The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

[JudgeRightly]

The context of what I posted was correct.

No, it wasn't.

Gentiles are grafted into Israel, who is Christ.

No, they are not, and no, Israel is not Christ.

You changed the subject.

I've been on topic this entire time.

Please pay attention.

But it doesn't matter, as we do agree that the Gentile believers were grafted into/onto the believing Israel.

No, we don't, because I agree with the Bible, which says that the Gentiles were grafted into the root, which is Christ, not Israel, not onto Israel, not into Israel.

I quoted scripture. All you can do is repeat your position and hope it sticks.

All believes are now in one body.

They weren't originally.

Christ's body.

The Body of Christ is not the nation of Israel.

 

[Hoping]

No, it wasn't.
No, they are not, and no, Israel is not Christ.
I've been on topic this entire time.
Please pay attention.
No, we don't, because I agree with the Bible, which says that the Gentiles were grafted into the root, which is Christ, not Israel, not onto Israel, not into Israel.
I quoted scripture. All you can do is repeat your position and hope it sticks.
They weren't originally.

The Body of Christ is not the nation of Israel.

The true Israel is not the nation of Israel.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The true Israel is not the nation of Israel.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[steko]

The true Israel is not the nation of Israel.

The true Israel is the prophesied believing remnant of ethnic Israel.

 

[Hoping]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I'll let Paul say it too..."Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom 9:6-7)

 

[Hoping]

The true Israel is the prophesied believing remnant of ethnic Israel.

I agree with that.
The believers.

 

[Idolater]

Right.
And "His people" are all believers from all of history.
He became a flesh man to be our (mankind) kinsman redeemer.

(And I know that you already know this but just to spell it out even more obviously: )
Including Gentiles, which is made clear in Matthew 12:15-21

Why didn't Jesus want His disciples to make Him known before the 'DBR' ?

" But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; 16 And charged them that they should not make him known: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 18 Behold my servant, whom I have...

theologyonline.com

It's because the cross needed to happen, as it was planned and prophesied beforehand (with informed consent and forethought), and it needed to happen because of the Gentiles. Jesus warned everybody to not broadcast, advertise, preach Who He is, because the cross needed to happen, for Gentiles, which as we've covered, constituted about 70/71sts of the people on the Earth at that time. (More like 500/501sts nowadays I think.)

Even with the great care which He took to disguise His identity and the prophecy which He had come to fulfill, they still almost forced Him to become their Earthly king, if you recall. Like, that was a close one. If that had happened, He never would have made it to the cross, we all would still be dead in our sins.

 

[SKC]

Do you suppose anybody will refuse to take the mark of the beast?

Absolutely. And they will pay the price: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Rev 20:4)

 

[Clete]

It's because the cross needed to happen, as it was planned and prophesied beforehand (with informed consent and forethought), and it needed to happen because of the Gentiles. Jesus warned everybody to not broadcast, advertise, preach Who He is, because the cross needed to happen, for Gentiles, which as we've covered, constituted about 70/71sts of the people on the Earth at that time. (More like 500/501sts nowadays I think.)

Even with the great care which He took to disguise His identity and the prophecy which He had come to fulfill, they still almost forced Him to become their Earthly king, if you recall. Like, that was a close one. If that had happened, He never would have made it to the cross, we all would still be dead in our sins.

That is so totally false its just astonishing.

It sort of disturbs me, the degree to which you seem to know almost nothing about who God is, what sort of person He is.

If Israel, as a nation, as a people, in mass, had come to Jesus in humility and faith and acknowledged Him as their promised Messiah, you really believe that that's all it would have taken to screw up God's whole plan of salvation? Do you actually believe that God's plan of salvation could have been undermined and defeated by an act righteousness?

Certainly not!

The cross was not the necessary bit, it was His death - His voluntary, sacrificial death and His subsequent resurrection from the dead that was the necessary bit. His death was planned for and prophesied and while God used that wooden cross to fulfill many scriptures magnificently, the use of a wooden cross itself was not necessary. There are any number of ways His death could have been accomplished (e.g. having Christ's blood shed by the High Priest, in the temple, in the place of the Passover lamb, just to name one possibility) and had another way unfolded, you'd be here today insisting that that was the way it "had to unfold" because God would have had it unfold in a manner that fulfilled several scriptures just as He caused the death of Christ via the cross to do so.

 

[SKC]

The cross was not the necessary bit, it was His death - His voluntary, sacrificial death and His subsequent resurrection from the dead that was the necessary bit. His death was planned for and prophesied and while God used that wooden cross to fulfill many scriptures magnificently, the use of a wooden cross itself was not necessary.

I believe the cross was as necessary as the crucifixion and here's the reason why: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalm 22:16) Doubting Thomas would have probably remembered this, and that is why he wanted to see those wounds in order to believe in the resurrection. And that is precisely what Christ showed him.

"Dogs" is a derogatory term used by Jews for Gentiles (regarded as unclean). And it was the Roman Gentiles who actually crucified Christ. Furthermore, Christ needed to be nailed to a "tree" because that too was a necessity. As Paul pointed out in Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: You will note that the apostles frequently made reference to "the tree" when speaking about the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[Hoping]

Absolutely. And they will pay the price: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (Rev 20:4)

Do you think anyone who believes in OSAS will refuse the mark?
If, as they suppose, their actions while on earth won't count against them, why refuse?

Another point that can be made from this is that if any refuse, the church is still on earth.
That wrecks the pre-trib' rapture inanity too.

 

[Tambora]

I believe the cross was as necessary as the crucifixion and here's the reason why: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalm 22:16) Doubting Thomas would have probably remembered this, and that is why he wanted to see those wounds in order to believe in the resurrection. And that is precisely what Christ showed him.

"Dogs" is a derogatory term used by Jews for Gentiles (regarded as unclean). And it was the Roman Gentiles who actually crucified Christ. Furthermore, Christ needed to be nailed to a "tree" because that too was a necessity. As Paul pointed out in Galatians 3:13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: You will note that the apostles frequently made reference to "the tree" when speaking about the crucifixion of Christ.

Yep.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you think anyone who believes in OSAS will refuse the mark?
If, as they suppose, their actions while on earth won't count against them, why refuse?

Another point that can be made from this is that if any refuse, the church is still on earth.
That wrecks the pre-trib' rapture inanity too.

The begs the question that Christians (those saved by grace alone through faith alone) will be on the earth during the tribulation.

They (we) won't be, because it's not the same church.

 

[Rhema]

Why do you say 'now'?

Why do you say "then"? I gather that you believe we are not to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"??

Did Jesus change his mind? Was his command in Matthew 28:18-20 nullified? (By whom?) Someone not the Messiah? Or, as many "scholars" will say, do you believe it was added on by later scribes and not Jesus' command at all?

BTW you left out 4/5ths of your marching orders, if.... they are indeed yours.

How were they left out?

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Please stop breaking up your responses to my posts into multiple replies.

I'm sorry you are offended by that.

It's a form of flooding, which is against the rules.

Noted. But I had thought flooding was creating numerous threads all on the same topic, or repeated replies all saying the same thing.

There IS an objective standard. That standard is God.

Which is why I asked if you were a god. But please note what I actually said, and stop changing my words. (That's known as straw man.)

Here is what I said... "There is no objective standard of justice upon which humans can agree.

There IS an objective standard. That standard is God.

And yet you clearly stated that there is no "Justice of God."

Again, there is no "Justice of God."

At this point the discussion has turned into sophistry, so there's really no reason to continue. But let's see where this winds up.

Thinking God's thoughts after Him seems like a good idea, no?

Good luck with that...

(Isaiah 55:8-9 NRSV) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

Why do you ignore the rest of the Bible?

Because of what both Jesus and Jeremiah said...

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

​

(Matthew 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to mend.​

Yet are you not an adherent of MAD? My apologies if I am mistaken. I don't really keep a score card. But MAD basically ignores the rest of the Bible other than Paul.

So why the need to say "the Justice of God"?

Why not just say "justice"?

Sounds like obfuscation to me.

Hence "Justice is just justice."

An objective thing.

One would not say "Justice," because amongst men there are many different standards of justice. Is "Justice" as understood by the left Justice? I doubt you would agree with that. So then Justice as an objective standard can only be that which comes from God, hence God's justice.

All men carry their own personal views of what composes justice. And this has been problematic since the Fall, that people are "self-knowing" about what justice is and is not.

So to just say "Justice" is to breed confusion.

Only God can be objective, men cannot. (Their brains are too messed up.)

1) Is something (like justice) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

(Going beyond the issue of False Dilemma...)

If God is not the One Establishing Justice, then God is subject to something else that is higher than Himself. Therefore Justice is that which God establishes or He is not sovereign in that which is Justice.

(And Socrates was an idiot.)

1) I wasn't talking to you.
2) Saying it doesn't make it so.
3) I used the wrong word. The phrase should be "Exceptions prove the rule."

1) Touchy, eh? (Noted.)
2) Right back at ya.
3) That's just as absurd.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Right you are.

Remember that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Why do you say "then"? I gather that you believe we are not to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:"??

Did Jesus change his mind? Was his command in Matthew 28:18-20 nullified? (By whom?) Someone not the Messiah? Or, as many "scholars" will say, do you believe it was added on by later scribes and not Jesus' command at all?


How were they left out?

Here is what I said... "There is no objective standard of justice upon which humans can agree.

That doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard of justice, which is what I've been saying this entire time.

And yet you clearly stated that there is no "Justice of God."

Fine, I'll concede the point if you agree to just call it "justice" from now on.

Good luck with that...

(Isaiah 55:8-9 NRSV) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

Confusion arises when you ignore the context.

And God's thoughts and ways are not LOWER than our ways.

Nor does the passage mean that God's ways are irrational or unjust.

Because of what both Jesus and Jeremiah said...

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

​

(Matthew 5:17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to mend.​

Thanks for admitting that you ignore a portion of the Bible.

But MAD basically ignores the rest of the Bible other than Paul.

Liar.

One would not say "Justice," because amongst men there are many different standards of justice.

If men call something "justice," but it isn't actually just, then is it really justice?

Oh, I'm sorry, that assumes that there's an objective standard of justice, doesn't it...

Which my position asserts, but your position denies.

Guess which side the Bible supports?

Is "Justice" as understood by the left Justice? I doubt you would agree with that. So then Justice as an objective standard can only be that which comes from God, hence God's justice.

So just call "God's justice" "justice" and men's subjective standard "their opinion."

Problem solved, no?

All men carry their own personal views of what composes justice.

Doesn't make them right. Or wrong.

Depends on how it aligns with what is actually just.

Oh wait...

And this has been problematic since the Fall, that people are "self-knowing" about what justice is and is not.

Even a biker gang member will get mad at you if you try hitting on his woman, or try to take his bike, no?

So to just say "Justice" is to breed confusion.

Only when one means something that is not justice.

Only God can be objective, men cannot. (Their brains are too messed up.)

So men can never be objective? Or do you mean that men are, generally speaking, subjective, but can sometimes be objective?

(Going beyond the issue of False Dilemma...)

If God is not the One Establishing Justice, then God is subject to something else that is higher than Himself.

An excellent observation!

I'd even go so far as to say it is an objective observation!

Therefore Justice is that which God establishes or He is not sovereign in that which is Justice.

How do we know that that which God establishes is just? Because He says it is? Or is there some other way that we can determine that what He says is just, is just?

1) Touchy, eh? (Noted.)
2) Right back at ya.
3) That's just as absurd.

So you've never heard the phrase "the exception proves the rule" before?

It means that something that does not follow the rule shows that the rule exists, thereby reinforcing the rule.

Why is that absurd?

 

[Hoping]

The begs the question that Christians (those saved by grace alone through faith alone) will be on the earth during the tribulation.

Who is it than that will refuse the mark?
The unconverted?

They (we) won't be, because it's not the same church.

That begs the question...how many faiths did Jesus found?

 

[Hoping]

Remember that.

I will, if you will remember the rest of that post you cite.
Rom 6:7, for one..."For he that is dead is freed from sin."

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who is it than that will refuse the mark?
The unconverted?

Jews and proselytes under the New Covenant.

That begs the question...how many faiths did Jesus found?

The phrase you're looking for is "raises the question."

Define "faiths."