# Let the unjust be unjust.



## hobbs27 (Jul 19, 2016)

Rev. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.


So..for two thousand years have we been doing it wrong? Should we just let the wicked be wicked and not reach out..not evangelize at all?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 19, 2016)

Sounds a bit out of context to me...especially with what Jesus said in Matt 28.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jul 19, 2016)

rjcruiser said:


> Sounds a bit out of context to me...especially with what Jesus said in Matt 28.



Agreed.  There's nothing ambiguous about the Great Commission.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 19, 2016)

"in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be."


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 19, 2016)

rjcruiser said:


> Sounds a bit out of context to me...especially with what Jesus said in Matt 28.



I agree, but what's the context?


----------



## Israel (Jul 20, 2016)

When the gospel and the truth of Jesus Christ becomes no longer for a man seen as a means by which he may seek to impose his own will, control or manipulate others, exalt his own knowledge, then perhaps the context of both "go into all the world" and the text of the OP can be harmonized.
Till then, who knows such a man?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 20, 2016)

The context is that only God has the remedy to evil : 12 " my reward is in me." Man is still incapable of the remedy to evil alone. So John should not rush to try to cure the ills of the world thinking he has a special knowledge of good and evil. John has a knowledge of God to a degree but not His wisdom or capability regards good and evil.  ( For all his spiritual smarts, John is  fast and ready to worship an angel!)

 So the message is not a call to remedy the ills of the world from the "reward" that is in man in general, but a call to the Gospel and what it reveals regards God's designs towards His creation.

 John is a servant of God, but not his right hand. The reward in man is to know God. He cannot set himself up as a judge in the place of God. Therefore the way is peace who's foundation can only be love. So the angel tells John don't arm yourself in faith to judge man as being good or evil as this is incorrect posture. Therefore, 

"He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still."


Or in other words even when "said good and Christian" people try to right wrongs they often resort to wrongs to remedy rights. For example it is wrong to war monger, but it is right to stir up patriotic fervor and to go to war preemptively to protect a way of life or in self defense which is said good. So for a good cause we do evil onto others-- many of which are innocent, but justified " collateral damage"... Or in the name of justice we argue in the courts of human consciousness that the ends we desire are superior to the means we employ. This is embedded in the way of the world and embedded in the means available even to the saints who would seek to remedy evil in the world even in the name of justice who's definition changes with circumstance. Therefore it is God who decides who and what is just and good.

So the call remains, in Revelation 22, the call to the great commission, which is a call to the Gospel where God will give man a new heart and where it is not appointed that man should decide how and who gets it and who never will. 

Man, including John, is not in charge of weeding the world of evil, God is. And in this regard Christians are still in their desert, sinner and saint ever circling its frontiers,  bewildered by their many generations ( the effects of their works and the outlooks people have due to them) and the generations ( the effects of their works and the outlooks people have due to them) of the world, their promised land is yet a long "ways off"...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 20, 2016)

Israel said:


> When the gospel and the truth of Jesus Christ becomes no longer for a man seen as a means by which he may seek to impose his own will, control or manipulate others, exalt his own knowledge, then perhaps the context of both "go into all the world" and the text of the OP can be harmonized.
> Till then, who knows such a man?



The angel obviously believed that John could be such a man, as do I,  otherwise the angel would not have bothered to tell a man who was incapable of knowing its significance in reference to the quote of the OP. Maybe.

By the way, what you write above, no man thought you to say.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 20, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
> 
> 
> So..for two thousand years have we been doing it wrong? Should we just let the wicked be wicked and not reach out..not evangelize at all?



See parable of the wheat and the tares.

We can't change the tares into wheat.That's not the intent of the commission.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 20, 2016)

welderguy said:


> See parable of the wheat and the tares.
> 
> We can't change the tares into wheat.That's not the intent of the commission.



I agree. Yet I would go farther than this and say it also includes not judging who is and who ain't. A dead man living is hard to id. ---for Gordy at least.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 20, 2016)

Thanks for the replies. It's neat to me when we take a verse and see different understandings due to our own pressupositions.

I notice predestination believers are quick to accept it as it is.
Freewillers, say" whoa, this does not supercede the great commission"
And me..the preterist looks at the verse before..
10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. ) and say's , " ah, something was about to happen, so there was no more need to convince anyone, God was about to judge!

Thanks all.


----------



## ryanh487 (Jul 20, 2016)

In context, it refers to a time when Christ will leave his position as intercessor in the heavenly temple and move to the judgement seat.  Those who are saved, are saved.  Those who rejected Christ are no longer reachable.  Think of it like Sodom & Gomorrah, God knows the hearts of the people and when evil is so prevalent that hearts are so hardened against him and no further glory can be had from the sacrifice and suffering of the saints, God will say enough.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 20, 2016)

ryanh487 said:


> In context, it refers to a time when Christ will leave his position as intercessor in the heavenly temple and move to the judgement seat.  Those who are saved, are saved.  Those who rejected Christ are no longer reachable.  Think of it like Sodom & Gomorrah, God knows the hearts of the people and when evil is so prevalent that hearts are so hardened against him and no further glory can be had from the sacrifice and suffering of the saints, God will say enough.



On context and nature, I agree 100%. Just like Sodom...and just like the days of Noe.


----------



## j_seph (Jul 20, 2016)

Maybe I read Chapter 22 wrong, but I took it as when Christ comes "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still".

Being you better be ready, cause how you are when he comes, still you will be and there is no changing how you were at that point.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 20, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I notice predestination believers are quick to accept it as it is.
> Freewillers, say" whoa, this does not supercede the great commission"
> And me..the preterist looks at the verse before..
> 10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. ) and say's , " ah, something was about to happen, so there was no more need to convince anyone, God was about to judge!
> ...



I think this is the first time I've been mistaken for a Freewiller.  



Can you believe that a Calvinist actually believes in the Great Commission?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 20, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Thanks for the replies. It's neat to me when we take a verse and see different understandings due to our own pressupositions.
> 
> I notice predestination believers are quick to accept it as it is.
> Freewillers, say" whoa, this does not supercede the great commission"
> ...



Hum!

 Freewillers and predestination believers. These are both denominational doctrines. What denomination is preterism a doctrine of?______________? And is it much more than individual revelation?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 20, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Hum!
> 
> Freewillers and predestination believers. These are both denominational doctrines. What denomination is preterism a doctrine of?______________? And is it much more than individual revelation?



I didnt know it came down to your denomination. That doesn't hold up well in the Baptist denomination anyway. Baptists consist of freewill and predestination.

Preterist have no specific denomination although most come from CoC, Presbyterian, & Baptist. I have even chatted with a RC preterist.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 20, 2016)

rjcruiser said:


> I think this is the first time I've been mistaken for a Freewiller.
> 
> 
> Can you believe that a Calvinist actually believes in the Great Commission?



Im just glad to know someone in here that's not offended by the term Calvinist.


----------



## Israel (Jul 21, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Hum!
> 
> Freewillers and predestination believers. These are both denominational doctrines. What denomination is preterism a doctrine of?______________? And is it much more than individual revelation?



I was never aware of that. That these doctrines are owed to denominations. I could see where denominations could form around them, but that their roots, if you will, are denominational.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 21, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Im just glad to know someone in here that's not offended by the term Calvinist.



Are you a devout follower of John Calvin?


----------



## hummerpoo (Jul 21, 2016)

Israel said:


> I was never aware of that. That these doctrines are owed to denominations. I could see where denominations could form around them, but that their roots, if you will, are denominational.



Yep; carts and horses.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 21, 2016)

Israel said:


> I was never aware of that. That these doctrines are owed to denominations. I could see where denominations could form around them, but that their roots, if you will, are denominational.



Yep, I'm not sure about carts and horses, but I have to wonder how the three balls of freewillers, predestination believers and preterists get in the same bingo cage?  They seem not to be each of the same exact size from where I sit in the game room. But hey it's not my room and I don't need a big win here.

As to the roots of which generated which... I'm not certain. It is my view, a simple one I admit, that two in the list can be found well nested in certain denominations, and the other... other... well...

Simply one of these things seems not like the other, and i guess at which does not belong.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 21, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Yep, I'm not sure about carts and horses, but I have to wonder how the three balls of freewillers, predestination believers and preterists get in the same bingo cage?  They seem not to be each of the same exact size from where I sit in the game room. But hey it's not my room and I don't need a big win here.



Here is how. For the exception of one self described Calvinist, we seem to naturally read into scripture, as we naturally think how scripture should read, or that is what I think from observation anyway.

 I can read a verse and it screams fulfilled to me, another can read the same verse and it sends them another message. While eschatology is my natural interest in scripture, I think we all need recognize our own biases when studying scripture and try to view it from others eyes also. I think this will help us tremendously. Maybe...


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 21, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Here is how. For the exception of one self described Calvinist, we seem to naturally read into scripture, as we naturally think how scripture should read, or that is what I think from observation anyway.
> 
> I can read a verse and it screams fulfilled to me, another can read the same verse and it sends them another message. While eschatology is my natural interest in scripture, I think we all need recognize our own biases when studying scripture and try to view it from others eyes also. I think this will help us tremendously. Maybe...



I agree... I thought we were doing this all along... but maybe not.


BTW generally your idea is also valid to the arts, especially poetry. The con side of the argument for this way of proceeding it that the bible really means anything and therefore nothing. But I am all for the pro side with caution  for that what was good close reading for 2000 yrs by the faithful gets fully cast off  for  exciting, eccentric and personal revelation that changes the total dynamics of the faith.

To be honest when I read the bible in your shoes, I get sciatica.  I hope if you practice your words, I don't give you a head ache... or worse..


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 21, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Im just glad to know someone in here that's not offended by the term Calvinist.


I am not opposed to labels, but they tell us nothing about the man. They do provide a basic understanding as to where one stands theologically.

BTW, most Calvinists offend me.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 21, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> To be honest when I read the bible in your shoes, I get sciatica. )



That's the Holy Spirit Gordon, don't resist it!


----------



## welderguy (Jul 22, 2016)

j_seph said:


> Maybe I read Chapter 22 wrong, but I took it as when Christ comes "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still".
> 
> Being you better be ready, cause how you are when he comes, still you will be and there is no changing how you were at that point.



Are these things within man's power to change?...Or does God do the changing and then we walk in newness of life accordingly?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jul 22, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Are you a devout follower of John Calvin?







gemcgrew said:


> They do provide a basic understanding as to where one stands theologically.



This.  Somewhat like what denomination you are.



gemcgrew said:


> BTW, most Calvinists offend me.



Why is that?


----------



## gemcgrew (Jul 22, 2016)

rjcruiser said:


> Why is that?


They deny the very truths that they propose.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 22, 2016)

gemcgrew said:


> They deny the very truths that they propose.



Do tell, this sounds interesting.


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Yep, I'm not sure about carts and horses, but I have to wonder how the three balls of freewillers, predestination believers and preterists get in the same bingo cage?  They seem not to be each of the same exact size from where I sit in the game room. But hey it's not my room and I don't need a big win here.
> 
> As to the roots of which generated which... I'm not certain. It is my view, a simple one I admit, that two in the list can be found well nested in certain denominations, and the other... other... well...
> 
> Simply one of these things seems not like the other, and i guess at which does not belong.



I believe in free will. It is just not my own.
I believe in election and predestination, it's just not mine to decide.
I believe "If you continue in my word, than are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". 

Yet, though I believe this, I also believe "it does not yet appear what we shall be..."
How free is that free? I don't yet know. All that a man might be made...somehow, some way, in the despite of all that I would make "of myself" still comes through. In part.
To me, now, the scarceness of salvation is very precious, where once I may have despised it. I couldn't stomach being "scarcely saved". That was not to be on _my _plate. 
I thank God for it, now, and can only gladly admit to it.
I see that God's scarce, even in the overwhelming presense of my pride, is enough.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 23, 2016)

As Christians we are all free from sin, both the free will and predestination believers.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 23, 2016)

Israel said:


> I believe in free will. It is just not my own.
> I believe in election and predestination, it's just not mine to decide.
> I believe "If you continue in my word, than are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".
> 
> ...




I understand and agree with,  "If you continue in my word, than are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". 


It is reported that this statement comes from Jesus and it concerns the teachings or the very teachings and words  of Jesus to his  disciples and possibly his followers... ( It does not mean the bible. )

I just don't see you or your faith in a tangle  with the overwhelming pride you say...is yours?

What is " scarcely saved"? Who calls you such? I don't follow that salvation is scarce? Can you explain? 

As to freedom, freed from the world even though it is still there to our next step, and tossed even by the seat of our pants into our kingdom is that not a mighty work to further freedom and justice?


----------



## Israel (Jul 23, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> I understand and agree with,  "If you continue in my word, than are you my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".
> 
> 
> It is reported that this statement comes from Jesus and it concerns the teachings or the very teachings and words  of Jesus to his  disciples and possibly his followers... ( It does not mean the bible. )
> ...



I am brought to this verse, not as "proof" at all, but perhaps in a meaning I never grasped. May not, still.

I suppose you have heard the expression, used often to reference those times of extreme...and most usually in matters of present danger...like: "Stuff got real...in a heart beat..."? Or that folks express those times when suddenly a thing unforseen presses upon them the imminence of a thing? I guess it's like being alive to a thing...suddenly.

Without getting much into any thoughts about our gift delivered that allows us to "be" in each moment, I nevertheless find myself as though stung, and immediately realize I have been living, to some extent, in a vanity. Call it getting shocked back, that bucket of cold water, that slap "wake up!". That there are varying degrees in severity of their delivery is also true. At such times, it's not unusual for me to consider...if left there, in that vanity, in that seemingly till woken, blissful ignorance, I am just a lost man. I will follow any rabbit trail.
The laughable expression of a thing so ridiculous till seen, and spoken, made "real" to me, palpable; is found in the sense "I am doing pretty well here".
But, someone doesn't leave me there...in that darkness that I mistake for light. That death, I mistake for life. I get woken. Woken from a thing I don't want to see, by a friend I need to see. And somehow they are very much related, that is, it is only in the acknowledgement of where I have been, now seen, that I receive the grace that assures me, now desperately known.

It doesn't matter that I may say "I don't like being in desperation". I don't know who does. But the waking to it, by whatever means, is of necessity (at least for me).

If I puzzle it out, think on it, how that I have absolutely nothing of myself to keep me from going back to sleep in death...well perhaps that is my own awkward step of faith...into a dependence I had not known prior.

But I know...even that step is not "my own"...something beckons me from the mere saying I depend, even hoping I might...to living as a dependent.
So, I do not find, in these times of desperation a hope to be despised, where I didn't know it (hope) was also placed. I find it in a place...perhaps to be found by those, like myself, so awfully sure of themselves, mostly.

"If the righteous be scarcely saved..."

Another translation allows for the Greek word "molis" to be translated as "with difficulty", so that "If the righteous be saved with difficulty..."
And I begin to appreciate the difficulty assumed by our Lord, on my behalf, for that work of His in my waking.

And it, I discover, is something I scarcely know. But suddenly...things get "real". And the difficulty I would shun, is now given me, forced upon me, as a gift I know I could have never sought. His death, wakes me up. His life now, is to continue that work.

Who is he that condemns? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

That He _does not stop_...is all the life I know.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 23, 2016)

Israel said:


> I am brought to this verse, not as "proof" at all, but perhaps in a meaning I never grasped. May not, still.
> 
> I suppose you have heard the expression, used often to reference those times of extreme...and most usually in matters of present danger...like: "Stuff got real...in a heart beat..."? Or that folks express those times when suddenly a thing unforseen presses upon them the imminence of a thing? I guess it's like being alive to a thing...suddenly.
> 
> ...



Ah! I understand more clearly now. Tell me if you can, is Christ to you different today than He was 10 yrs ago? I don't know why I'm asking this... but just that I should. Perhaps I recall when I first met you here, how  Jesus was important and Christ was your every other word.


As for me there  is this wall mural in my childhood church house where Jesus is sitting on a tree stump or a stone high on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. In his hands their is a lamb. And I suppose I had in my outlook this verse of scripture when I looked at it for the longest time:

   [O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!]

Today added to this outlook is Jesus as a priest to His church. Not only mediator in heaven, but also alive in the Church to the faithful and as such still very  present in the world.


----------



## Israel (Jul 24, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Ah! I understand more clearly now. Tell me if you can, is Christ to you different today than He was 10 yrs ago? I don't know why I'm asking this... but just that I should. Perhaps I recall when I first met you here, how  Jesus was important and Christ was your every other word.
> 
> 
> As for me there  is this wall mural in my childhood church house where Jesus is sitting on a tree stump or a stone high on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. In his hands their is a lamb. And I suppose I had in my outlook this verse of scripture when I looked at it for the longest time:
> ...


Is Christ different to me?
And 10 years you ask.
That's an especially salient question, even as to the amount of time.
But yes, I do see Him differently.
Profoundly so, but that is only if I am recollecting the man I thought I knew 10 years ago...is me. And that somehow, my recollection, is in any way, true.

But, as pertaining then to the OP.
The righteousness that is of faith, that which has translated us from one kingdom into another (from the world, to the Lord's by His work of mercy and grace) is, found sustaining, irreducible, and miraculous. A thing dies to one place to be born into another...and, if both my understanding of the scripture can bear any test, and my experience has taught me, learns a peculiar thing; _it_ really knows nothing about either...the world from which it came, nor the Kingdom into which it is born.

Oh, surely, it was puppet stringed while in the world, played the world's fool, but it really had no insight into the nature of the thing while in it. This only comes "in the light"...where matters are disclosed. The Spirit, Who knows all things, searches all things, even the deepest secrets of man's heart is now teaching us of Christ, His Kingdom, His (and our) place there...yet...all while we are "in the world"...(but no longer of it). 

I think it is safe to say...we all know then of what oppositions are made against our apprehension of truth in light. We are fought at every turn for anything the Spirit makes known to us. But this is (should be?) of no wonder, has not our Lord told us? There is an enmity, a hostility of each to the other, truth cannot abide a lie, and lies are terrified of the truth, lest they be disclosed...and be shown as nothing.
Paul did not withhold when he tells us, "we are not ignorant of Satan's schemes". The liar from the beginning.
The battle is indeed the Lord's...but is not also ours to know in every hill granted us as conquered in that faith (in His work), the survey of weapons left, despoiled of our enemy..."this was the resistance here"...this, or these things erected here as battlements, sought to impede our progress. Yes, the believer knows victory, and victories, but also learns of what was arrayed against him of lies that sought to keep his survey from that hill. And, if you will, every bit of ground taken affords a dearer vision of home. (The enemy fights with back to it, refusing, we advance full faced toward it)
And now, then, also, that "dearer vision" is about to be tested. As so it must be.

I don't know on what hill in our progress precisely the revelation is made of "men who oppose themselves"...but maybe it is called "the hill of men who oppose themselves"?
It is both the opposing of the truth that a man may be set to, but also, it is learned, in that, such a man is also "opposing himself", his incongruity, unknown to himself, but now made plain by resistance to the truth, that will either bring about the foment of revolution within himself to repentance...or it will not. This is all in God's hand..."if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

I believe some men have made that hill. They have come there in repentance. They have seen the deep disposition in themselves to not believe the truth, but resist it, and have learned, are learning, that the "glory to glory" of faith does not come apart from this knowing of themselves, aware now of a predilection to resist, to rebel, and in that knowing understand they can never again trust _in themselves_ in matters of truth. They know, beyond doubt now, unless a thing is made real to them, shown them, given them by another, made true and real in "their own flesh" they do not know anything. Is this tested? Without doubt. With failings acknowledged? How else can it be?

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

The above means nothing to a man unless he believes it. But, if believed, what possible entrance can it give into the grace and knowledge of our Lord, and His Kingdom? The "letting" of a thing, that is, its allowance, as in: 

_But John tried to prevent Him_, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” “_Let it be so now_, Jesus replied. “_It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness_” in this way. Then_ John permitted Him_. 

How very odd it could seem to know this thing. The resistance shown to the One known, admitted to, as being the Better. (Do we admit Jesus is Lord?) Where then does the "tried to prevent Him"...come from? (Can a man oppose himself? You are Messiah, my better, and in confession "I need you more than you need me....BUT")
Training in the righteousness which is of faith seems most contrary. It always is.
Contrary to all our own sense of righteousness.
That coming to "nevertheless at thy word" is not unusually preceded by "but we have already fished all night". 
I think until we are men who recognize and admit our innate resistance (admitted openly or acknowledged _in truth_ to the Lord, is of no matter), there may well be things hidden from us. Do we want to be resistant...it seems not to matter against the truth that we are. And here is where a strange thing may also happen in the soul...do I care for truth more than I care for my own image of myself? My own desire for myself? If so, I have surely been set at odds, and God alone knows what will win, and surely knows which is greater. And he is not unaware of the battle...there.

This may be called "the beating of the dead horse".
Much stock is set, must be set in what Paul says is "all that matters...a new creation".
We draw lines...old vs new...pre resurrection, post resurrection, pre Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and thereafter...we want to "be assured we are in the right place", believing the right things, seeing the right things, hearing the right things, doing the right things.
And so, we find Peter hungry on a roof top. He goes and sees Cornelius. Wow! The gentiles are given to believe, too! (I didn't think I should go, kinda protested in my way with what I believed I was seeing in clean and unclean things...truth be told on me...) But God prevailed! I knew that when I was told to go see a gentile...that's what the whole of the vision was about, I just knew it...and went...and was (truth be told) wonderfully surprised and marvelled! Yes, this is marvellous. (How many of us are the fruit of that vision of correction?) Yes, it is wonderful!

Yet...

With no accusation toward Peter or any, for they are, as I am, just a man...what was spoken to them at the ascension? What were they all, _already told_? Someone spoke..."Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"...but who heard?
Whence then the need..."of that vision"?

This is grace.

This is the grace of the Father who tells two sons to work in his field, and one says yes...and the Father bears the saying of "NO" by the other. But the one who said yes...doesn't go...and the one saying no, repents, and goes. And Jesus asks...which one did the will of the Father?

This...is man. Not willing till made willing, not able unless made able, not faithful until a faith is revealed...not his own.

No doubt there are many, I have met them, still do, who do so many gymnastics to reconcile things. Lived myself with one for many years. (if that was me, at all?)

Wanting to be a help. Needing to show oneself a help...precisely because the run down and utter shambles of the place I lived _forced me to need to show myself different.
_ Funny how that works. That provoking _to try and appear_. I did not want to believe I could ever be "the one" most in need, the most wretched and poor. It always fit better...if I could believe it was "someone else"...who needed. To have help.
That joke if it can be called such, was on me.
This thing holding sway, such as it did...was "let" to run its course, allowed to do...what it needed to do. "We" (I believe I have met others) helpers used to run all over one another, tire tracks across our backs attesting to the mad rush to show who was the better helper. This is simply another hill  discovered already taken by our Lord in conquest. The weapons found abandoned there by the enemy read things like "must show oneself as something"..."must be a something in the sight of others"
and "if you can teach no one will suspect you are the most rebellious of students"...and "others need _you_".

I do not accuse our brother Paul. How could I when his words, yet not his words, have been so much comfort and life to me? But those gymnastics that would invite themselves are Oh, so tiresome.
Where once a thing kinda sounded strange...I so much hoped there was an error in translation of a tense in light of all said before of being the very righteousness of God in Christ, the believer's distinctions in light, the elevation through the resurrection...to being a better man.
But, that's what I wanted to hear "better man"...when it was, and always is "new" man. But, being what I am, by the "letting" of someone (Oh, immeasurable grace! to be found there!) had to run a course to where a thing said was no longer a bother, nor irksome, nor...seemingly out of place. Nor mistranslated in tense.

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom _I am_ chief.

From here I think something was battled for, and found. From here something was longed for with a greater desire than appearance of oneself...even to oneself. From here I hear an answer to "that I may know him!" (feel free to enter chronoligical matters)
From here I see a something spoken that takes as long as necessary to be heard and embraced.

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

The presence of the physician, though it indicates one's estate...is far greater than anything else. And we are "let" as long as necessary...to learn this.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 24, 2016)

Israel said:


> Is Christ different to me?
> And 10 years you ask.
> That's an especially salient question, even as to the amount of time.
> But yes, I do see Him differently.
> Profoundly so, but that is only if I am recollecting the man I thought I knew 10 years ago...is me. And that somehow, my recollection, is in any way, true.



Hum! Salt tossed behind one's back is a purifier of the past so says the old wife in her tale. Now to salt the present and the future I find no wife's tale on it, but an echo, " You are the salt of the earth" and "what good is salt if it has lost its kick... ( sometin like that)"... and "they that have ears hear" and "the truth shall set you free".

Blessed are the meek*: for they shall inherit the earth. ( New Testament)

And look, I will shake my fist over them, and they will become plunder for their *former slaves. (Old Testament. Zachariah 2:9)

(There is question as to who the former slaves are in this case. I take them to be the Israelites who have returned from exile. That is to say as slaves, or servants, they have been purified by God who has made them low from their previous station of arrogance. Now being formed as servants, they will inherit the earth itself which was in the hands of their oppressors for awhile. The Israelites will do this by  returning to the homeland from exile  and especially to Jerusalem.)

 And so I find this a mirror of what  must happen with Christians who cannot return to forms of arrogance to the extent as to justify injustice, but are formed through grace to be servants, meek,  and the least; and as servants they will also inherit the earth and the booty of their oppressors who once had the world's claim on it.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 24, 2016)

Israel, 

When I was a boy I use to go next door to watch Bonanza reruns on TV. ( It was the only idiot box in the neighbourhood and owned by the poorest people in the neigbourhood also, ( Funny how that works.).

 Usually it was after supper that I went when it was still daylight and when it came to walk back home, being afraid of my own shadow as it was night by now, my sweet heart cousin Sally, who was much older than me by maybe four yrs, would faithfully walk me back home day in and day out.

It occurred to me the other night as I walked my dog before bedtime by the light of the moon, that even the dog nosed along in my shadow as if it was nothing at all--as if it was not there. I must admit that at that point, I realized, Gordo your no longer afraid of your own shadow---50 yrs from when you were!


Brother, I have only met a similar view as yours regards the poles of belief and unbelief, understanding vs misunderstanding when someone pointed out that Martin Luther shot his ink well at his own shadow which he felt was haunting him and was possessed of the devil itself. And further that this little trick of shadows challenging correct course continues to cut swats in the souls of reformers.

It is perhaps that for some in the shadow we cast, the forms are bent out of shape  or feature, a deformity of shape, that is alarming. A shadow is not unlike seeing one's back, it must come about with a play of light and when it challenges shape one must naturally be alarmed.

 I'm not sure why but I don't seem to share your anxieties. My shadow is cast from the light of the kingdom and for some unknown reason, from it my shadow is always the same. So much so that even my dog goes right through it as if nothing at all was there and yet he is too cautious at any other thing that moves or is suddenly unfamiliar. ( Funny how that happens.)


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Rev. 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
> 
> 
> So..for two thousand years have we been doing it wrong? Should we just let the wicked be wicked and not reach out..not evangelize at all?



Hobbs,
What is your take on the parable of the wheat and tares ?How does it align with the great commission by your belief ?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 25, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hobbs,
> What is your take on the parable of the wheat and tares ?How does it align with the great commission by your belief ?



The wheat and tares parable is fulfilled per 70ad. The righteous now shine, and the wicked were destroyed..Not only that but this wonderful parable destroys any idea of a rapture in which the righteous is taken first..for the wicked were dealt with first in this parable.
As for the great commission, it to is fulfilled. I think twice in the Epistles the claim is made that the Gospel has gone out to the entire world, and it has gone out to every creature.

This does not mean we are not to praise God and preach the Gospel.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> The wheat and tares parable is fulfilled per 70ad. The righteous now shine, and the wicked were destroyed..Not only that but this wonderful parable destroys any idea of a rapture in which the righteous is taken first..for the wicked were dealt with first in this parable.
> As for the great commission, it to is fulfilled. I think twice in the Epistles the claim is made that the Gospel has gone out to the entire world, and it has gone out to every creature.
> 
> This does not mean we are not to praise God and preach the Gospel.



When you say "the righteous now shine and the wicked were destroyed", these things were secured at the death and resurrection of Christ.Not later at 70AD.

It is shown in Col.2:11-15


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 25, 2016)

welderguy said:


> When you say "the righteous now shine and the wicked were destroyed", these things were secured at the death and resurrection of Christ.Not later at 70AD.
> 
> It is shown in Col.2:11-15



I guess you're more preterist than me, I dont see the destruction of the wicked in that parable until 70 ad.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I guess you're more preterist than me, I dont see the destruction of the wicked in that parable until 70 ad.



Nope.I'm not preterist by a long shot.Because I believe Jesus has yet to come back the second time.

How do you explain what Paul says in Col.3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ..."
If the Colossian saints are already spiritually risen at this point(BEFORE 70AD),why then do you keep insisting on saying that they will be resurrected spiritually AGAIN at 70AD?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 25, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Nope.I'm not preterist by a long shot.Because I believe Jesus has yet to come back the second time.
> 
> How do you explain what Paul says in Col.3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ..."
> If the Colossian saints are already spiritually risen at this point(BEFORE 70AD),why then do you keep insisting on saying that they will be resurrected spiritually AGAIN at 70AD?



Because they were a special group. They were the elect, they were the bride, they were not married yet but betrothed. They were living in the transitional period of the already but not yet.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Because they were a special group. They were the elect, they were the bride, they were not married yet but betrothed. They were living in the transitional period of the already but not yet.



That's an interesting concept. Election and predestination until 70AD and then Freewill kicked in.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 25, 2016)

Luke 21:23-25
23How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers. For there will be great distress upon the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations, bewildered by the roaring of the sea and the surging of the waves

When or what is "until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled?"

If time is of no importance when was this time?
Jerusalem? Israel? The Church? Gentiles grafted in? Time, before or after this event?

Time. There was this terrible distress and wrath until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled. I'm assuming they were fulfilled.
You will know that the Kingdom of God is near.  This generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

Folks, it has happened, no doubt about it.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Because they were a special group. They were the elect, they were the bride, they were not married yet but betrothed. They were living in the transitional period of the already but not yet.



You keep saying that and it doesn't explain it.That is why you and I keep hashing this.Tell me why these saints needed two separate spiritual resurrections...and supporting texts would be a plus also.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 25, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Because they were a special group. They were the elect, they were the bride, they were not married yet but betrothed. They were living in the transitional period of the already but not yet.



Would you consider this a type of dispensation? Time? A time before the transitional period, the transitional period, and the time after the transitional period?
What differences did each period have?

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

What or how did the Gentiles fit in to your transitional period as pertaining to the Elect? Did they have to wait until the next dispensation which occurred at 70AD for the time of the Gentiles to be fulfilled?
When freewill kicked in? After everything was finished in God's plan?

There could be difference between the "time of the Gentiles" and the "fullness of the Gentiles" so we'll just stick with the time of the Gentiles as mentioned in Luke 21:24.

The time of the Gentiles; forty two months.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 25, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You keep saying that and it doesn't explain it.That is why you and I keep hashing this.Tell me why these saints needed two separate spiritual resurrections...and supporting texts would be a plus also.



It's the "already but not yet" dispensation. It's just like your election belief. They have it but it hasn't been administered yet. The promise is there but they haven't received it.
They were of the elect but no yet awakened to their new birth. They had to wait until 70AD to receive.

Like your election belief. One is born elect or not, already but not yet. The elect has to wait until he is called.
Very similar concept.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Luke 21:23-25
> 23How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers. For there will be great distress upon the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations, bewildered by the roaring of the sea and the surging of the waves
> 
> When or what is "until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled?"
> ...



Just a little more to add to that. 

http://www.preteristcosmos.com/preterism101.html


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 26, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You keep saying that and it doesn't explain it.That is why you and I keep hashing this.Tell me why these saints needed two separate spiritual resurrections...and supporting texts would be a plus also.



Welder, Im slammed at work right now and will be till weather cools a bit. I hate to just throw a link at you right now without spending the time to go through this step by step, but that's what Im going to do. If I get home at a decent time tonight and have time I'll elaborate further. Here's the biblical  resurrection.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/dead.html


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 26, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Luke 21:23-25
> 23How miserable those days will be for pregnant and nursing mothers. For there will be great distress upon the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations, bewildered by the roaring of the sea and the surging of the waves
> 
> When or what is "until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled?"
> ...





Mark 8:11-13King James Version (KJV)

11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him.

12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

13 And he left them, and entering into the ship again departed to the other side.


Art, it is kind of strange that Jesus would say to the Pharisees that no sign would "be given unto this generation" when he had performed many, many signs already in his ministry.

By the time he was talking to the Pharisees and that they were demanding of him a sign, he had multiplied bread twice, healed many, had calmed the sea, raised the dead and much much more... So the physical generation had seen signs and were given signs. And yet Jesus says to the Pharisees: 

"There shall no sign be given unto this generation."


So the use of generation here cannot be the physical generation and must be the spiritual generation of the Pharisees. Or in other words for some Pharisees the source(s) of their spiritual generation was making it such that they could not or would not know a sign.

The ordinary people knew of the signs due to their faith as they flocked to Jesus in large numbers, but the Pharisees demanded of him a sign from heaven in order to test him. They had no faith or at least their faith was contaminated in some way. Or in other words what had generated them spiritually was questionable.

The use of generation then is not used by Jesus to indicate a physical generation, but especially a spiritual generation. "And in that day"  used in prophecy does not mean a specific time (as in the yr 2026) but it means spiritual time(s) of a spiritual generation.


When I read  the eschatological prophecy in Zechariah for example, which I find echoed in the Gospels, I find that it speaks of spiritual generations and times where a spiritual generation from birth and onward can be many physical generations. For example the greater Christian generation we live in today, has it's genesis in the mid first century and is ongoing. And I could also say that Christianity has generated many sects within itself or many spiritual outlooks. Again for example, I could say to a group of Christians within Christianity that no sign will given them due to its generation as a questionable graph to the vine.

So it seems to me that spiritual prophets when talking about eschatology talk about spiritual time which neatly compresses physical time for reason of communicating: What they deem more important ( spiritual time (s)) than talking about times as they are measured by days, decades, millenniums. 

The generations of spiritual times is not the same as the generations of physical ( or calendar)  times. But both have their generations.


To that generation many signs were and are given, I could say of Christians. And I could say this also regards some groups as opposed to others within Christianity.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 26, 2016)

Welder, another link that shows the different timings of the resurrection of John 5.

http://fullpreterism.com/the-resurr...0-a-continued-challenge-to-partial-preterism/


----------



## welderguy (Jul 26, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Welder, another link that shows the different timings of the resurrection of John 5.
> 
> http://fullpreterism.com/the-resurr...0-a-continued-challenge-to-partial-preterism/



I will read it.

The first link you gave did not address your dilemna of two separate spiritual resurrections so I'm still seeking an answer to that.Maybe this link will explain your view on that.

When Paul says "If ye then be risen with Christ..." in Col.3:1,he is referring back to the previous chapter where he already declared them to be risen(made alive)spiritually.
Now,I fully agree that there is another resurrection awaiting these Colossians,but it is physical.
If it were another spiritual one,they would need to die again spiritually in order to be made alive again.See how that makes no sense?

"Hebrews 9:27

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 26, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I will read it.
> 
> The first link you gave did not address your dilemna of two separate spiritual resurrections so I'm still seeking an answer to that.Maybe this link will explain your view on that.
> 
> ...



I agree two resurrections of the same individual makes no sense. I have never said a person is resurrected twice, you assumed that. Hopefully the two links provided is enough to explain ..if not prepare questions and I will answer when I can.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 26, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I agree two resurrections of the same individual makes no sense. I have never said a person is resurrected twice, you assumed that. Hopefully the two links provided is enough to explain ..if not prepare questions and I will answer when I can.



Hobbs, I'm trying to point out to you that when you declare a spiritual resurrection at 70AD,you are essentially adding to the one Paul declared had already taken place in Col.2 and 3(prior to 70AD).
Sooo....since we both agree there cannot be two spiritual resurrections, either you or Paul must be incorrect.

I don't think it's Paul.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 27, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Hobbs, I'm trying to point out to you that when you declare a spiritual resurrection at 70AD,you are essentially adding to the one Paul declared had already taken place in Col.2 and 3(prior to 70AD).
> Sooo....since we both agree there cannot be two spiritual resurrections, either you or Paul must be incorrect.
> 
> I don't think it's Paul.




You are holding on to your false accusation.

Those resurrected at Pentecost and onward were physically alive and spiritually dead. 

Those resurrected at 70ad were physically dead and spiritually dead. Death came to them by Adam..original sin ie. Imputed sin. That imputed sin caused their spiritual death. They heard the voice ie. Gospel, and were brought out of hades and into Gods presence.

The physically dead, the physically living, and the dead in Christ were then all caught up " gathered together" into one body, the body of Christ..and death is no more..no more resurrection.


----------



## Israel (Jul 27, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> You are holding on to your false accusation.
> 
> Those resurrected at Pentecost and onward were physically alive and spiritually dead.
> 
> ...


 If I am hearing you correctly, those of the faith of Christ, (if you care to use Penetecost as a marker, that's fine) such as Peter, John, etc...were not made alive in spirit? Until...70 AD?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 27, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> You are holding on to your false accusation.
> 
> Those resurrected at Pentecost and onward were physically alive and spiritually dead.
> 
> ...



Now you have a greater dilemna.Now you've got the saints that are "alive and remain"(at Pentecost forward)preceding those that are "dead in Christ"(old testament saints..as you say).This completely opposes 1 Thess.4:15.

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 27, 2016)

Israel said:


> If I am hearing you correctly, those of the faith of Christ, (if you care to use Penetecost as a marker, that's fine) such as Peter, John, etc...were not made alive in spirit? Until...70 AD?



Negative. They were alive by faith already.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 27, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Now you have a greater dilemna.Now you've got the saints that are "alive and remain"(at Pentecost forward)preceding those that are "dead in Christ"(old testament saints..as you say).This completely opposes 1 Thess.4:15.
> 
> "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."


No, I understand the text differently, I'll go more in detail later.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 27, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> No, I understand the text differently, I'll go more in detail later.



I understand you're busy.No rush.
I'm glad you have plenty of work brother.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 27, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I understand you're busy.No rush.
> I'm glad you have plenty of work brother.



Thanks. To be dead in Christ, meant they were already resurrected from sin death, just as Paul and the believers alive in Thessalonica, yet they slept. They were awaiting the High priest to come out of the holiest place. 
 These saved Christians  that died before His parousia are the subject of 1 Thess. 4.  The living feared that the physically dead would not enjoy His coming and they were troubled by this. Paul is writing them to comfort them.

They were already spiritually resurrected but would rise from sleep ( not from death) first as His elect to be " caught up" ie. " gathered together" with those alive and remaining as the bride of Christ to consummate the New Covenant.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Thanks. To be dead in Christ, meant they were already resurrected from sin death, just as Paul and the believers alive in Thessalonica, yet they slept. They were awaiting the High priest to come out of the holiest place.
> These saved Christians  that died before His parousia are the subject of 1 Thess. 4.  The living feared that the physically dead would not enjoy His coming and they were troubled by this. Paul is writing them to comfort them.
> 
> They were already spiritually resurrected but would rise from sleep ( not from death) first as His elect to be " caught up" ie. " gathered together" with those alive and remaining as the bride of Christ to consummate the New Covenant.



I notice you are trying to make a distinction between sleeping and physical death,my guess is you're trying to avoid a physical resurrection.But Jesus said differently.

John 11

12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I notice you are trying to make a distinction between sleeping and physical death,my guess is you're trying to avoid a physical resurrection.But Jesus said differently.
> 
> John 11
> 
> ...




Two resurrections, the one to the living at pentecost, the one of the dead at His parousia. The ( dead in Christ) were those that physically died after their spiritual resurrection. They were raised from sleep, already raised from death. They were not resurrected at His parousia, the living were not resurrected at His parousia, but the dead ones were, and it was the same nature of resurrection that took place at Pentecost. They heard the voice ie. Gospel and were raised from sin death to eternal life.

Jesus was resurrected while on the cross.

Matt. 27:46-53.  Look into that word translated as resurrection in v 53. You will see this happened while on the cross not from the tomb, which came later.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Two resurrections, the one to the living at pentecost, the one of the dead at His parousia. The ( dead in Christ) were those that physically died after their spiritual resurrection. They were raised from sleep, already raised from death. They were not resurrected at His parousia, the living were not resurrected at His parousia, but the dead ones were, and it was the same nature of resurrection that took place at Pentecost. They heard the voice ie. Gospel and were raised from sin death to eternal life.
> 
> Jesus was resurrected while on the cross.
> 
> Matt. 27:46-53.  Look into that word translated as resurrection in v 53. You will see this happened while on the cross not from the tomb, which came later.



I get confused as to who are the they(s). Can you put a name to the they (s) here... I'm not sure all they(s) are the same they.
???


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

The first two( theys )are the dead in Christ.

The last (they ) is the dead ones, old testament saints that died before pentecost.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Two resurrections, the one to the living at pentecost, the one of the dead at His parousia. The ( dead in Christ) were those that physically died after their spiritual resurrection. They were raised from sleep, already raised from death. They were not resurrected at His parousia, the living were not resurrected at His parousia, but the dead ones were, and it was the same nature of resurrection that took place at Pentecost. They heard the voice ie. Gospel and were raised from sin death to eternal life.
> 
> Jesus was resurrected while on the cross.
> 
> Matt. 27:46-53.  Look into that word translated as resurrection in v 53. You will see this happened while on the cross not from the tomb, which came later.



I'm interested in what you are basing this Pentecost resurrection on.I'm onboard if you mean those that were "pricked in the heart" being regenerated by the Spirit.But I do not find a mass resurrection of saints long past.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Jesus was resurrected while on the cross.
> 
> Matt. 27:46-53.  Look into that word translated as resurrection in v 53. You will see this happened while on the cross not from the tomb, which came later.



Could you explain what kind of resurrection Jesus had on the cross?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I'm interested in what you are basing this Pentecost resurrection on.I'm onboard if you mean those that were "pricked in the heart" being regenerated by the Spirit.But I do not find a mass resurrection of saints long past.



Good. Then you are on board with the living being resurrected or saved at Pentecost and God added to the church daily afterwords. 

 The mass resurrection of the saints happened at His Parousia *70ad*  when they heard His voice * The Gospel*.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you explain what kind of resurrection Jesus had on the cross?



Rousal... I picture Christ on the Cross late in the evening. His head hanging and His body not moving much then He suddenly lifts His head and shouts " My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me"?  The rousal was the resurrection..according to the Greek word translated in this verse.
 The separation was Jesus taking on our sin and dying that sin death, but being found perfect Himself pardoned.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Two resurrections, the one to the living at pentecost, the one of the dead at His parousia. The ( dead in Christ) were those that physically died after their spiritual resurrection. They were raised from sleep, already raised from death. They were not resurrected at His parousia, the living were not resurrected at His parousia, but the dead ones were, and it was the same nature of resurrection that took place at Pentecost. They heard the voice ie. Gospel and were raised from sin death to eternal life.
> 
> Jesus was resurrected while on the cross.
> 
> Matt. 27:46-53.  Look into that word translated as resurrection in v 53. You will see this happened while on the cross not from the tomb, which came later.



After reading this post about 20 times I think I see what you are saying,but I don't see where folks like you or me fit in to your idea of the resurrection/resurrections.
Pentecost is past and 70AD is past,so ...what now?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 28, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Good. Then you are on board with the living being resurrected or saved at Pentecost and God added to the church daily afterwords.
> 
> The mass resurrection of the saints happened at His Parousia *70ad*  when they heard His voice * The Gospel*.




Wow! They did not hear the Gospel before this?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

welderguy said:


> After reading this post about 20 times I think I see what you are saying,but I don't see where folks like you or me fit in to your idea of the resurrection/resurrections.
> Pentecost is past and 70AD is past,so ...what now?



Yes, you're seeing. All eschatology belonged to Israel. Resurrection was the hope of Israel per Paul. It was their salvation.

What now is a common and logical question one must ask if all is fulfilled. Well we know the church age has no end..Ephesians 3:20-21, so we can quit looking for tribulation, or a secret rapture, or a coming destruction from God. It is finished. We know we will live out our physical lives and we will physically die some day. We also know when these physical eyes close for the last time we are immediately in the spiritual realm with our Lord.

Here's what is next and what we have been doing for almost 2k years.
Revelation 22: 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

And outside of this kingdom are the wicked.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 28, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Wow! They did not hear the Gospel before this?



If I am correct and this is The good news of the gospel that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

Then how could they have possibly heard the Good News before it happened?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> If I am correct and this is The good news of the gospel that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.
> 
> Then how could they have possibly heard the Good News before it happened?



But this did not happen before 70 ad that the saints heard the Good News?


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 29, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> But this did not happen before 70 ad that the saints heard the Good News?



I'm referring to old covenant saints...they knew they would be resurrected out of sin death in the last day..(70ad), but until Christ made atonement for their imputed sin they could not be in the presence of God, this is why they were in Sheol/Hades.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, you're seeing. All eschatology belonged to Israel. Resurrection was the hope of Israel per Paul. It was their salvation.
> 
> What now is a common and logical question one must ask if all is fulfilled. Well we know the church age has no end..Ephesians 3:20-21, so we can quit looking for tribulation, or a secret rapture, or a coming destruction from God. It is finished. We know we will live out our physical lives and we will physically die some day. We also know when these physical eyes close for the last time we are immediately in the spiritual realm with our Lord.
> 
> ...



I'm having a little trouble with this claim of Pentecost resurrection for all the living saints.I see Saul,who at the time of Pentecost,was still a reprobate pharisee about to begin breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Lord's church.He definitely was not regenerated(spiritually resurrected)at Pentecost but much later on the road to Demascus.
Yet he includes himself with the Colossian saints as those that were "risen with Christ"(Col.2&3)

There's so many inconsistencies with your claims,it would take pages to show them all to you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm referring to old covenant saints...they knew they would be resurrected out of sin death in the last day..(70ad), but until Christ made atonement for their imputed sin they could not be in the presence of God, this is why they were in Sheol/Hades.



Got you. Thanks. Right off this would cancel the Transfiguration as being a fabrication?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I'm having a little trouble with this claim of Pentecost resurrection for all the living saints.I see Saul,who at the time of Pentecost,was still a reprobate pharisee about to begin breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the Lord's church.He definitely was not regenerated(spiritually resurrected)at Pentecost but much later on the road to Demascus.
> Yet he includes himself with the Colossian saints as those that were "risen with Christ"(Col.2&3)
> 
> There's so many inconsistencies with your claims,it would take pages to show them all to you.



Our brother is a good man.  

His eschatology is full of rabbit trails, burrows, nest, hives...etc

 I have to wonder what Paul might say of it: 

2 Timothy 2:17-18King James Version (KJV)

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.



It seems to me, a simple saint, that if the books concerning the end which I understand to be the  physical resurrection of the dead onto judgement along with the living to that judgement also were meant to be opened that every prophecy about  the end would not have a book not to open, or a claim that only the Father knows.

And in my simple heart there is a reason for this. I doubt that it is wholesome for man to know that everything that will determine his future has occurred in the past. I don't think it is healthy to know the future more than prophecy that demands of prophets to close books regards it and our Lord to refuse to state times with precision.

And in my simple heart why is this not healthy? To know the future in eschatological terms of definite time and feature robs saints of wholesome imagination. Imagination to hear the parables, imagination to hear and understand the grace and beauty of God is wholesome if it contributes to a greater faith life. Imagination used to fit end time into the features of time which is life consuming seems to me to be as a result of unnecessary anxiety ( although meant with the best of intentions )and perhaps a misstep  of faith.

 I wonder why Paul though that saying that the resurrection was past, could "overthrow" the faith of some?


The word system has two basic definition I suppose:
sys·tem
Ëˆ
noun
1.
a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.
2.
a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method.

The act of connecting things to declare understanding seems to me as if man is trying to teach himself knowledge, which is fine, but with Christianity it is not man who teaches man. From a set of principles which are from God alone man learns on love through faith and I think that part of those principles are that the book on End Time is closed regards exact times and features. And on all of it  as it was said, " Only the Father knows."


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 29, 2016)

Ohhhh. Ya'll ain't getting it. My fault for not explaining with considering your own presuppositions.


 First, welder, Not all living saints were resurrected at Pentecost, ofcourse the Lord added as He saw fit. Of course Saul was resurrected at a later datebut it was on Pentecost when it began.

Gordon, the transfiguration was a vision of the coming kingdom. The law and prophets being fulfilled in grace. 

And for the rabbit holes, they are not mine but your own misconceptions.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Ohhhh. Ya'll ain't getting it. My fault for not explaining with considering your own presuppositions.
> 
> 
> First, welder, Not all living saints were resurrected at Pentecost, ofcourse the Lord added as He saw fit. Of course Saul was resurrected at a later datebut it was on Pentecost when it began.
> ...



The way I see your explainations is you are merging together two different concepts of resurrections into one and they must be kept separate.

Let me explain:
You are taking instances in the bible where the Holy Spirit quickens and you label that as a part of the final resurrection.It's not.This is something that happens to EVERY child of God(Old test. and New)at distinct individual points in time.Remember Jesus told Nicodemus, "To enter into the kingdom f heaven,ye must be born again".This applies to every child of God.

Hobbs,you then say that some others(not all)take part in a separate resurrection when Jesus appears the second time.
This is wrong because God's word says "every eye shall see Him".
Every person has a part in this resurrection,even those who were not quickened as afore mentioned.

In conclusion,
Only God's children take part in the first one.(by the Holy Spirit)
Every person takes part in the final one.(by Jesus Himself)


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 29, 2016)

welderguy said:


> The way I see your explainations is you are merging together two different concepts of resurrections into one and they must be kept separate.
> 
> Let me explain:
> You are taking instances in the bible where the Holy Spirit quickens and you label that as a part of the final resurrection.It's not.This is something that happens to EVERY child of God(Old test. and New)at distinct individual points in time.Remember Jesus told Nicodemus, "To enter into the kingdom f heaven,ye must be born again".This applies to every child of God.




 That's all fine and dandy if you don't believe it, but I thought you were asking so you could understand it??? I'm certainly not trying to convince you or anyone else just to explain what I see and why.

 I disagree that we today are born again. Nicodemus needed to be born again because he was first born into the natural, physical,carnal old covenant. He needed to be born again into the spiritual , new covenant to become a child of God and that was only going to happen by faith not birthright. We aren't born into the old covenant nor it's curse therefore we are not born again, but simply born.




> Hobbs,you then say that some others(not all)take part in a separate resurrection when Jesus appears the second time.
> This is wrong because God's word says "every eye shall see Him".
> Every person has a part in this resurrection,even those who were not quickened as afore mentioned.



You're speaking of Revelation 1:7. Revelation is a letter that went out to seven churches. When we read it, we're reading someone else's mail. It's very apocalyptic, very figurative, almost everyone agree's you cannot take revelation very literal, even some of the strictest literalist realize this. Every eye shall see Him; and they also which pierced Him....I believe the members of the seven churches upon reading this understood that (seeing was believing)...and the rest of the letter is all about the coming destruction of the Jerusalem. Those that pierced Him (Not literally) but were responsible for it, were the Judaizers, and when the tribulation came and the Temple burned..every eye saw, and every eye knew Jesus is Christ.



> In conclusion,
> Only God's children take part in the first one.(by the Holy Spirit)
> Every person takes part in the final one.(by Jesus Himself)



 One nature of Resurrection  ( Spiritual) Brought to eternal life from spiritual death caused by imputed Sin. Christ redeemed us of this imputed sin, and brought us back to the Father. ..That's my conclusion, there is no need of any further resurrections for Christ has defeated death.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Ohhhh. Ya'll ain't getting it. My fault for not explaining with considering your own presuppositions.
> 
> 
> First, welder, Not all living saints were resurrected at Pentecost, ofcourse the Lord added as He saw fit. Of course Saul was resurrected at a later datebut it was on Pentecost when it began.
> ...



Ok. I admit, I have my own rabbit holes, but the transfiguration seems more than a vision to me.  Moses and Elijah were really there... and I assumed everyone thought so--until now. O well...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 29, 2016)

The Transfiguration did show a predestination!

Interesting discussion going on.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 29, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> That's all fine and dandy if you don't believe it, but I thought you were asking so you could understand it??? I'm certainly not trying to convince you or anyone else just to explain what I see and why.
> 
> I disagree that we today are born again. Nicodemus needed to be born again because he was first born into the natural, physical,carnal old covenant. He needed to be born again into the spiritual , new covenant to become a child of God and that was only going to happen by faith not birthright. We aren't born into the old covenant nor it's curse therefore we are not born again, but simply born.
> 
> ...



Aaaah. There's the problem. You don't hold to the doctrine of the regeneration of all God's people.That explains a lot of your other beliefs.All this time I thought we saw eye to eye on that.Imagine that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 29, 2016)

Jesus said to Nicodemus  “Are you a teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?”


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Aaaah. There's the problem. You don't hold to the doctrine of the regeneration of all God's people.That explains a lot of your other beliefs.All this time I thought we saw eye to eye on that.Imagine that.




I have made it clear that I believe all is fulfilled. One can't simply believe Christ's second coming is fulfilled and nothing changed..can they? One of my Bibles at home has a header on Revelation 22. It says ( Eden Restored). I believe that header to be correct. In Rev. 22 We see believers inside Eden and the wicked outside. We also see an invitation going out to whosoever will... That is what the Church has been doing for almost 2k years. We ( saved folks) are in the garden, the veil has been removed from our heads and we are once again in the presence of the Father, just as Adam and Eve.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I have made it clear that I believe all is fulfilled. One can't simply believe Christ's second coming is fulfilled and nothing changed..can they? One of my Bibles at home has a header on Revelation 22. It says ( Eden Restored). I believe that header to be correct. In Rev. 22 We see believers inside Eden and the wicked outside. We also see an invitation going out to whosoever will... That is what the Church has been doing for almost 2k years. We ( saved folks) are in the garden, the veil has been removed from our heads and we are once again in the presence of the Father, just as Adam and Eve.



Well I was in the garden a full day two weeks ago forking stones out of it. I've been with sciatica ever since... from hip to foot. I can't walk much more than a few feet that I have to sit down from the pain. I can't stand, I can't lay down.. I can only sit.

The garden I was to might have been Eden in my mind, but I did not have the body for it, I guess.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I have made it clear that I believe all is fulfilled. One can't simply believe Christ's second coming is fulfilled and nothing changed..can they? One of my Bibles at home has a header on Revelation 22. It says ( Eden Restored). I believe that header to be correct. In Rev. 22 We see believers inside Eden and the wicked outside. We also see an invitation going out to whosoever will... That is what the Church has been doing for almost 2k years. We ( saved folks) are in the garden, the veil has been removed from our heads and we are once again in the presence of the Father, just as Adam and Eve.



Well, once again I have to disagree.
Heaven is not on this earth.The creation is groaning.All is not well here and it certainly is not an Eden,not even spiritually.

In John 14,Jesus says He GOES to prepare a place for us.He leaves this cursed place to do this.


2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Well, once again I have to disagree.
> Heaven is not on this earth.The creation is groaning.All is not well here and it certainly is not an Eden,not even spiritually.
> 
> In John 14,Jesus says He GOES to prepare a place for us.He leaves this cursed place to do this.
> ...



Yes. He did


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 30, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> Well I was in the garden a full day two weeks ago forking stones out of it. I've been with sciatica ever since... from hip to foot. I can't walk much more than a few feet that I have to sit down from the pain. I can't stand, I can't lay down.. I can only sit.
> 
> The garden I was to might have been Eden in my mind, but I did not have the body for it, I guess.



Adam and eve were left wanting too, else they would not have been disobedient.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 30, 2016)

Luke:21

20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 

22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.<---- I just have to wonder, did you catch the power in that?


----------



## welderguy (Jul 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Luke:21
> 
> 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
> 
> 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.<---- I just have to wonder, did you catch the power in that?



I did catch the power in that...far more than you did,I would bet.Because,not only do I see a horrific destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army(in a localized place),I also see a prophetic declaration of a far more horrific final destruction,when truly all things will be fulfilled.

Look at this verse in the same chapter:

35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth..

Tell me how you perceive that the things happening in Jerusalem at that time was as a snare to ALL that dwelt on the earth.It didn't.It's speaking of a much bigger event than tiny Jerusalem.When He comes,EVERY eye shall see Him.Even yours.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Luke:21
> 
> 20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her.
> 
> 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.<---- I just have to wonder, did you catch the power in that?




---------------------------

9 But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.
------------
To me when the desolation ( devestation)  of Jerusalem  is refered to, it is just this the devestation of Jerusalem and nothing more.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 30, 2016)

22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

The days of vengeance = when they see Army's surrounding little old localized Jerusalem.

All things which are written..lets see..Doesn't Daniel cover the resurrection? Why yes It does, not only that but the angel in Daniel swears on God that the resurrection will take place when the power of the Holy People is crushed.

I don't know why all this scripture supports my eschatology and no scripture supports futurist.


----------



## welderguy (Jul 30, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
> 
> The days of vengeance = when they see Army's surrounding little old localized Jerusalem.
> 
> ...



You should do an in depth study on the term "Jerusalem".
It may show you that Jerusalem is not always just a city in the country of Israel...but then again...it may not.

It would require you to take off your preterist goggles so...I don't know.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> You should do an in depth study on the term "Jerusalem".
> It may show you that Jerusalem is not always just a city in the country of Israel...but then again...it may not.
> 
> It would require you to take off your preterist goggles so...I don't know.



I've read that Jerusalem could be Jesus. Then again I've read that Israel could be the Church.

Jerusalem could also be Heaven.

The account Hobbs is referencing is the city which was destroyed in 70AD. Now this destruction may mirror a future world wide destruction but the one in Matthew was the city.

 16then let those in Judea flee to the mountains.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2016)

Matthew 24:30
"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

This coming, past or present, did or will Jesus physically come? The "sign" of the Son of Man will appear. That makes it sound like he didn't show up in person but if we continue; 
"when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"

That sounds like he physically came or is coming. So in 70AD, did he physic ally come or pull off the operation from Heaven, with power and great glory?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2016)

Preterism does offer a better explanation of Israel than the Reformed view. The Reformed believe Israel has always been the Church. 

Romans 11 and Ephesians 2:12 says different. 
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.


It's hard to explain first the separation and then the future grafting in of the Gentiles into Israel.  The Reformed say it's always been the Church. It never was about Israel. The Elect have always been mostly Gentiles and a few Jews. Nothing in the form of a timeline had any affect on anything.

Preterism gives us the history of Israel with a way out. It ended. 
We can see that Jesus was born into the Old Covenant as was Nicodemus. Israel had to be born again.
There had to be a transformation from the old covenant to the new covenant.
Since Israel was destroyed nothing is left but the Church.

Preterism ties up a lot of loose ends concerning Israel and the Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I did catch the power in that...far more than you did,I would bet.Because,not only do I see a horrific destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army(in a localized place),I also see a prophetic declaration of a far more horrific final destruction,when truly all things will be fulfilled.
> 
> Look at this verse in the same chapter:
> 
> ...



Luke is telling the same story as Matthew. Either it was the past destruction of Jerusalem or it wasn't but it's an account of the same destruction;

21Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city.

32Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.

36So keep watch at all times, and pray that you may have the strength to escape all that is about to happen and to stand before the Son of Man.” 

Verse 36? How could one of the Elect not have the strength if this is about soul salvation vs a city's salvation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 30, 2016)

If it is a double fulfillment in prophesy then what about Matthew 24:21?

For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.

It's got to be the one in 70AD or the future one. It can't be both.


----------



## Israel (Jul 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Preterism does offer a better explanation of Israel than the Reformed view. The Reformed believe Israel has always been the Church.
> 
> Romans 11 and Ephesians 2:12 says different.
> remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
> ...



Being neither for or against whatever a reformed or preterist view is,  (though I have seen labels tossed about willy nilly) is it not the believer's right (and honor and privilege) to look into Christ as the fulfillment of all things?
Is the promise of God such that unless a date of our understanding be attached, or we see with our eyes, touch, taste a thing...it is not real? Or is it contrariwise, that it is the promise itself that leads us into the experience of the truth spoken when received in faith?

Is it not indeed that the world is over _for_ every believer the moment he sees Jesus as Lord? Is not the power of its deceit forever broken in the revelation of that truth? Not that the world would continue in lies if a man denies the truth, for truth is not dependent upon a man's disposition toward it, it is...what is. Or better, He is...what is.

All else is, has been, and must make way for it (Him). But it is in God's grace this is made known for the end of salvation, that a soul, blind, and not able to know the end from the beginning is made aware both of end and beginning of all things in the Alpha and Omega. And that soul be found there, in Him.

In this, what may be seen in a thing spoken, that is, _holding fast to the Head_, wherein all promises are made yes and amen, we are told. 

A man would not be wrong to believe "I have it all" in Christ. (And _perhaps_ the wrong is to believe he does not, for the Lord Jesus Christ is the indeed the "all" of which God delivers to man for salvation.) And yet we also know that such is not wrong to say he does not yet see the all of which is given. 

There is also a seeking and finding given to man in Christ, of an impetus not his own that compels him to know...even as he is known. To apprehend...that for which he was apprehended. 

God has set no limit in Christ for what a man may know of Him, but only if the limits to which Jesus Christ himself subjected himself are acknowledged. Though this sounds contrary it will only seem so to the natural mind. The patient endurance in faith and trust made manifest in and to the believer through Christ is entrance...that waiting to be shown wherein patience might have its perfect work, is ours. To have all in patience, yet a patience not our own, is salvation.

That particular book so often referenced of things which must shortly come to pass, comes also with this acknowledgement to its authenticity by a particular man of his particular nature and calling. He testifies of being a messenger with these credentials:

I John, who also am your brother, _and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ,_ was in the isle that is called Patmos, _for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ._

To not know this man as brother and companion, especially in regard to companionship in those things mentioned _found in Jesus Christ_ would assuredly leave a man as reading someone elses mail.

But even our presumptions serve a purpose in all if, or when, we are revealed to ourselves as presumptuous.
And such a letter may indeed then, be made to us healthy.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> If it is a double fulfillment in prophesy then what about Matthew 24:21?
> 
> For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.
> 
> It's got to be the one in 70AD or the future one. It can't be both.



The distress was great in 70 AD, but it was also great in Hamburg Germany when the allies fire bombed it, when  even the street cobble stones were burning and melting and the women and the children had no way out of their burning homes--although it is said many tried.

Since Eve  is said to have sinned, man has had the misfortune to learn inappropriately from creation, simply because  appropriate knowledge cannot be grasped if creation is an idol of worship.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Luke is telling the same story as Matthew. Either it was the past destruction of Jerusalem or it wasn't but it's an account of the same destruction;
> 
> 21Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country stay out of the city.
> 
> ...



 I understand it to mean that these thing will continue to happen. Wars, famines, earthquakes etc... but they are not the end. They simply are the world and the earth, due to nature, turning.

What the Elect must do is keep the faith, not get distracted by all these, and not lose hope in all of this and not loose sight of the prize which is to be with Christ in heaven and wait for the  resurrection to eternal life of all the saints.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 31, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> The distress was great in 70 AD, but it was also great in Hamburg Germany when the allies fire bombed it, when  even the street cobble stones were burning and melting and the women and the children had no way out of their burning homes--although it is said many tried.
> 
> Since Eve  is said to have sinned, man has had the misfortune to learn inappropriately from creation, simply because  appropriate knowledge cannot be grasped if creation is an idol of worship.



Matthew 24:21
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.

Then as you see it in Matthew 24:31, "until now" didn't happen in 70AD? The whole account isn't a mirror of a future event as it describes the destruction of Jerusalem?
Some say it's both the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the future destruction of the world.

How can it be both as the destruction will never be equaled again? It can't be both, it has to be one or the other. Either this is about Jerusalem in 70AD or it's about the future destruction of the world. 

When this even happens or did happen marked a destruction that will never happen to the same magnitude.

Why make a big deal about a destruction so big it will never happen again, if you are describing the end of the world?
Of course an end of the world destruction will never happen again. It needs no such explanation.

Something like; "OK guys we're gonna have a terrible mass destruction that will end the world." 
Why continue with "we'll never see another destruction like that one?"
Of course you want. Not if the whole world is destroyed.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 31, 2016)

welderguy said:


> Well, once again I have to disagree.
> Heaven is not on this earth.The creation is groaning.All is not well here and it certainly is not an Eden,not even spiritually.
> 
> In John 14,Jesus says He GOES to prepare a place for us.He leaves this cursed place to do this.
> ...



https://www.facebook.com/notes/mike...le-motif-fulfilled-in-ad-70/10153241169384364


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Matthew 24:21
> For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.
> 
> Then as you see it in Matthew 24:31, "until now" didn't happen in 70AD? The whole account isn't a mirror of a future event as it describes the destruction of Jerusalem?
> ...



The last judgement will  be unequaled by anything that preceded it. John talks about a New Jerusalem. Could it be that armies will circle that one and....

I'm finished with verse trumping from the first three Gospels with the parables of Jesus regards the second coming. I'm going on a diet with John, with no parables whatsoever, just plain talk from an eye witness and revelation from the Holy Spirit.

  So far as I can see, John ain't no preterist. He is a plain speaking futurist. There is a spiritual resurrection, but also there will be a physical resurrection( the dead will all be resurrected physically  and and then final judgement. And the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple stone from stone is not very important if mentioned at all... so far...in my reading...

Whereas the first three Gospels report the parables intact, John does not need parables in his Gospel... he goes to the  literal meaning as if the parables need not apply to his eye witness and Holy Spirit testimony of our Lord.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jul 31, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> So far as I can see, John ain't no preterist. He is a plain speaking futurist. There is a spiritual resurrection, but also there will be a physical resurrection( the dead will all be resurrected physically  and and then final judgement. And the destruction of Jerusalem, its temple stone from stone is not very important if mentioned at all... so far...in my reading...



If it works out that way and we both make it to Heaven before then, maybe we'll run in to each other for the return trip to Earth!


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 31, 2016)

1 John 2:18

 Straight talk from John almost 2k years ago.

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> If it works out that way and we both make it to Heaven before then, maybe we'll run in to each other for the return trip to Earth!




Maybe and hope so.  If I understand this going to heaven, it is not an impossible thing. 

My bishop suggests this regards being a follower. " To be a follower of Christ one must have personally encountered Jesus Christ and matured into a relationship that engages one's life totally."

I think he's got something there.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> 1 John 2:18
> 
> Straight talk from John almost 2k years ago.
> 
> Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.



And we continue in the last hour because many antichrist exist today according to John's definition: The antichrists are  those who deny that Jesus is the Savoir. 

By that definition I know many and we continue within John's hour-- ( a figure of speech).


----------



## hobbs27 (Jul 31, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> And we continue in the last hour because many antichrist exist today according to John's definition: The antichrists are  those who deny that Jesus is the Savoir.
> 
> By that definition I know many and we continue within John's hour-- ( a figure of speech).



I need an emoticon here with a tear in his eye.

Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many




Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.


Jude:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Just a figure of speech?


----------



## gordon 2 (Jul 31, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I need an emoticon here with a tear in his eye.
> 
> Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
> 
> ...



Yes figure of speech and the antichrists are not those who pretend to be Christians according to John, but those who deny Jesus is the Savoir.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I need an emoticon here with a tear in his eye.
> 
> Matthew 24:3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
> 
> ...



This is describing people who do not have the Spirit.
Yet,Hobbs,you yourself said a couple of days ago that people after 70AD are no longer born again.

So,from that,I can only assume that you do not have the Spirit.(according to what you say)


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> This is describing people who do not have the Spirit.
> Yet,Hobbs,you yourself said a couple of days ago that people after 70AD are no longer born again.
> 
> So,from that,I can only assume that you do not have the Spirit.(according to what you say)




Born again was necessary to those born into the old covenant. We aren't,  therefore what you call born again,  I call born. So it's just a difference in terminology.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Born again was necessary to those born into the old covenant. We aren't,  therefore what you call born again,  I call born. So it's just a difference in terminology.



I think you misinterpret what Jesus said to Nicodemus.We are all born of a woman physically.But at regeneration,we are born "again" by the Spirit.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Born again was necessary to those born into the old covenant. We aren't,  therefore what you call born again,  I call born. So it's just a difference in terminology.



So you mean born again for Nic meant the need to be into a new  covenant?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2016)

Jesus was born of a woman.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2016)

Perhaps Jesus was telling Nic that Israel would need to be born again.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Perhaps Jesus was telling Nic that Israel would need to be born again.



It would, would it not, make much of Paul's (and others) epistles very much moot in exposition, especially to gentiles, if such a thing were in any way limited to whatever definition of Israel _was implied of the natural_?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> So you mean born again for Nic meant the need to be into a new  covenant?



Yeah, it's a figure of speech.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2016)

Paul came to understand the principle of law could well be resident even in those to whom the law had not been given through Moses.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

welderguy said:


> I think you misinterpret what Jesus said to Nicodemus.We are all born of a woman physically.But at regeneration,we are born "again" by the Spirit.



We interpret it differently. Born physically into a natural, physical, Kingdom, vs. Born into a spiritual kingdom is the way I see it.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> We interpret it differently. Born physically into a natural, physical, Kingdom, vs. Born into a spiritual kingdom is the way I see it.



The way I see it,being reborn of the Spirit is to be quickened(made alive) from a dead state of spirit.This is a personal individual thing that happens by the Holy Spirit causing a new creature.


----------



## Israel (Aug 1, 2016)

If I am understanding (?) there no longer is a "world" into which men are born to be translated out of, (by the will of God) but rather only a spiritual kingdom remaining (after 70AD?) into which now, all are born.
(And when I say world, I do not mean merely this planet...but that system (which is now past?) into which flesh is born and flesh holds sway) Therefore it seems one maintains the "need" of new birth...is no longer needed, as all (subsequent to 70 AD?) are born into this spiritual kingdom. One time?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

Israel said:


> If I am understanding (?) there no longer is a "world" into which men are born to be translated out of, (by the will of God) but rather only a spiritual kingdom remaining (after 70AD?) into which now, all are born.
> (And when I say world, I do not mean merely this planet...but that system (which is now past?) into which flesh is born and flesh holds sway) Therefore it seems one maintains the "need" of new birth...is no longer needed, as all (subsequent to 70 AD?) are born into this spiritual kingdom. One time?



Imagine there was a world with mankind. Imagine God chose one man and one woman out of that world and brought them into covenant relationship with Him. The two were set apart from the others in a kingdom ( so to speak)...lets say the man and the woman broke the covenant contract with God and God cast them out of this great place, and for many generations they had to suffer due to their disobedience.
 Then one day, God sends His son to redeem these people, but not only them but all mankind, that whosoever will. This redemption is a forty year process of preaching,  being sacrificed, and defeating death. During the process the Descendants of the one man and woman are still being born into the curse, a covenant consisting of a natural Kingdom, a natural temple, and physical temporary sacrifices, a covenant of spiritual death and imputed sin.. They, by faith, can be born again into the new spiritual kingdom, but when the old is vanished and death is defeated, mankind will return to it's original position, where God chooses men and women to come into covenant relationship with Him again, only this time, the invitation is to whosoever will.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Imagine there was a world with mankind. Imagine God chose one man and one woman out of that world and brought them into covenant relationship with Him. The two were set apart from the others in a kingdom ( so to speak)...lets say the man and the woman broke the covenant contract with God and God cast them out of this great place, and for many generations they had to suffer due to their disobedience.
> Then one day, God sends His son to redeem these people, but not only them but all mankind, that whosoever will. This redemption is a forty year process of preaching,  being sacrificed, and defeating death. During the process the Descendants of the one man and woman are still being born into the curse, a covenant consisting of a natural Kingdom, a natural temple, and physical temporary sacrifices, a covenant of spiritual death and imputed sin.. They, by faith, can be born again into the new spiritual kingdom, but when the old is vanished and death is defeated, mankind will return to it's original position, where God chooses men and women to come into covenant relationship with Him again, only this time, the invitation is to whosoever will.



The Kingdom is not something one is born into as far as I can tell. Our Kingdom is in a saint's makeup, it becomes part of his person, after it is given to him/her as a feature of God's love or grace. It is something apart of covenant and one is not the symbol or  a type of the other.

His Kingdom and His righteousness is something a Christian must seek  even after  being born again. It is not something ( external reality) one is born into. It is the way a maturing saint must go... in relationship with the Lord through the Holy Spirit in order to understand God's wisdom.

It is not automatic that baptized and born- again believers know the Kingdom or even that it exists, though they may know tons on covenants and many other things. Which is why the Kingdom is many different things to many people in similar covenant.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> The Kingdom is not something one is born into as far as I can tell. Our Kingdom is in a saint's makeup, it becomes part of his person, after it is given to him/her as a feature of God's love or grace. It is something apart of covenant and one is not the symbol or  a type of the other.
> 
> His Kingdom and His righteousness is something a Christian must seek  even after  being born again. It is not something ( external reality) one is born into. It is the way a maturing saint must go... in relationship with the Lord through the Holy Spirit in order to understand God's wisdom.
> 
> It is not automatic that baptized and born- again believers know the Kingdom or even that it exists, though they may know tons on covenants and many other things. Which is why the Kingdom is many different things to many people in similar covenant.



I was giving an extremely simplified and generalized version. I believe the Kingdom is the Governance of God, but also the family, and people are born into a family.

Do you know who popularized the term " born again"  to describe a type of Christian?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> I was giving an extremely simplified and generalized version. I believe the Kingdom is the Governance of God, but also the family, and people are born into a family.
> 
> Do you know who popularized the term " born again"  to describe a type of Christian?



Well that is not the Kingdom that I have been given and know. I know it as the rest of Christians, their spiritual Canaan land perhaps. It is a stable "plateform" from where saints can speak to each other and the world with total confidence. It occupies a place in believers, similar to the knowledge of where home is, that they know of with total certainty. ( In my case when I'm asked to give an account of the faith, it is from the Kingdom, as a citizen, that my words come from.) It is not something one believes in or that it might be this or that. It is a spiritual gift that occupies the sure makeup of an individual saint that has sought and asked for it. 

That is my take on it--from experience. 

I don't know who coined the modern notion of being born again, but I have understood it as not really being born again, ( I know baptism as the generator of the born again individual), but the  direct experience of Jesus through the Holy Spirit, which spurs a born again individual to wake up to the very real possibility and capacity due to being born again,  of a  personal relationship with God--- if they deem it important enough--- is often more than not the born again experience people talk about.

The Kingdom I know might be describe by others differently, but generally it is a source of wisdom, and not God's governance,  but a wisdom that is God Himself.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> Do you know who popularized the term " born again"  to describe a type of Christian?



Marjoe Gortner?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2016)

Artfuldodger said:


> Marjoe Gortner?



JimmyCarter..

https://berkleycenter.georgetown.ed...-at-the-26th-annual-national-prayer-breakfast


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> JimmyCarter..
> 
> https://berkleycenter.georgetown.ed...-at-the-26th-annual-national-prayer-breakfast



That is an eye opener. I have to ask why most everyone south of the Mason/Dixon line who is  hard line born again is more than not Republican? What's with that? I must of been oblivious and missed a whole spin cycle in the wash. Jimmy?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2016)

hobbs27 said:


> JimmyCarter..
> 
> https://berkleycenter.georgetown.ed...-at-the-26th-annual-national-prayer-breakfast


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2016)

gordon 2 said:


> That is an eye opener. I have to ask why most everyone south of the Mason/Dixon line who is  hard line born again is more than not Republican? What's with that? I must of been oblivious and missed a whole spin cycle in the wash. Jimmy?



Just me and Hobbs joking. I think being born again as many modern Christians view it as regeneration goes back to John Wesley.


----------

