longer has anything specific for Israel, and the 144K are not of Ethnic ISrael (of the 12 tribes) then why all the symbolism? Why listing their number by tribe? Why the mentioning of 24 elders (12x2 = 24) I find a lot of Symbolism in Revelation that points directly at israel, and not so much at the church.The church is Israel. "Spiritual" Israel, which consists of more than just Jews. You know, that whole thing about Paul saying unfaithful Jews are broken off from Israel while Gentiles are grafted on? No Greek nor Jew? Etc.? Israel became more than just a set of land occupied by an ethnic group.

Veretax
Dec 16th 2008, 02:07 PM
The church is Israel. "Spiritual" Israel, which consists of more than just Jews. You know, that whole thing about Paul saying unfaithful Jews are broken off from Israel while Gentiles are grafted on? No Greek nor Jew? Etc.? Israel became more than just a set of land occupied by an ethnic group.


And I'm not disputing that fact, I agree Spiritually we are the same, but I believe that claerly revelation shows that God has a plan for the "Nation" Israel, not just "Spiritual" Israel. Why go through and list all the sealed out of the 12 tribes, if those who are mentioned are not actually genetically descendants from Abraham? Or are you saying the bible is wrong on this account? I don't think the bible is wrong. I believe it is specifically mentioning the 12 tribes of Israel in order to show that God's promises of Israel will indeed be completed in the end.

David Taylor
Dec 16th 2008, 04:36 PM
I believe it is specifically mentioning the 12 tribes of Israel in order to show that God's promises of Israel will indeed be completed in the end.

Yes, believing people from Israel were saved out of every tribe.

The Jew first, then the Gentile...go not unto the Gentiles, but go first unto the house of Israel.

That is the picture Revelation chapter 7 gives; The Jew First, then the Gentile.

Veretax
Dec 16th 2008, 05:49 PM
So you are saying that the events in revelation have already happened for the most part?

I'm not a believer in revelation being all or even mostly in the past to be honest, so if you disagree with me on that, then its no wonder you don't see a conflict.

David Taylor
Dec 16th 2008, 05:59 PM
So you are saying that the events in revelation have already happened for the most part?


No, not all all (lumping all or most of Revelation in the past)

John wrote Revelation in the 1st century.

I am saying that I believe John's perspective of chapter 7, was looking at his present-time (the Jews being saved from Israel in great, great multitudes), and the upcoming salvation of the gentiles from every tongue, tribe and nation. Chapter 7 shows a vision of the saved of all time; the Jew first, and then the Gentile.

Much of Revelation however, especially outside of that vision; is showing events that took place in the 1st century past and present (Chapters 1-3); and in the events leading up to the future Return of Christ that we too look for today. (the great falling away, His Return, our uniting with Him, the final judgment, the eternal states of the just and the unjust, etc...)

mdo757
Dec 16th 2008, 07:30 PM
In the end times apostacy will run like a river in the church has any one come across the replacement belief? What do you think about this scripture? http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=151090

scourge39
Dec 17th 2008, 05:29 AM
Yeah, I have no problem with interpreting the 144,000 as the totality of Jews who've trusted in Christ both BC and AD. The 'great multitude' represents Gentile Christians who are grafted in. I'm a Reformed Amillennialist and I think shoehorning Gentiles into the 144,000 strains the context and makes defining the 'great multitude' difficult. Contrary to what some Dispensationalists say about Amils, we have no problem believing that there were be a 'revival' among Jews before the Second Coming, we believe that only a remnant from among national Israel will ultimately be saved. That's our biggest disagreement with Dispensationalists.

scourge39
Dec 17th 2008, 05:39 AM
I'm sure that many Christians living before the 1800's would look at the popularity of Dispensationalism in North America today and view it as 'apostasy,' since it was unknown before then. The moral of the story from a Church Historical perspective: If so-called 'Replacement belief' is apostasy, then the Church was apostate for the first 1800 plus years of its existence. Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism were the only perspectives available before John Nelson Darby started teaching Dispensationalism. It was unheard of before he came along, so be careful what you're labeling as 'apostasy' and use the term more judiciously.

Raybob
Dec 17th 2008, 06:17 AM
Who would believe a new Christian-like system if it was suddenly thrusted upon us? Could it be that the false system is in place and has been under construction since Messiah left?

Peace.
Ken

I think so. It really began with the RCC which dictated the "religious" aspect of Christianity. It began the weekly "Sabbath" services where someone was appointed to stand in front of a congregation and tell them what God's word says, rather than reading the bible and letting the spirit guide us. In the NT, the early Christians met in people's houses but it happened on any day of the week, not only one day specifically. The protestant movement did much to further the gospel getting to the people but it kept all the traditions of man where a leader has to be trained by men in a bible college and tell the "lay" people what God's word says.

Jesus said we are to worship in spirit and in truth. That should be a daily thing for every Christian, not some religious thing done once a week.

Raybob

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 06:24 AM
I'm sure that many Christians living before the 1800's would look at the popularity of Dispensationalism in North America today and view it as 'apostasy,' since it was unknown before then. The moral of the story from a Church Historical perspective: If so-called 'Replacement belief' is apostasy, then the Church was apostate for the first 1800 plus years of its existence. Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism were the only perspectives available before John Nelson Darby started teaching Dispensationalism. It was unheard of before he came along, so be careful what you're labeling as 'apostasy' and use the term more judiciously.

Just because Dispensationalism became popular in the 1800's doesn't mean it didn't exist. How the word get in Scripture? Dispensationalism is very similar to Premillennialism. These and Amillennialism are all just labels, each having many variations. I am not any of these by themselves.

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 06:29 AM
Who would believe a new Christian-like system if it was suddenly thrusted upon us? Could it be that the false system is in place and has been under construction since Messiah left?

Peace.
Ken

I think so. It really began with the RCC which dictated the "religious" aspect of Christianity. It began the weekly "Sabbath" services where someone was appointed to stand in front of a congregation and tell them what God's word says, rather than reading the bible and letting the spirit guide us. In the NT, the early Christians met in people's houses but it happened on any day of the week, not only one day specifically. The protestant movement did much to further the gospel getting to the people but it kept all the traditions of man where a leader has to be trained by men in a bible college and tell the "lay" people what God's word says.

Jesus said we are to worship in spirit and in truth. That should be a daily thing for every Christian, not some religious thing done once a week.

RaybobJesus did say the kingdom of God was like a mustard seed that grew into the greatest of trees because of leaven (corruption - pharisees). I know people think Jesus meant a good thing but that simply is not the case, context, or words spoken.

markedward
Dec 17th 2008, 07:04 AM
Jesus did say the kingdom of God was like a mustard seed that grew into the greatest of trees because of leaven (corruption - pharisees).I think you're mixing together his two parables with his metaphor to beware the leaven of the Pharisees... the context of the two statements (the parables and the metaphor) is entirely unrelated. Also... I don't think he ever said that the mustard seed grew because of yeast.

He spoke two parables in a row, one about a mustard seed, one about yeast, but he didn't mix the two the way you are doing here. The two parables were about the kingdom of God starting small and growing large; read Daniel 2's description of the kingdom of God: it starts as a small rock that grows into a mountain that fills the earth. The seed started small but grew into a large tree. The yeast was only a small bit but worked through the whole dough. The rock started small but became a great mountain.

When he spoke the yeast metaphor in regards to the Pharisees (and Saducees), he made zero mention of the kingdom of God. He was simply referring to their hypocritical teachings and that it could spread like yeast if the disciples were not careful. Jesus said nothing of the kingdom of God in this aspect.


I know people think Jesus meant a good thing but that simply is not the case, context, or words spoken.The two things he said about "yeast" are unrelated to each other. One was about how the kingdom of God would grow from small to large and the manner he depicts this is consistent with how Daniel depicts it. The other was about how the hypocrisy of the pharisees could spread like yeast if people were not careful. The context of the two passages is entirely unrelated.

scourge39
Dec 17th 2008, 07:14 AM
Just because Dispensationalism became popular in the 1800's doesn't mean it didn't exist. How the word get in Scripture? Dispensationalism is very similar to Premillennialism. These and Amillennialism are all just labels, each having many variations. I am not any of these by themselves.

Dispensational interpretation was developed by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's, end of story, friend. Contrary to Dwight Pentecost's popular book, Things to Come, which completely misquotes patristic writings to give the appearance that the Church has always been Dispensational, Historic Premillennialism and Postmillennialism were the first Millennial views to be systematized, followed by Amillennialism. The Dispensational view is the most recent perspective to come on the scene, contrary to what its proponents say. They're simply misrepresenting the plain facts of Church History to suit their own purposes. I hate to have to state it so bluntly, but it's the honest truth. I would challenge you to simply study the historicity of Dispensationalism versus that of the other perspectives. I promise that such an investigation will be an eye-opening experience. Sidestepping the historical pedigree of Dispensationalism (including the events leading to its popularity) is one of the most dishonest moves made by its proponents. This is exactly what the late John F. Walvoord does in his Daniel commentary regarding Margaret McDonald's role in the development of the pre-trib Rapture view. I have yet to see any Church historian who has written on Premillennialism, whether conservative, moderate or liberal disprove her involvement. In fact, they prove her involvement rather convincingly. (My former roommate wrote his dissertation for Harvard Divinity School on Margaret McDonald's influence on the development of the pre-trib rapture theory, and the amount of historical evidence substantiating it is staggering, despite that Wikipedia, Walvoord and other Dispensational writers like to downplay it. Her well substantiated involvement in the occult is undoubtedly the reason why they attempt to disassociate her from its origin. Who can blame them?)

Raybob
Dec 17th 2008, 07:21 AM
Just because Dispensationalism became popular in the 1800's doesn't mean it didn't exist. How the word get in Scripture? Dispensationalism is very similar to Premillennialism. These and Amillennialism are all just labels, each having many variations. I am not any of these by themselves.

Different "dispensations" are not found in the bible. Do any research you can, you will find dispensationalism was invented by Darby.

The word "dispensation" in the bible, referred to someone "dispensing" the gospel to others.

1Co 9:13-17 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. ... For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Raybob

scourge39
Dec 17th 2008, 08:08 AM
Different "dispensations" are not found in the bible. Do any research you can, you will find dispensationalism was invented by Darby.

The word "dispensation" in the bible, referred to someone "dispensing" the gospel to others.

1Co 9:13-17 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. ... For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Raybob

Thanks for fielding the Biblical use of the word 'dispensation,' Raybob. I didn't quite understand Sirus' inquiry, "How the word get in Scripture?"

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 03:23 AM
I think you're mixing together his two parables with his metaphor to beware the leaven of the Pharisees... the context of the two statements (the parables and the metaphor) is entirely unrelated. Also... I don't think he ever said that the mustard seed grew because of yeast.

He spoke two parables in a row, one about a mustard seed, one about yeast, but he didn't mix the two the way you are doing here. The two parables were about the kingdom of God starting small and growing large; read Daniel 2's description of the kingdom of God: it starts as a small rock that grows into a mountain that fills the earth. The seed started small but grew into a large tree. The yeast was only a small bit but worked through the whole dough. The rock started small but became a great mountain.

When he spoke the yeast metaphor in regards to the Pharisees (and Saducees), he made zero mention of the kingdom of God. He was simply referring to their hypocritical teachings and that it could spread like yeast if the disciples were not careful. Jesus said nothing of the kingdom of God in this aspect.

The two things he said about "yeast" are unrelated to each other. One was about how the kingdom of God would grow from small to large and the manner he depicts this is consistent with how Daniel depicts it. The other was about how the hypocrisy of the pharisees could spread like yeast if people were not careful. The context of the two passages is entirely unrelated.If they are unrelated why does it say
"And again he said"
in between them?

What is this?...."if people were not careful.". Jesus is stating what was to be. Did he not know what the future held for the Church? Is this not what we see even from the days of the apostles? The word of God corrupt, false teachers, and devils lodged in its branches?

Your premise is that 'nothing negative' was said in connection to the mustard seed parable. It's a false premise. Lets look at it.....

First, the ruler of the synagogue
Luk 13:13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.
Luk 13:14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.
Luk 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
Luk 13:16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
Luk 13:17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Then the mustard seed -AND restated- the leaven
Luk 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
Luk 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.
Luk 13:20 And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God?
Luk 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Reading the mustard seed portion alone on the surface, ignoring "again he said", and the fact that he just ripped into a chief pharisee, it's easy to come to your conclusion. However, if we consider the context and 'again he said' and then let scripture interpret scripture willing to see that Jesus said the fowls 'in ALL parables' is Satan, we see the whole context as one flowing point being made by The Prophet. Satan finds rest in the Church?


In Mark 4 Jesus told a parable
Mar 4:4 And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up.
........
Mar 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
.............
Mar 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mar 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.


The Luke parallel says
Luk 8:5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
Luk 8:9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God:
......
Luk 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.



Daniel 2 is the earthly reign.

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 03:38 AM
Dispensational interpretation was developed by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's, end of story, friend. Contrary to Dwight Pentecost's popular book, Things to Come, which completely misquotes patristic writings to give the appearance that the Church has always been Dispensational, Historic Premillennialism and Postmillennialism were the first Millennial views to be systematized, followed by Amillennialism. The Dispensational view is the most recent perspective to come on the scene, contrary to what its proponents say. They're simply misrepresenting the plain facts of Church History to suit their own purposes. I hate to have to state it so bluntly, but it's the honest truth. I would challenge you to simply study the historicity of Dispensationalism versus that of the other perspectives. I promise that such an investigation will be an eye-opening experience. Sidestepping the historical pedigree of Dispensationalism (including the events leading to its popularity) is one of the most dishonest moves made by its proponents. This is exactly what the late John F. Walvoord does in his Daniel commentary regarding Margaret McDonald's role in the development of the pre-trib Rapture view. I have yet to see any Church historian who has written on Premillennialism, whether conservative, moderate or liberal disprove her involvement. In fact, they prove her involvement rather convincingly. (My former roommate wrote his dissertation for Harvard Divinity School on Margaret McDonald's influence on the development of the pre-trib rapture theory, and the amount of historical evidence substantiating it is staggering, despite that Wikipedia, Walvoord and other Dispensational writers like to downplay it. Her well substantiated involvement in the occult is undoubtedly the reason why they attempt to disassociate her from its origin. Who can blame them?)Thx! :)
I have. Been saved 18 years and have some formal training. I'm not the brightest bulb but all I need is the light of the world. I haven't had a TV for 11 years, what do you think I do with my time? I disagree. Sorry. There are many variations. I just read somewhere on here someone is pre-trib and not a dispensationalist. You will just have to accept it existed before Darby or some conspiracy. It can be argued many early church fathers were dispensationalist. Others would say they are premil. I ask, why can't anyone be any variety of them all? Get off the labels already! Everyone! This thread is poluted with this nonsense labeling. Can you not discuss the scriptures without labeling and assuming you know what a person is? Is that your intent, or is it to learn what saith the scriptures?
Rut_row!

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 03:53 AM
Different "dispensations" are not found in the bible. Do any research you can, you will find dispensationalism was invented by Darby.

The word "dispensation" in the bible, referred to someone "dispensing" the gospel to others.

1Co 9:13-17 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. ... For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

RaybobWhy didn't you post this one?

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

same as
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

1Th 5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.
1Th 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

Raybob
Dec 18th 2008, 04:20 AM
Why didn't you post this one?

Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Because this isn't saying what dispensationalism says. "Dispensation", in the original text, meant "administration". "Times", in the original text, meant "an occasion". Reading Eph 1:10 in context, this shows how He let us know His will that all things "in Him" will be one.

Eph 1:9-10 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:



same as
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Don't cut Jesus off at verse 7 as He explains about restoring the kingdom. He went on to tell them about the kingdom to come:

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

That is when the kingdom came as He sat on the throne of David.

Act 2:29-31 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. (30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (31) He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Raybob

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 04:57 AM
Because this isn't saying what dispensationalism says. "Dispensation", in the original text, meant "administration". "Times", in the original text, meant "an occasion". Reading Eph 1:10 in context, this shows how He let us know His will that all things "in Him" will be one.

Eph 1:9-10 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:Well the same word that is translated times is translated seasons (Act 1:6-7) and Jesus did not deny a future season but implied it and told them what to concern themselves with (v8). The focus on the task at hand in no way denied the future plans. That's ALL assumption on your part.




Don't cut Jesus off at verse 7 as He explains about restoring the kingdom. He went on to tell them about the kingdom to come:

Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

That is when the kingdom came as He sat on the throne of David.

Act 2:29-31 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. (30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (31) He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

RaybobALL assumption again. It says he was resurrected for the purpose of sitting on the throne. It doesn't say or even imply when, just that it is certain because of the resurrection. Davids throne was earthy.......not heavenly......

My heart's Desire
Dec 18th 2008, 06:35 AM
Dispensational interpretation was developed by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's, end of story, friend. Contrary to Dwight Pentecost's popular book, Things to Come, which completely misquotes patristic writings to give the appearance that the Church has always been Dispensational, Historic Premillennialism and Postmillennialism were the first Millennial views to be systematized, followed by Amillennialism. The Dispensational view is the most recent perspective to come on the scene, contrary to what its proponents say. They're simply misrepresenting the plain facts of Church History to suit their own purposes. I hate to have to state it so bluntly, but it's the honest truth. I would challenge you to simply study the historicity of Dispensationalism versus that of the other perspectives. I promise that such an investigation will be an eye-opening experience. Sidestepping the historical pedigree of Dispensationalism (including the events leading to its popularity) is one of the most dishonest moves made by its proponents. This is exactly what the late John F. Walvoord does in his Daniel commentary regarding Margaret McDonald's role in the development of the pre-trib Rapture view. I have yet to see any Church historian who has written on Premillennialism, whether conservative, moderate or liberal disprove her involvement. In fact, they prove her involvement rather convincingly. (My former roommate wrote his dissertation for Harvard Divinity School on Margaret McDonald's influence on the development of the pre-trib rapture theory, and the amount of historical evidence substantiating it is staggering, despite that Wikipedia, Walvoord and other Dispensational writers like to downplay it. Her well substantiated involvement in the occult is undoubtedly the reason why they attempt to disassociate her from its origin. Who can blame them?)And Mcdonald was clearly Post trib.

scourge39
Dec 18th 2008, 07:16 AM
And Mcdonald was clearly Post trib.

Nevertheless, the two-stage pre-trib rapture view was formulated on the basis of her visions. They were clearly the catalyst for that part of Dispensational interpretation.

scourge39
Dec 18th 2008, 07:24 AM
Well the same word that is translated times is translated seasons (Act 1:6-7) and Jesus did not deny a future season but implied it and told them what to concern themselves with (v8). The focus on the task at hand in no way denied the future plans. That's ALL assumption on your part.



ALL assumption again. It says he was resurrected for the purpose of sitting on the throne. It doesn't say or even imply when, just that it is certain because of the resurrection. Davids throne was earthy.......not heavenly......

No one is denying a future physical reign of Christ on earth. But JESUS is the culmination of the Davidic dynasty, both now and forever. When the OT prophetic books allude to David once again sitting on his throne, 'David' is a reference to the Davidic Dynasty as a whole, which culminates with Christ and will be manifested on earth at the Second Coming. This is the point that Peter is trying to clarify in Acts 2:29-31.

Veretax
Dec 18th 2008, 12:40 PM
Well I'm not a dispensationalist, but I do believe the vast majority of the End Times writing particularly in revelation is still to be fulfilled. I'm not even sure I understand what Dispensationalism is. Also note I am neither Calvinist or Armenian either, I'm somewhere between the two or far enough away to not be on that sort of line.

David Taylor
Dec 18th 2008, 02:52 PM
Davids throne was earthy.......not heavenly......

The term 'davids throne', is meant to be a euphomism representing the Kingship and Triumphant reign over God's people of the Messiah.

Jesus was born to this 'task'....it really has nothing to do with a 'chair' or with a location.

Thrones represent rulership of Kings within their kingdom.

Jesus is reigning as king over David's throne now, and forevermore; it is a title of supremacy when applied to Jesus; not a chair to sit in. When Scripture tells us Jesus is sitted at the right-hand of the Father in Heaven, that is not telling us the Father and Jesus have adjoing chairs in Heaven. It is speaking of their ultimate joint rulership of everything as Lord God Almighty.

Notice all of the kings listed, Scripture tells us who have sat on David's throne.


David I Kings 2:33 (the throne is forever)
Solomon I Kings 2:12, 2:45 (states the throne is forever and ever...not a literal chair then, can't be...but a position)
Zedekiah Jeremiah 22:2
Jeconiah Jeremiah 29:16
Jehoakim Jeremiah 36:30
Joash II Chronicles 23:20
Jesus Luke 1:32, Acts 2 (forever)

The throne of David is forever, and it is applied as a term of rulership to many different kings...Jesus being the final one who came as King in the 1st century A.D. and is alive and continues to reign as the King of Kings on High forevermore.

SeattleSun
Dec 19th 2008, 03:34 AM
The term 'davids throne', is meant to be a euphomism representing the Kingship and Triumphant reign over God's people of the Messiah.

Jesus was born to this 'task'....it really has nothing to do with a 'chair' or with a location.

Thrones represent rulership of Kings within their kingdom.

Jesus is reigning as king over David's throne now, and forevermore; it is a title of supremacy when applied to Jesus; not a chair to sit in. When Scripture tells us Jesus is sitted at the right-hand of the Father in Heaven, that is not telling us the Father and Jesus have adjoing chairs in Heaven. It is speaking of their ultimate joint rulership of everything as Lord God Almighty.

Notice all of the kings listed, Scripture tells us who have sat on David's throne.


David I Kings 2:33 (the throne is forever)
Solomon I Kings 2:12, 2:45 (states the throne is forever and ever...not a literal chair then, can't be...but a position)
Zedekiah Jeremiah 22:2
Jeconiah Jeremiah 29:16
Jehoakim Jeremiah 36:30
Joash II Chronicles 23:20
Jesus Luke 1:32, Acts 2 (forever)
The throne of David is forever, and it is applied as a term of rulership to many different kings...Jesus being the final one who came as King in the 1st century A.D. and is alive and continues to reign as the King of Kings on High forevermore.

If I may in my ignorance ask a few questions:

What do you refer to Christ's victory as a euphonsim? He is of the order of Melchezedek, is he a ephomism?

Jeconiah! Please explain the geneologies of Matthew and Luke, keeping in mind the curse on J's line from Jer. 22. Do you not understand what this Scripture means? Asking in respect. :)

Otherwise, I stand rejoicing in agreement with you!

So ... do you believe we'll have crowns to cast, or does the Father mean those as euphomisms too? ;)

Sirus
Dec 19th 2008, 04:05 AM
No one is denying a future physical reign of Christ on earth. But JESUS is the culmination of the Davidic dynasty, both now and forever. When the OT prophetic books allude to David once again sitting on his throne, 'David' is a reference to the Davidic Dynasty as a whole, which culminates with Christ and will be manifested on earth at the Second Coming. This is the point that Peter is trying to clarify in Acts 2:29-31.I have no problem with that because it is a season completely different than the world we know. Thank you! :pp

Sirus
Dec 19th 2008, 04:06 AM
The term 'davids throne', is meant to be a euphomism representing the Kingship and Triumphant reign over God's people of the Messiah.

Jesus was born to this 'task'....it really has nothing to do with a 'chair' or with a location.

Thrones represent rulership of Kings within their kingdom.

Jesus is reigning as king over David's throne now, and forevermore; it is a title of supremacy when applied to Jesus; not a chair to sit in. When Scripture tells us Jesus is sitted at the right-hand of the Father in Heaven, that is not telling us the Father and Jesus have adjoing chairs in Heaven. It is speaking of their ultimate joint rulership of everything as Lord God Almighty.

Notice all of the kings listed, Scripture tells us who have sat on David's throne.


David I Kings 2:33 (the throne is forever)
Solomon I Kings 2:12, 2:45 (states the throne is forever and ever...not a literal chair then, can't be...but a position)
Zedekiah Jeremiah 22:2
Jeconiah Jeremiah 29:16
Jehoakim Jeremiah 36:30
Joash II Chronicles 23:20
Jesus Luke 1:32, Acts 2 (forever)

The throne of David is forever, and it is applied as a term of rulership to many different kings...Jesus being the final one who came as King in the 1st century A.D. and is alive and continues to reign as the King of Kings on High forevermore......what SeattleSun said...or asked...

the rookie
Dec 20th 2008, 05:09 PM
.....what SeattleSun said...or asked...

I would add to that the question of whether the 1st century Jew heard and understood the concept of David's throne as a euphemism - particularly the early apostles. One would also want to ask why there would need to be the usage of the term "David's throne" at all as a euphemism, as "Christ's victory" isn't really an offensive or difficult concept in the sense that it would require the substitution of the (in those days) more offensive term "David's throne".

I'm going by the definition of euphemism ("the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant") - but I admit that I could be picking some nits in breaking down the definition. :D

wpm
Dec 20th 2008, 05:59 PM
I would add to that the question of whether the 1st century Jew heard and understood the concept of David's throne as a euphemism - particularly the early apostles. One would also want to ask why there would need to be the usage of the term "David's throne" at all as a euphemism, as "Christ's victory" isn't really an offensive or difficult concept in the sense that it would require the substitution of the (in those days) more offensive term "David's throne".

I'm going by the definition of euphemism ("the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant") - but I admit that I could be picking some nits in breaking down the definition. :D

There is no record that David made or sat upon a literal physical throne. It is probably figurative or metaphorical language.

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 12:30 PM
There is no record that David made or sat upon a literal physical throne. It is probably figurative or metaphorical language.


1 Kings 1:46-48
46 Also Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom. 47 And moreover the king's servants have gone to bless our lord King David, saying, 'May God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and may He make his throne greater than your throne.' Then the king bowed himself on the bed. 48 Also the king said thus, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, while my eyes see it!' "


1 Kings 2:12,24
12 Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established.
24 Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!"

Sounds to me like there actually was a throne, these seem to refer to a literal history, and frankly, given that it was common practice for kings to have thrones, I see the idea of taking this as a euphemism or allegory a totally erroneous interpretation. David did have a throne both literally and figuratively. But to deny the literal throne seems ridiculous to me, frankly.


Now consider this:

2 Sam 7:13
16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." ' "


Now most of us agree that Jesus is the fullfillment of this as he was of the line of David, where some of us disagree I think is whether this referred to a spiritual, a physical (literal), or perhaps both.

wpm
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:24 PM
1 Kings 1:46-48
46 Also Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom. 47 And moreover the king's servants have gone to bless our lord King David, saying, 'May God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and may He make his throne greater than your throne.' Then the king bowed himself on the bed. 48 Also the king said thus, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who has given one to sit on my throne this day, while my eyes see it!' "


1 Kings 2:12,24
12 Then Solomon sat on the throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established.
24 Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!"

Sounds to me like there actually was a throne, these seem to refer to a literal history, and frankly, given that it was common practice for kings to have thrones, I see the idea of taking this as a euphemism or allegory a totally erroneous interpretation. David did have a throne both literally and figuratively. But to deny the literal throne seems ridiculous to me, frankly.


Now consider this:

2 Sam 7:13
16 And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." ' "


Now most of us agree that Jesus is the fullfillment of this as he was of the line of David, where some of us disagree I think is whether this referred to a spiritual, a physical (literal), or perhaps both.

I appreciate what you are saying but this seems like a figurative statement telling us that Solomon took the kingship of Israel. If Jesus must sit upon this literal physical material throne, where is it now?

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 05:58 PM
I appreciate what you are saying but this seems like a figurative statement telling us that David took the kingship of Israel. If Jesus must sit upon this literal physical material throne, where is it now?

Presumably according to Revelation this is fullfilled in the millenial reign of Christ. However, clearly from the passages I cited there was a physical throne at one point. However, I wonder whether it (the physical throne) would have been destroyed when the babylonians came......This merits more reading when i can find the time.

wpm
Dec 22nd 2008, 07:24 PM
Presumably according to Revelation this is fullfilled in the millenial reign of Christ. However, clearly from the passages I cited there was a physical throne at one point. However, I wonder whether it (the physical throne) would have been destroyed when the babylonians came......This merits more reading when i can find the time.

How then is it possible that this said physical literal throne be established forever?

Veretax
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:05 PM
How then is it possible that this said physical literal throne be established forever?


That's a good question, although, we see that in the OT the parts of the Temple symbolized parts of heaven in many ways, so maybe it was all pointing to the Throne that Jesus is now seated on at the right hand of God?

wpm
Dec 22nd 2008, 08:28 PM
That's a good question, although, we see that in the OT the parts of the Temple symbolized parts of heaven in many ways, so maybe it was all pointing to the Throne that Jesus is now seated on at the right hand of God?

That is what I would imagine. :)