4 important scriptures



 Religions > Bible > 4 important scriptures

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Bible
User: "Yada yada yada"
Date: 25 Mar 2006 06:56:42 PM
Object: 4 important scriptures
From 2 men dressed in white:
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in
like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
From Peter:
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things,
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world
began.
From Jesus:
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord,
wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 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.
From Paul:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest
ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened
to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my
covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the
gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they
are beloved for the father's sakes.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"

Title: Re: 4 important scriptures 26 Mar 2006 08:34:17 AM
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:56:42 +1200, Yada yada yada
<yada@yada.yada> spake thusly:

From 2 men dressed in white:
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is
taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in
like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

I see. So just quoting a passage, means that it means
whatever you think it does? Whatever happened to
supporting the claim made? Lots of people read lots
of Scriptures different ways. Just quoting a passage
doesn't mean your way is right and in fact, it doesn't
even mean that I know what you think it means.
Is it not the height of arrogance, to post a passage
and assume that your belief is the only belief that
could possibly be had when reading the passage?
You use a 100% literal approach to this passage,
so let's follow that through and see where it
leaves us...
Christ was received, "out of their sight". So how must
He return, using your literal approach?
Well, since He was taken up into a cloud and out
of their sight, then when He was to return "in the
clouds", then He must also be out of their sight.
"In the same way", right?
Hmmmm.....
You also fail to realize, that if you want to take that
passage the way you do, then you must take all of it
that way (100% literally) and you don't get to skip
over the words that don't suit your literal approach.
Jesus ascended in Bethany, with just disciples there.
So if you want to claim that "returning in the same
way" is a literal and physical statement, then you
are now bound to believe that He will descend in
a cloud, unseen, in Bethany and only some disciples
will see Him when He touches down, which must
be in the same spot in Bethany (using your approach).
It says, "in the same way", remember?
Of course, this causes a problem for the other
Scriptures that you quote and claim mean that
He will be seen riding a cloud, physically and bodily,
by everyone in the world. This is a contradiction. (:
So I am asking. How do you resolve this contradiction?
And btw, there is also another issue presented here,
that creates a problem and ends up pitting the Bible
against itself.
And that is...
Given that you do believe He will be seen physically
and bodily, how do you get around that "line of sight"
problem?
You see, when you are on one side of the planet,
you cannot see what is on the other side, since
the planet is round. Any pilot can confirm this
for you and it is called, "line of sight". This is
also why it is not day time, 24 hours a day.
Because when the Sun is not on our side of
the Earth, we can't see it and so, we have night. :)
Anyway, point being, since Jesus can only appear,
physically and bodily on one side of the planet,
how will the people on the other side of the planet
see Him?
Now if you claim that they will see Him spiritually,
then you have just left the literalism that you try
to ridicule me for not believing in.
So what is your answer to this problem? I am asking.

From Peter:
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before
was preached unto you: Whom the heaven
must receive until the times of restitution of
all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth
of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Where does it say, "restitution of national Israel"?
I don't see Peter limiting it to Israel. He said,
"all things", not "national Israel".
And this raises another question. Since futurists
believe that when it all happens, it is about the
whole planet Earth, how can the "restitution of
all things" here be limited to "national Israel"?
What is your answer for this? I am asking.

From Jesus:
When they therefore were come together,
they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou
at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel? 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.

And you take this as affirmation of national Israel
being restored. Why? See below.

From Paul:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be
wise in your own conceits; that blindness
in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness
of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn
away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my
covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are
enemies for your sakes: but as touching the
election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

And who is the "Israel" that he is discussing,
when he says that "all Israel shall be saved"?
Well, he tells you. :)
Some Jews are saved and some Gentiles are saved.
THEN "all Israel" IS saved.
The "blindness" happened "in part" to national
Israel, so that the fullness of the Gentiles could
come in. Since it does say, "in part", this does
not mean that no Jews could be saved during
that time, so yes, they had their opportunity.
You are assuming that he means that some Jews
are saved and some Gentiles are saved and then
God goes back to national Israel and saves it.
But that is not what Paul is saying. And what
would be the point of that? If He's going to
save all of national Israel anyway, why save
some Jews first and then some Gentiles and
then the rest of the Jews? Huh?! You have
God proceeding in a non-sensical manner. (:
Paul is saying that some Jews are saved and some
Gentiles are saved and once the fullness of the
Gentiles had come in, AT THAT POINT, "all Israel
shall be saved". The "shall be" is not future tense
from the point of time after the fullness of the
Gentiles came in. It was future tense to the point
in time that Paul was writing it and present tense
to the point in time that the fullness of the Gentiles
had come in.
Unless of course, you do think that God was acting
in a non-sensical manner? Surely not, right? :)
"Come, let us REASON TOGETHER, saith the Lord."
I.e., As I said, some Jews are saved, then some
Gentiles are saved and then, at that point in time,
all Israel is saved.
How can this be said? Easy! The true Israel is not
"national Israel". It is "the Israel of God". You are
confused about what the true "Israel" is and it was
the true Israel that God was going to save. :)
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
- Romans 9:6b
Now how can it be that God is going to save
national Israel, when the Scriptures tell us
that not everyone who is born into national
Israel, is of Israel? Therefore, it cannot be
"national Israel" that was being discussed
as being saved (although some of it would
be, as Paul said).
Do you not see that when you make this claim,
that you are by default claiming that it is
circumcision that is the key and not faith
in Christ, because you end up saying that God
is going to save national Israel, regardless if
they believe or not and btw, as a side note,
that also fries your "free will" belief, if you
have one. :)
What the Bible actually tells us is...
Galatians 6:15-16
15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace
be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
Now it is, "in Christ" that we are talking about here,
is it not? Of course it is. :)
Circumcision is not the issue in Christ and Paul
showed clearly that "the Israel of God" are those
in Christ, whether Jew, or Gentile. Thus, when
Paul said that "all Israel" would be saved, he was
speaking of those in Christ.
Taking it the way you do, you have the Bible at odds
with itself. Paul said that they are NOT all Israel,
which are born of Israel (national Israel). Yet you
wish to say that in the Scripture you quoted, Paul
is also saying the opposite. That all of national
Israel, is Israel, since God will, according to you,
save all of national Israel anyway. This is the
problem with the futurist doctrine. It always
ends up pitting the Bible against itself and having
the Apostles teach one thing to one church and
the opposite to another, rather than taking the
time to see how it all fits together. (:
I can understand how this can be mistakenly read,
given what the modern church teaches and when
we read it with that predisposition, of course it
seems that it reads that way and could read no
other way. But when comparing what Paul said
in Romans, to what he said in Galatians, which
is not something the modern churches typically
do for us, it becomes crystal clear that the Israel
that Paul spoke of, was "the Israel of God".
The Israel that would be saved, was comprised of
Jews and Gentiles, since "circumcision avails
nothing" and since, "they are not all Israel, which
are of Israel". When combining the two Scriptures,
it is clear that what Paul is actually saying, is as
follows (combined and paraphrased, without
adding anything to it).....
"They are not all of the Israel of God, which are
from national Israel. Neither circumcision, nor
uncircumcision avails anything. It is being a
new creature in Christ that makes one part of
the Israel of God."
And if you do not agree and wish to stick to
the idea that He would go back and save all
of "national Israel", then please tell me how
you can make that claim and reconcile the
two Scriptures that I showed, especially
considering that it is impossible that
circumcision means nothing in Christ and
that God was out to make sure that it was
national Israel (the very same Israel that
crucified His Son and rejected Him as King,
btw) that would be saved? I am asking.
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
Evolution =
Unknown chemicals in the primordial past...through...
Unknown processes which no longer exist...produced...
Unknown life forms which are not to be found, but
could through...
Unknown reproduction methods spawn new life...in an..
Unknown atmospheric composition...in an...
Unknown oceanic soup complex...at an...
Unknown time and place.
Dr. Henry Morris
.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER