ECT WHAT DO PROPHETS DO IN OT an in GRACE ??

[Jerry Shugart]

James is not simply writing "to the twelve tribes which scattered abroad," rather to that believing remnant within all Twelve Tribes.

Those believers were members of the Body of Christ.

They were taught that the Lord could appear at the rapture at any moment, the same belief of all the members of the Body of Christ.

Paul Sadler, one of the chief spokesmen within the Neo-MAD movement, says the following about the events which will happen when the Lord Jesus returns at the rapture:

"According to Paul's gospel the Rapture is 'imminent,' that is, it could take place at any moment. There are no signs, times, or seasons that will precede this glorious event" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, "The Present Obsession With the Anti-Christ," The Berean Searchlight, June, 1999, 7).​

Here is what James wrote:

"You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near. Don't grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door! (Jas 5:8-9).​

The Greek word translated "is near" at James 5:8 is eggizo and in this verse that word means "to be imminent" (A Greek English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], 467).

In an article found on the "Pre-Trib Research Center" web site Dr. Renald E. Showers writes:

"In light of James' statements C. Leslie Mitton wrote, 'James clearly believed, as others of his time did, that the coming of Christ was imminent.' On the basis of James' statements we can conclude that Christ's coming was imminent in New Testament times and continues to be so today, and that this fact should make a difference in the way Christians live" [emphasis added] (Showers, The Imminent Coming of Christ).​

The words "the Judge is standing at the door" certainly speak of the fact that the coming of the Judge is "is near" and it certainly has the quality of imminency.

Paul Sadler correctly understands that only those in the Body of Christ will be caught up to meet the Lord Jesus at the imminent appearance of the Lord Jesus:

"The 'secret' resurrection that will take place at the Rapture should never be confused with the 'first' resurrection at the Second Coming of Christ. Those who rightly divide the Word of truth now see that only the members of the Body of Christ will be raised at the Rapture" [emphasis mine] (Sadler, Exploring the Unsearchable Riches of Christ [Stephens Point, WI: Worzalla Publishing Co., 1993], 167).​

Therefore, we can know with certainty that those who received the epistle of James are members of the Body of Christ.

 

[Danoh]

To bring back all the accoutrements of Judaism is 2P2P which is not in the Bible. God will not be doing Judaism again.

As for Rom 11, we'd need to hear your comments not quote the thing to death. When you quote it you think what is in mind is how you think. You need to clarify everything. That's why I have the 10 basic theses about NT eschatology.

For ex., what was Isaiah talking about? he was talking about the Gospel (taking away the debt of sin); he was talking about the new covenant, which is "in his blood." And the redeemer from Zion, which is Christ. It is already there, for Paul. Isaiah did not skip to a distant future just because D'ism wants to.

Nothing in the tone of Rom 11 is futurist. It is urging, prodding; it says so. "I'm trying to arouse Israel" to participate in the mission of the Gospel. It is saying most of Israel will be hard to the end of time. But still Paul must try to get any who are willing to be missionaries (Acts 26).

There are many other qualifications and instead of answering them, Danoh just quote 11 because he thinks it has read his mind.

I'm not surprised you want a thing laid out in the manner that books lay them out, while asserting what I have posted is my "book" on things.

That is your route. The reasoning of men with men through their reasoning about their reasoning about a thing.

You don't even know what I meant by this last statement.

Romans 11:25-29 is about Isaiah 59 after the return of the Lord.

It does not fit your 70AD notion - that He already returned in 70AD.

From said notion, you have built your sand castle - spiritualize this, that, the other, there, now all that fits.

Isaiah 59:

8. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

The coming result?

17. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.
18. According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

Towards what intent is this vengeance that 70AD does not match?

19. So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

70AD was not that because that is under the Law - see Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9.

What happened in 70AD was God's having removed His hand in His wrath, as Romans 1-3 relates.

Israel was under Gentile rule per the Law for its disobedience all the way back to when "the times of the Gentiles" over Israel first began, politically with their Babylonian captivity, again see Daniel 9.

John 19:

10. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11. Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Later, when Israel continued down its path, and God removed His hand, Israel's rebellion against His will - for He put had put them under their Gentile rule - said rebellion eventually resulted in their rebelling against said Gentile power - they brought Rome's Military might on themselves.

That was not Jesus returning in 70AD in the person of Rome's Military.

Long before then, God had announced to Israel three times, "Lo, we turn to the Gentles" spiritually, Act 13; Acts 18; Acts 28. Israel left to their own path.

 

[Interplanner]

I'm not surprised you want a thing laid out in the manner that books lay them out, while asserting what I have posted is my "book" on things.

That is your route. The reasoning of men with men through their reasoning about their reasoning about a thing.

You don't even know what I meant by this last statement.

Romans 11:25-29 is about Isaiah 59 after the return of the Lord.

It does not fit your 70AD notion - that He already returned in 70AD.

From said notion, you have built your sand castle - spiritualize this, that, the other, there, now all that fits.

Isaiah 59:

8. The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

The coming result?

17. For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak.
18. According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

Towards what intent is this vengeance that 70AD does not match?

19. So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

70AD was not that because that is under the Law - see Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9.

What happened in 70AD was God's having removed His hand in His wrath, as Romans 1-3 relates.

Israel was under Gentile rule per the Law for its disobedience all the way back to when "the times of the Gentiles" over Israel first began, politically with their Babylonians captivity, again see Daniel 9.

John 19:

10. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11. Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Later, when Israel continued down its path, and God removed His hand, Israel's rebellion against His will - He put them under Gentile rule - eventually resulted in their rebelling against said Gentile power - they brought Rome's Military might on themselves.

That was not Jesus returning in 70AD in the person of Rome's Military.

Long before then, God had announced to Israel three times, "Lo, we turn to the Gentles" spiritually, Act 13; Acts 18; Acts 28. Israel left to their own path.

Is 59 is not about 70 AD. It is about what I said: the Gospel that took away the debt of sin; the new covenant Christ inaugurated; and his coming from Zion for the above two things.

It would help if you paid attention.

 

[Danoh]

Those believers were members of the Body of Christ.

Nice attempt to derail the above with your decades old need to hound after others in your need to lord that view over others, even as you ignore applying Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12 - hence why Paul wrote verse 13 to begin with.

 

[Danoh]

Is 59 is not about 70 AD. It is about what I said: the Gospel that took away the debt of sin; the new covenant Christ inaugurated; and his coming from Zion for the above two things.

It would help if you paid attention.

Lol, would help, brother, if you took your nose out of your books.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Nice attempt to derail the above with your decades old need to hound after others in your need to lord that view over others, even as you ignore applying Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 12 - hence why Paul wrote verse 13 to begin with.

As usual you just ignore all the verses which I quoted and we both know why. You just refuse to believe them.

 

[Danoh]

I haven't looked at it yet, but just thinking about what you said this jumped out at me.

It seems a detail is being overlooked. The "they" that were scattered is referring the church not Israel. That is who James is writing to, the church.

I will continue to study what you have presented and digest it but for now I see mad not clearing things up but adding confusion. Instead of doing away with separation of Jew and Gentile and finding unity in Christ, mad continues that division by looking at things carnally instead of spiritually.

The phrase "the church" is not always a reference to the Body.

Acts 7:

37. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Exodus 12:

3. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

6. And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

The word church is simply another word for an assembly, an assembling together of, a congregation, of people.

The phrase "the gospel" is also like that, the word salvation, is like that, the word deliverance, the word sin, and so on - one must always first attempt to look into how it is being used, where it is, by whom, about whom, in relation to what, and why.

 

[Danoh]

As usual you just ignore all the verses which I quoted and we both know why. You just refuse to believe them.

Start living by what Paul instructs there in 1 Corinthians 12, in your dealings with others, and I'll put you on my list of people worth attempting to explore things with.

Until then, all you'll get from me is the same old calling you on your nonsense against all.

 

[turbosixx]

The phrase "the church" is not always a reference to the Body.

Acts 7:

37. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Exodus 12:

3. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

6. And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

The word church is simply another word for an assembly, an assembling together of, a congregation, of people.

The phrase "the gospel" is also like that, the word salvation, is like that, the word deliverance, the word sin, and so on - one must always first attempt to look into how it is being used, where it is, by whom, about whom, in relation to what, and why.

I agree to some degree but in the case of Acts 8, are you saying this is not the body of Christ? The Greek word is ecclsia, which is the called out. Those who believed among the Jews gathered were the ones who answered the call.

James even mentions the church in 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

In your understanding, is James writing to believers?

 

[Danoh]

I agree to some degree but in the case of Acts 8, are you saying this is not the body of Christ? The Greek word is ecclsia, which is the called out. Those who believed among the Jews gathered were the ones who answered the call.

James even mentions the church in 5:14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

In your understanding, is James writing to believers?

In my understanding there were two churches of believers at that time.

One assembly was the believing remnant of Israel in Matthew thru Early Acts prior to the Spirit's declaration of unbelieving Israel's fall at Acts 7:51, per Matt. 12:30-32, and Romans 9-11, for their failure to keep the Law by faith.

In other words, for the height of their failure in their failure to keep the Law; their failure to believe the Law that Jesus was the Christ: the Son of God," John 5:44-46; Acts 7:52-53; Rom. 2:25, 28, 29.

The other assembly was comprised of Jews and Gentiles who came to the Lord after Acts 7's declaration through Paul's gospel of the un circumcision, as Israel had been concluded in uncircumcision, just another "heathen" nation, their door shut, at the same time that a door had been opened to the un circumcision, Gal. 2:7-9.

We see both groups in Paul's exchange with James in Acts 21, for example, where James relates their having heard that the Jews under Paul's ministry are no longer about circumcision and the Law.

Paul then does a 1 Corinthians 10, that he might turn that problem there in Acts 21 into an opportunity to preach an unbelieving Israel at Jerusalem.

Tell, you what, finish that book, and we'll go from there. You'll have less questions to ask about some of these things, and more about others, lol

By the way, I commend your not relying on that book. At the same time, it deals with some of these issues.

 

[DAN P]

ROM16:25 7
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel
and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
==========------------------------------------------=============

Do you know what the Mystery is from the foundation of the world ?

There is a PATTERN that shows the mystery all throughout the OT and NEW Testament.

Hi and Col 1:25-27 say that it was HIDDEN and Kept SECRET from the AGES and from Generations , BUT NOW was made manifest ( by PAUL ) to His saints , the Body of Christ !!

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

DanP,
the hiddenness was the ordinary meaning while reading the OT vs what it meant in Christ. So Paul can say that it was embedded there all the time, but people read the OT more and more in the ordinary sense.

Everyone in the OT knew that Israel was to bless all the nations, but Judaism thought that blessing was the Law itself. Not Christ. It meant Christ, says Paul. It was not that the Law was going to be taken all over the world (he means ceremonial and dietary complications). Most of the 10 Commands were found elsewhere in the ancient world as rock-bottom necessities. it is the dietary and ceremonial law that distinguished Israel. Judaism thought it was going to bless the world with them. See what happened with Paul about that!

Did you know that Judaism largely does not believe the prophets to be divine? Only the Torah. Guess what happens after centuries of doing that? At least the prophets broke through many constrictions that the Law has about what Christ might do when he came.

 

[DAN P]

DanP,
the hiddenness was the ordinary meaning while reading the OT vs what it meant in Christ. So Paul can say that it was embedded there all the time, but people read the OT more and more in the ordinary sense.
/QUOTE]


Hi , so produce those verse which I say are MOOT !!:chuckle::chuckle:

DAN P

 

[Interplanner]

Gal 3:15. The seed does not refer to many people but to Christ.

After you absorb that, apply that same principle to many other things in the OT. We even read in I Cor 10 that the guiding cloud was Christ and the rock that was struck in the desert was Christ.

What you want to study Dan P is the veil in 2 Cor 3-5. It is part of the blindspot of Judaism.

In Gal 3:17 we also see another key detail about Judaism's mistake: it replaced the Promise to all the nations with the Law. That really changes a lot. It voided the Promise. It made it really hard to see Christ in its scriptures, but He was there. Jesus taught the apostles for several days between the Resurrection and Pentecost about all that was about him in Moses and the Prophets.

This is why we have 2500 quotes or allusions by the NT.

 

[turbosixx]

In my understanding there were two churches of believers at that time.

One assembly was the believing remnant of Israel in Matthew thru Early Acts prior to the Spirit's declaration of unbelieving Israel's fall at Acts 7:51, per Matt. 12:30-32, and Romans 9-11, for their failure to keep the Law by faith.

In other words, for the height of their failure in their failure to keep the Law; their failure to believe the Law that Jesus was the Christ: the Son of God," John 5:44-46; Acts 7:52-53; Rom. 2:25, 28, 29.

The other assembly was comprised of Jews and Gentiles who came to the Lord after Acts 7's declaration through Paul's gospel of the un circumcision, as Israel had been concluded in uncircumcision, just another "heathen" nation, their door shut, at the same time that a door had been opened to the un circumcision, Gal. 2:7-9.

We see both groups in Paul's exchange with James in Acts 21, for example, where James relates their having heard that the Jews under Paul's ministry are no longer about circumcision and the Law.

Paul then does a 1 Corinthians 10, that he might turn that problem there in Acts 21 into an opportunity to preach an unbelieving Israel at Jerusalem.

Tell, you what, finish that book, and we'll go from there. You'll have less questions to ask about some of these things, and more about others, lol

By the way, I commend your not relying on that book. At the same time, it deals with some of these issues.

Ok, I'll leave you alone until I finish reading, but these are strange things I'm hearing.

 

[Interplanner]

Everything Danoh says is pretty strange. He says don't read books but he doesn't mean his.

I have no idea what keeping the Law by faith means. I dont' think he does either.

"The Law that Jesus was the Christ." Very strange.

There is no such thing as a gospel of un circumcision. I'm going with his spelling because he's a law to himself. There was a ministry to the uncirc and to the circ. If he is borrowing on Gal 2, his grammar is flat wrong. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

So the "door is shut" is it? But open in Acts 21. These are the great straining secret beliefs of the MAD ones, as mighty Danoh is.

Hey, lets all do a I Cor 10!!! We all know what that means. Very strange indeed.

I don't know if he edits but he said Paul was going to preach an unbelieving Israel at Jerusalem. Very strange, yes. Maybe preaching an unbelieving Israel is what a I Cor 10 is!!!

Paul kept on preaching to any Jews who would listen. God does not work in whole ethnos at a time any more, but Danoh and co don't realize this. They don't know where they are in theology unless they can say one ethnos does this and another does that.

The answer? Gal 3, read aloud 10x. Not books, as Danoh would say.

 

[Danoh]

Everything Danoh says is pretty strange. He says don't read books but he doesn't mean his.

I have no idea what keeping the Law by faith means. I dont' think he does either.

"The Law that Jesus was the Christ." Very strange.

There is no such thing as a gospel of un circumcision. I'm going with his spelling because he's a law to himself. There was a ministry to the uncirc and to the circ. If he is borrowing on Gal 2, his grammar is flat wrong. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

So the "door is shut" is it? But open in Acts 21. These are the great straining secret beliefs of the MAD ones, as mighty Danoh is.

Hey, lets all do a I Cor 10!!! We all know what that means. Very strange indeed.

I don't know if he edits but he said Paul was going to preach an unbelieving Israel at Jerusalem. Very strange, yes. Maybe preaching an unbelieving Israel is what a I Cor 10 is!!!

Paul kept on preaching to any Jews who would listen. God does not work in whole ethnos at a time any more, but Danoh and co don't realize this. They don't know where they are in theology unless they can say one ethnos does this and another does that.

The answer? Gal 3, read aloud 10x. Not books, as Danoh would say.

Try asking what I meant.

 

[Interplanner]

After 2 months here I dont know what you mean! It is not important enough. Or you're not clear enough. Or there are enough mistakes, like a separate gospel for the uncircs, that just aren't there. That seems to be one of those magic passages like Rom 11 that try to assert something even though all other theological force is against it in the passage.

The system people just strain to find the thing that's not there, between the lines, but find it they do.

 

[turbosixx]

In my understanding there were two churches of believers at that time.

One assembly was the believing remnant of Israel in Matthew thru Early Acts prior to the Spirit's declaration of unbelieving Israel's fall at Acts 7:51, per Matt. 12:30-32, and Romans 9-11, for their failure to keep the Law by faith.

In other words, for the height of their failure in their failure to keep the Law; their failure to believe the Law that Jesus was the Christ: the Son of God," John 5:44-46; Acts 7:52-53; Rom. 2:25, 28, 29.

The other assembly was comprised of Jews and Gentiles who came to the Lord after Acts 7's declaration through Paul's gospel of the un circumcision, as Israel had been concluded in uncircumcision, just another "heathen" nation, their door shut, at the same time that a door had been opened to the un circumcision, Gal. 2:7-9.

We see both groups in Paul's exchange with James in Acts 21, for example, where James relates their having heard that the Jews under Paul's ministry are no longer about circumcision and the Law.

Paul then does a 1 Corinthians 10, that he might turn that problem there in Acts 21 into an opportunity to preach an unbelieving Israel at Jerusalem.

Tell, you what, finish that book, and we'll go from there. You'll have less questions to ask about some of these things, and more about others, lol

By the way, I commend your not relying on that book. At the same time, it deals with some of these issues.

I said I was going to finish reading first but the questions I have are mounting. I will continue to read but I thought we could discuss as I go along.

The first thing I see is his justification for things that differ. Instead of looking at things that differ and trying to see harmony he leaves them as opposites. I would like to look at the example of Jesus telling the apostles to baptize and Paul not to baptize. I see harmony in the two, not opposites.

Matt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
The apostles were to preach the gospel and make disciples by baptizing the believers and we see many examples of that.


1 Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-
If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he baptize believers? If he did, why would he do it? Why would he follow the same pattern given to the other apostles?

The confusion comes in because this verse is taken out of context. Paul is merely pointing out that his primary objective is to preach the gospel, anyone can perform the baptism. People will not want to be baptized if they first do not hear the gospel and believe. We can see that Paul did baptize believers

Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

 

[Danoh]

I said I was going to finish reading first but the questions I have are mounting. I will continue to read but I thought we could discuss as I go along.

The first thing I see is his justification for things that differ. Instead of looking at things that differ and trying to see harmony he leaves them as opposites. I would like to look at the example of Jesus telling the apostles to baptize and Paul not to baptize. I see harmony in the two, not opposites.

Matt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
The apostles were to preach the gospel and make disciples by baptizing the believers and we see many examples of that.


1 Cor. 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-
If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he baptize believers? If he did, why would he do it? Why would he follow the same pattern given to the other apostles?

The confusion comes in because this verse is taken out of context. Paul is merely pointing out that his primary objective is to preach the gospel, anyone can perform the baptism. People will not want to be baptized if they first do not hear the gospel and believe. We can see that Paul did baptize believers

Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

Honestly, until one gets where a particular system is looking at things from to begin with, looking at them instead, from within one's own system, one will not be able to see why the other side is asserting what it is.

I know from having been there myself.

A system of one kind or another is ever the issue; ever in place.

All have a Systematic Theology; whether they know it or not.

Ours is an Acts 9, aka Mid-Acts, Dispensational Theology.

The question is whether or not one has become so bound to one's system that the dynamics of other systems are either not able to be made sense of, nor even allowed their exploring.

Note, for example, my reply to Interplanner, and his in turn.

As Einstein put it "one cannot solve whatever is causing a problem, by the same kind of thinking that is causing it," or words to that effect.

See if this short video helps to see where we are coming from, just a bit more. Its speaker is someone I have over the years found I agree with to a very high degree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNhTLRPpD7I

Get that out of the way - get where we are coming from to begin with.

Even more so, how we arrived at it. This is a question very few ask, let alone, soundly.