# Jerusalem the capital of Israel?



## gordon 2

Did the US  recognize Jerusalem today as the capitol of Israel? I read different  media accounts? 


???

The day after the Supreme court upheld the Pres. foreign entry ban?

???


----------



## PappyHoel

Trump is Supposed to announce it tomorrow.  I like swatting a hornets nest. Especially one that's been building since 700AD


----------



## gordon 2

PappyHoel said:


> Trump is Supposed to announce it tomorrow.  I like swatting a hornets nest. Especially one that's been building since 700AD



Do you expect the swatter (s) to be stung? I do...


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> Do you expect the swatter (s) to be stung? I do...



at least some of the neighbors that have for years poked the nest and dared anyone else to swat it good


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Isn't Israel the only country in the world that says its capital is one city, and others countries say that another city is the capital????

what happened to a country being able to declare its capital to be whatever city that they wanted it to be?


----------



## Artfuldodger

The US should respect Israel's choice of Jerusalem as its capital, and recognize it as such.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Can you imagine France telling us that St Louis Mo is the capital of the USofA and putting an embassy there?  We wouldn't stand for it, yet countries all over the globe do that to Israel


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Under a US law, passed in 1995, the US is supposed to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.  A provision in that law allowed the President to postpone that recognition for 6 months if a "compelling reason" required the delay.  Literally, every six months since the law was signed by Clinton, the President has found a "compelling reason."

Now Trump may choose - tomorrow - to NOT delay implementation of a 22 year old US law.  

Liberal heads will be asploadin'.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Weird that we would pass a law to recognize what capital city a country chooses. But since we did, we should honor that law, weird as it is.


----------



## PappyHoel

GeorgiaBob said:


> Under a US law, passed in 1995, the US is supposed to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.  A provision in that law allowed the President to postpone that recognition for 6 months if a "compelling reason" required the delay.  Literally, every six months since the law was signed by Clinton, the President has found a "compelling reason."
> 
> Now Trump may choose - tomorrow - to NOT delay implementation of a 22 year old US law.
> 
> Liberal heads will be asploadin'.



This, biblical prophecy aside.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> The US should respect Israel's choice of Jerusalem as its capital, and recognize it as such.



My understanding is most Israelis don't want  this.  They know it's just going to be more blood shed for nothing. 
 We shouldn't have ever recognized Israel as a nation... We should stay out of recognizing Jerusalem as their capital.


----------



## gordon 2

Do you think that with the official recognition of Jerusalem as capitol of the state of Israel that the USA and its citizens are now  complicit with the state of Israel and the citizens of Israel, who are equally Zionists-- ( using an interpretation of the bible as a political bases to build beyond the Palestinian Mandate and expand the state and land of Israel)-- in violations of over 60 United Nations resolutions accusing Israel of crimes against humanity? Or are they in tune to the will of God?

Will this further divide Christianity with those who are Zionists and those who are not?  Or this will all be forgotten in 6mts? And life will go on pretty much as is usual? Do you foresee US Christians who are Zionists label Christians who are not as "Liberals" and "snowflakes"? Are US interests and its citizens safer for this new policy if it comes out today? For many today  who have fanatical hatred towards a religion, in this case Islam, does it make the political events equal to other events of ethnic cleansing of the past where religion was a factor? Are Zionists in the USA today complicit? or tuned in unflinchingly to the will of God?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> My understanding is most Israelis don't want  this.  They know it's just going to be more blood shed for nothing.
> We shouldn't have ever recognized Israel as a nation... We should stay out of recognizing Jerusalem as their capital.



where do you get this understanding from, kimosabe'?

It certainly isn't from talking to the people living in Jerusalem.  

I do believe your 70AD disease has clouded you ability to reason


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> where do you get this understanding from, kimosabe'?
> 
> It certainly isn't from talking to the people living in Jerusalem.
> 
> I do believe your 70AD disease has clouded you ability to reason



This from Israeli Times this morning:

Palestinian Envoy Warns: Trump Move on Jerusalem a 'Declaration of War'
The Palestinian envoy to Britain calls Trump's change on Jerusalem policy 'a kiss of death to the two-state solution,' while the Pope and Mideast countries express acute concern....

So the question? Do Palestinians live in Jerusalem today? Do some Palestinians still live in Israel today?


----------



## PappyHoel

gordon 2 said:


> This from Israeli Times this morning:
> 
> Palestinian Envoy Warns: Trump Move on Jerusalem a 'Declaration of War'
> The Palestinian envoy to Britain calls Trump's change on Jerusalem policy 'a kiss of death to the two-state solution,' while the Pope and Mideast countries express acute concern....
> 
> So the question? Do Palestinians live in Jerusalem today? Do some Palestinians still live in Israel today?



Will we be attacked before or after this is announced?


----------



## gordon 2

PappyHoel said:


> Will we be attacked before or after this is announced?



Good question. 


US recognition of Jerusalem 'kiss of death' for peace process

This is the headline on BBC.

So if it is not fake news, then yours is a very good question because the opposite of the "kiss of death" for the peace process might just be escalation of conflicts not only limited to Israeli and Palestinian and the Middle East neigbourhood.??? but also to the entities thought overtly complicit with the Zionist scheme of Israeli politics...?

Maybe?

What should be the response of Christians?


This is the Balfour  ( British)  Declaration, and at this time ( 1917) Palestine was a protectorate of Brittian. Can you pin point from a Christian perspective where things might have diverted from original intents? Or what has transpired in recent history was intended by men and God? :::::




Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

What would be our best Christian response be?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> This from Israeli Times this morning:
> 
> Palestinian Envoy Warns: Trump Move on Jerusalem a 'Declaration of War'
> The Palestinian envoy to Britain calls Trump's change on Jerusalem policy 'a kiss of death to the two-state solution,' while the Pope and Mideast countries express acute concern....
> 
> So the question? Do Palestinians live in Jerusalem today? Do some Palestinians still live in Israel today?



the answer to your questions are Yes.

Palestinians live, work and own property in Jerusalem.  They live in other cities in Israel.  The Israeli government gaunatees all its citizens the same rights, whether they are jews, arabs or whatever


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> the answer to your questions are Yes.
> 
> Palestinians live, work and own property in Jerusalem.  They live in other cities in Israel.  The Israeli government gaunatees all its citizens the same rights, whether they are jews, arabs or whatever



Nice try.  Two questions. Are you a Christian?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> Nice try.



what do you mean by nice try?

have you been there and see what goes on everyday?


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Do you think that with the official recognition of Jerusalem as capitol of the state of Israel that the USA and its citizens are now  complicit with the state of Israel and the citizens of Israel, who are equally Zionists-- ( using an interpretation of the bible as a political bases to build beyond the Palestinian Mandate and expand the state and land of Israel)-- in violations of over 60 United Nations resolutions accusing Israel of crimes against humanity? Or are they in tune to the will of God?
> 
> Will this further divide Christianity with those who are Zionists and those who are not?  Or this will all be forgotten in 6mts? And life will go on pretty much as is usual? Do you foresee US Christians who are Zionists label Christians who are not as "Liberals" and "snowflakes"? Are US interests and its citizens safer for this new policy if it comes out today? For many today  who have fanatical hatred towards a religion, in this case Islam, does it make the political events equal to other events of ethnic cleansing of the past where religion was a factor? Are Zionists in the USA today complicit? or tuned in unflinchingly to the will of God?



Ten sentences, ten "?"s.  It's easy enough to see why you wore out you "?" key last year.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> Ten sentences, ten "?"s.  It's easy enough to see why you wore out you "?" key last year.



Your welcome to edit in the spirit of my drift.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> Your welcome to edit in the spirit of my drift.



No, no; not my intent at all. If you watch my typing, you will notice that  I forget to use the "?" more than half the time.  You may recall that, when your "?" key was broken, I offered to lend you mine, as it was so seldom used.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> No, no; not my intent at all. If you watch my typing, you will notice that  I forget to use the "?" more than half the time.  You may recall that, when your "?" key was broken, I offered to lend you mine, as it was so seldom used.



Ah yes... I recall now...


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> Nice try.  Two questions. Are you a Christian?



so, now you edit the post, and want to know my religion..

I still don't understand the comment about nice try. If you are saying that my post is incorrect, please point out my error, and we can discuss that.

As to my religion, yes, I am a christian, and have been for several decades.  In my pre-pappy days, I was a youth pastor at a small AOG church, as well as serving as a deacon in an independent evangelical church here in Toccoa.

Does that make a difference in your question?  If you ever remember the 2nd question, please let me know, and I will answer it to the best of my ability


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, now you edit the post, and want to know my religion..
> 
> I still don't understand the comment about nice try. If you are saying that my post is incorrect, please point out my error, and we can discuss that.
> 
> As to my religion, yes, I am a christian, and have been for several decades.  In my pre-pappy days, I was a youth pastor at a small AOG church, as well as serving as a deacon in an independent evangelical church here in Toccoa.
> 
> Does that make a difference in your question?  If you ever remember the 2nd question, please let me know, and I will answer it to the best of my ability



On the grounds that the United Nations has accused Israel of over 60 counts of crimes against humanity and that the victims of those crimes were Palestinian Christians and Muslims your eye witness account of an egalitarian view of Israeli society is suspect to me?  But hey have at your view.

So can you explain to me why evangelicals are known as being Zionists? This is the reason I'm asking if you are Christian.  Where do they  get their outlook? Is it informed by faith?  Or is this view erroneous-- they are not Zionist?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

The UN?  Oh for the love of spaghetti, get real.  

You need to get out more if you think the UN is anything but a vocal arm of the NWO.  

Evangelicals are probably known as being zionist because they support Israel in most things.  We believe that the jews are Gods chosen people, and we believe the scripture that says God will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those who curse Israel.

As to my post about Israel's treatment of their citizens... they are much like the US.  They have their issues, and some problems with injustices, but taken as a whole, they are the strongest democracy that the middle east has ever seen.   Their governments law give equal rights to the jews, arabs and christians.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Gordon, why don't you tell us your back ground, your church of choice, and what you believe about Israel?  It might help me understand where you are coming from.


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> Gordon, why don't you tell us your back ground, your church of choice, and what you believe about Israel?  It might help me understand where you are coming from.



Who is "us" that i'm telling at? If your Christian I'm that and therefore one of us. I'm RC. 

I have some respect for the UN. I understand that you don't. Many are like you and that is fine.

  However , as a Christian I don't understand political Israel today to be  biblical Israel. So political Israel, democratic or not so democratic, that is Zionist Israel today is just one of the world's nations and with no special status to be above the law.  I liken it more to former South Africa with its apparthied regime than an egalitarian society, or to England during the Scottish or Irish Land Clearances, or to Stalin's ethnic cleansing of Russia's foreign border states,  Sherman's burning of the south ( which is still fresh in some minds) and recent ethic cleansing in the Balkans...etc...  I give you these as example.

My faith informs me that biblical Isreal is "us" today or the people of faith worldwide and not Zionist Israel. Do I believe that Israel should exist? Absolutely. 

As a Christian I have interest that Israel is getting away with crimes because of some erroneous beliefs that some Christians have about Zionism. As a Christian I have interest that Christian bigotry is fueling hate. As a Christian I have this "Blessed are the peacemakers." and wonder if the Recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Isreal by the USA will not bless people at all short and long term, but rather will get many killed that would otherwise live and engage in God's blessings. It will fuel hate and the spawns of humiliations for centuries.

Hope this is plain...

Now about being RC, I suspect at least half of American RC believe as you do, and the other half perhaps as I do.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

so  you are a believer in replacement theology?  that Christians have replaced the Jews where prophecy and promises are given?


Do you believe that Israel gets a honest deal in the news when reports are given about the PA and Hamas dealings?


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> so  you are a believer in replacement theology?  that Christians have replaced the Jews where prophecy and promises are given?
> 
> 
> Do you believe that Israel gets a honest deal in the news when reports are given about the PA and Hamas dealings?



I know nothing of these dealings. I know only that when a family's home is burned before their eyes, and that family suffers intimidation much like the entire village and the entire town and when they are evicted from their ancestral homes that some will forgive, but some will fight the best they know how. These will become terrorists for some but patriots for others. And usually, as was the case with Ireland, it will take 9-10 generations before things start to simmer down. I fear that the present recognition of Jerusalem will have negative repercussion for as many generations to come. It is not the way to peace nor is Zionism in its present form.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

why don't you answer the ?'s

it shouldn't be that hard to tell me what you believe


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> why don't you answer the ?'s
> 
> it shouldn't be that hard to tell me what you believe



See my post #28 again. ( I cannot answer more plainly.)

 But let me plainly add: I believe that lots of people are going to die and suffer for the decision by the USA to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I  believe that those in keeping with the politics of Zionism don't care, and that the USA is now overtly complicit in the Zionist schemes.  However as a Christian I do care mainly because of the Sermon on the Mount. ( Matt. 5-6-7)


----------



## B. White

Left wing media hype. He stated a fact. Palestinians will get their rock chucking practice in.


----------



## MudDucker

hobbs27 said:


> My understanding is most Israelis don't want  this.  They know it's just going to be more blood shed for nothing.
> We shouldn't have ever recognized Israel as a nation... We should stay out of recognizing Jerusalem as their capital.



You must know many Israelis.  All that I know applaud this action.  There is always blood shed, because the Arabs won't live in peace.

We did the RIGHT thing recognizing Israel.  After the atrocity suffered by the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany, they deserved a safe sanctuary at the very least.  Their claims to their territory and Jerusalem trumps all other claims.


----------



## MudDucker

gordon 2 said:


> On the grounds that the United Nations has accused Israel of over 60 counts of crimes against humanity and that the victims of those crimes were Palestinian Christians and Muslims your eye witness account of an egalitarian view of Israeli society is suspect to me?  But hey have at your view.
> 
> So can you explain to me why evangelicals are known as being Zionists? This is the reason I'm asking if you are Christian.  Where do they  get their outlook? Is it informed by faith?  Or is this view erroneous-- they are not Zionist?



Now I see where you are!  The UN has become a Christian/US basing bunch of socialist anarchist.  To believe what this body says about Israel, while it lets countless atrocities by Arabs go unmentioned and puts Muslims on its "women's rights" committee, requires a very low threshold understanding of what is right and what is wrong! Israel has a stellar record of protecting all of its citizens, both Arab and Jew, while the mutt organization known as Palestine has but one goal, the destruction of Israel.

We need to kick those lying scumbags out of the US and cut off most, if not all of our contribution to the UN.  You now have zero credibility with me!


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> See my post #28 again. ( I cannot answer more plainly.)
> 
> But let me plainly add: I believe that lots of people are going to die and suffer for the decision by the USA to recognize Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel. I  believe that those in keeping with the politics of Zionism don't care, and that the USA is now overtly complicit in the Zionist schemes.  However as a Christian I do care mainly because of the Sermon on the Mount. ( Matt. 5-6-7)



huh?  you don't know what you believe as to whether or not Christians have replaced the jews in bibical prophecy?


----------



## hummerpoo

NE GA Pappy said:


> so  you are a believer in replacement theology?  that Christians have replaced the Jews where prophecy and promises are given?



http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=867016&highlight=replacement+theology&page=3



> You mentioned that Presbyterians hold to this "replacement theology." I've never heard a Presbyterian claim such. They call their perspective "covenant theology." And, while I strongly disagree with several points of covenant theology, I don't think we should use a pejorative to describe it. The only people that I hear use the term "Replacement Theology" are dispensationalist who are attacking covenant theology. I have never heard anyone describe themselves as holding to "replacement theology." I believe, in the interest of honest dialogue, we should use the terms people prefer to describe for describing their own position rather than putting words in their mouth.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Is Christian Zionism or Zionist pejorative?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> Is Christian Zionism or Zionist pejorative?



As in most cases of pejoratives, context matters; but I think the generalized answer is, yes; although I don't think it originated as one (research required).


----------



## hobbs27

MudDucker said:


> You must know many Israelis.  All that I know applaud this action.  There is always blood shed, because the Arabs won't live in peace.
> 
> We did the RIGHT thing recognizing Israel.  After the atrocity suffered by the Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany, they deserved a safe sanctuary at the very least.  Their claims to their territory and Jerusalem trumps all other claims.



I don't know alot of Israeli's,  I based what I said on news reports I heard some time ago. 

As for if we did the right thing... The Zionist in Israel were terrorist at that time,  not a bunch of Victims from the holocaust... Which killed more Christians than Jew's btw.

President Truman went against the pleas of his Generals,  just as many liberals do, and recognized Israel as a state.  Countless Arabs,  Jew's,  and Americans have died for that decision.. And you think it was the right thing to do?  Every year it is going to get worse,  not better.  It's a perpetual blood shed that will never end.....Thanks to Big Liberal Harry S Truman.


----------



## gordon 2

hummerpoo said:


> As in most cases of pejoratives, context matters; but I think the generalized answer is, yes; although I don't think it originated as one (research required).



I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different  degrees of Zionist ideals  exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them  Israel should have the borders as per  the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different  degrees of Zionist ideals  exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them  Israel should have the borders as per  the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.



I'm sure there are varying degrees within the "Replacement Theology" realm as well. Supersessionism, Covenant Theology if you prefer. The word supersessionism comes from the English verb to supersede, from the Latin verb sedeo, sedere, sedi, sessum, "to sit",plus super, "upon". It thus signifies one thing being REPLACED or supplanted by another.                       I too have trouble remembering what is pejorative. Like Hummer suggests, it's how it is used. Maybe even in the tone of our words. 

One could go back that Israel as a nation never was the Israel God chose. Many of the Reformed persuasion hold this view siting that God never changes. Yet many others view some type of change or dispensation of something happening that allowed the Gentile to be grafted into physical or spiritual Israel. Most just view it more as the Church instead of physical Israel that they were grafted into. To many the Commonwealth of Israel that they were strangers to as Gentiles was not the physical nation of Israel.

Yet they believed something happened that created a replacement theology or fulfillment theology. They admit there was a change. This is how they feel about the Mystery that was revealed to Paul. Paul does remind us not to brag about the grafting to the point some see it as a replacement or super-session.

In other views True Israel has always been spiritual Israel and there never was a favored nation that Abraham fathered and that Jesus was born a part of.
Man made it out to be this Jewish thing that God never saw or had. I guess it would be hard to call that belief "Replacement" as nothing never changed.

Does admitting to a change make one a Dispensationalists? How many changes or time periods does one have to believe in make one a Dispensationalist?
We could even add the time some believe the Old and New overlapped. Some also believe there are no more periods in time. That it is finished. Me personally believe there will be at least one more time period. Maybe two.


----------



## hummerpoo

gordon 2 said:


> I was not aware that Zionist was pejorative. I thought it was simply as calling a rose a rose. Lots of Christians are Zionist knowingly and unknowingly. Some Christian groups are more Zionist than others. It is just a fact. I also suspect that different  degrees of Zionist ideals  exist in Israel as some are not happy with their original homeland they would take away the homeland of other peoples and make it their own because according to them  Israel should have the borders as per  the land mass of the Israel in scripture--which I understand was not the intent of the Balfour Declaration.



I felt that Art had somewhat directed his question in my general direction because the word (pejorative) was in my post, and if you follow my link you will find it used extensively in that thread.  So I gave my opinion in what I hoped was a wishy-washy enough fashion to indicate that it was an opinion.

I do think that it is often used in a pejorative fashion today.  That being accusatively or derogatorily in the context of the statement.

Unlike purely pejorative terms, which are usually initiated by someone opposed to an idea or group as an overly simplified misrepresentation, Zionist was, I believe, first used about 120 yrs. ago as a self-description.  I can't say that I recall having heard it as a self-description recently; others may have a completely different experience.  If I had heard it used often in that way, I'm sure my opinion would be different.


----------



## red neck richie

Netanyahu Applauds President Trump for his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. I'm just saying.


----------



## B. White

Somebody needs to tell all them decedents of immigrants from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Syria the facts that they are not descended from a so called Palestinian people, so they don't waste so much energy throwing rocks the next few weeks, but I guess it will be the same in the southwest USA 50 years from now.  This is a whole lot of to do about nothing.  He stated a naturally known fact.  Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but then again we are dealing with a world of folks who can't tell male from female and even debate those basic, simple facts.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> I felt that Art had somewhat directed his question in my general direction because the word (pejorative) was in my post, and if you follow my link you will find it used extensively in that thread.  So I gave my opinion in what I hoped was a wishy-washy enough fashion to indicate that it was an opinion.
> 
> I do think that it is often used in a pejorative fashion today.  That being accusatively or derogatorily in the context of the statement.
> 
> Unlike purely pejorative terms, which are usually initiated by someone opposed to an idea or group as an overly simplified misrepresentation, Zionist was, I believe, first used about 120 yrs. ago as a self-description.  I can't say that I recall having heard it as a self-description recently; others may have a completely different experience.  If I had heard it used often in that way, I'm sure my opinion would be different.



You explained yourself well and that's they way I see it too. I think many words that are now perceived as pejorative didn't start out that way. When the opposing team (if you will), use it enough, it can become perjorative just by perception.


----------



## GeorgiaBob

Some of the posters here have been given really bum info.  "Zionist" and Israeli are not necessarily the same thing, but both identify Jews who want to live in their homeland.  

The nation of Israel was (reluctantly) recognized by the (then) new United Nations because, while they were dithering with the "Question of relocating European Jews," a bunch of Jews from Europe and the Middle East took control of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel, displacing almost 100,000 Arabian, Bedouin, Egyptian and Persian refugees from the middle eastern fighting during WWII.  The UK had temporary control of the area but were unable to stop the Jews from settling in and setting up their homes.  Notably, one of the reasons Jews were so quickly successful was that many of the Jews were born and raised there and offered other Jews temporary housing on their land.  

It is also important to recognize that the land now including Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the East Bank was in the late 1940s mostly abandoned.  Outside of Jerusalem, about 70,000 Jews, and up to 125,000 ethnic Arab Muslims did live in the the area before WWII, but good figures from after the war are hard to determine.  Most of the Arab Muslims who lived there before the Jews took over chose to remain, they and their descendants live in peace as citizens of Israel.  It is clear that those who ended up in temporary camps in 1948 and 49 had come to the area no earlier than 1944.

The label "Zionist" was applied to those fighters who argued for complete removal of those 85,000 to 97,000 (Israeli count vs. UN count) refugees who refused to live with Jews.  The Zionists lost the argument.  The mostly Muslim, intensely anti Jew, refugees were resettled in temporary camps near Gaza and along the East bank of the Jordan river.  The camps were only to remain open until the UN removed those people and returned them to their countries of origin.  Unsurprisingly, the UN failed, and later blamed Israel for the failure of the UN to send the refugees home.

The refugees own countries REFUSED to accept any of the refugees!  Egypt insisted that the Muslims who left Egypt during WWII gave up any right to return when they ran away.  Saudi Arabia said their own Bedouin peoples denied that the Bedouins in Israeli camps were actually from Saudi Arabia.  The fledgling governments in what we called Iraq and Iran said none of their people were "missing."  

In reality the anti Jew dictatorships in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Lebanon, plus the Kingdoms of Jordan and Saudi Arabia expected the refugee camps to bankrupt the new state of Israel, distract the Israelis from national defense, and be a source of spies and terror within the new Jewish state when they had built up enough military power to attack and destroy Israel.  That plan almost worked.  The refugees are spies and terrorists.  The other nations did build up their military and they did attack Israel - three times.  But they lost every time.

Amazingly, the fewer than 100,000 unwanted refugees from 1949, all who rejected living in Israel, have by some miracle of Mohammid's 9 year old bride, or by special grace from the Alla of all suicide bombers, become in the 21st century, more than 6,000,000 "Palestinian" natives seeking only to regain their ancient homeland!

Don't believe all the hype, lies and propaganda put out by "haters."  I am a Christian from more than 12 generations of Christian Americans.  But I also can read history, check facts, discern CensoredCensored, and discriminate between fact and fiction.  Israel is NOT some evil empire.  They did not "steal" the land from "millions" of natives.  The "Palestinians" are not the "original" residents of the land.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Interesting read from Georgiabob. In that respect I can see why they aren't Zionist in that they live in unity with others in Israel.
We could say that Israel isn't just a Jewish nation but a nation of many.

Then we have this other definition of Zionism which perhaps labeled by some as Christian Zionism as it relates to how one views Israel from a Biblical perspective. 

In other words was the mystery revealed by Paul in that Gentiles were once excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel, having now been adopted into the nourishing Jewish tree root, spiritual or physical?

If physical then Zionism.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Interesting read from Georgiabob. In that respect I can see why they aren't Zionist in that they live in unity with others in Israel.
> We could say that Israel isn't just a Jewish nation but a nation of many.
> 
> Then we have this other definition of Zionism which perhaps labeled by some as Christian Zionism as it relates to how one views Israel from a Biblical perspective.
> 
> In other words was the mystery revealed by Paul in that Gentiles were once excluded from the Commonwealth of Israel, having now been adopted into the nourishing Jewish tree root, spiritual or physical?
> 
> If physical then Zionism.



 Good points. I find it very interesting that some Christians today claim Zionism to be christian and some that it can be definitely of the world.  As Christians there is perhaps no more better time for judgement as today-- as to the individual's stand, a yes or no on the issue.


----------



## Artfuldodger

And some Christians believe Zion will be Independence, Missouri in the good old USA!

Oh well, to each his own. I guess it's hard to not let our religious beliefs carry over into our political beliefs.
I'm not sure my feelings about physical Israel would be the same if my beliefs were not what they are.

Could it be two imaginary groups fighting over the same piece of land?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I can see parallels between physical and spiritual Israel in scripture and I can see differences as well.

Gordon mentions individuals. I can see scripture that appears to be about nations and other scripture that appears to be about individuals.
I read scripture where God chooses a remnant and hardens the others. I read of past promises and future promises. Some even based on predestination. Some based on God having mercy on whom he will have mercy. 
Even a warning that God's decisions are unfathomable to us.

Personally the way I see Romans 9-11, is that if God can harden a whole nation as part of a way to make his plan come about, then he can soften a whole nation after the fullness of Gentiles has come in. That's just the way I see it. Again to each his own.

Does this mean that the physical Israel in the middle east is the one hardened and will later be softened? I don't know. Does God need my help softening physical Israel? I don't think so. So wherever this Israel is, when the time comes, God will gather the one's he hardened and soften their hearts as in Romans 11.

Perhaps this Zion will be in Independence, Missouri.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> I can see parallels between physical and spiritual Israel in scripture and I can see differences as well.
> 
> Gordon mentions individuals. I can see scripture that appears to be about nations and other scripture that appears to be about individuals.
> I read scripture where God chooses a remnant and hardens the others. I read of past promises and future promises. Some even based on predestination. Some based on God having mercy on whom he will have mercy.
> Even a warning that God's decisions are unfathomable to us.
> 
> Personally the way I see Romans 9-11, is that if God can harden a whole nation as part of a way to make his plan come about, then he can soften a whole nation after the fullness of Gentiles has come in. That's just the way I see it. Again to each his own.
> 
> Does this mean that the physical Israel in the middle east is the one hardened and will later be softened? I don't know. Does God need my help softening physical Israel? I don't think so. So wherever this Israel is, when the time comes, God will gather the one's he hardened and soften their hearts as in Romans 11.
> 
> Perhaps this Zion will be in Independence, Missouri.



*Hardening.* Art, let me be candid. When God directed the Plymouth Rock folk to Cross the ocean from Europe... it was most likely the germ of a hardening.
If you assess the activities of that people they were hardened from the get go and their spawn has vibrant echo in their history in North America and it continues today...  And I don't think the process is anywhere where God deems it yet where will have most effect.

 I say this in Christ, or as a Christian. I can't wait as you claim... a softening.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm not claiming a softening, just repeating Paul from Romans 11.
I can't wait either.


----------



## hobbs27

A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God,  the Same church of God Abraham,  Isaac,  and Jacob belonged to. 
 Christianity is the continuation of that church.  Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.



how do you comment on a statement like this ?  

the religion that is the sole basis for the religion you say that you practice, and you claim it is a made up religion.

Why do you claim any religion at all?  You would be more logical if you claimed to be agnostic or athiest


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> how do you comment on a statement like this ?
> 
> the religion that is the sole basis for the religion you say that you practice, and you claim it is a made up religion.
> 
> Why do you claim any religion at all?  You would be more logical if you claimed to be agnostic or athiest



Judaism today only exists as a false religion made up after the temple was destroyed. 

The Apostles preached the Gospel.  Those that denied faced the wrath of God,  those Jew's that accepted continued on the Church of God . The Jew's that rejected Christ are Apostates.

Why in the world would you claim I should be agnostic or atheist when I point out that Christianity is the only true religion?  And the Religion of Abraham,  Isaac,  and Jacob?  
 Didn't Abraham, Isaac,  and Jacob look for the Coming of the Messiah?  Well that's happened,  and we continue on as the true church of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God,  the Same church of God Abraham,  Isaac,  and Jacob belonged to.
> Christianity is the continuation of that church.  Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.



You are correct a remnant was chosen and the rest were hardened. What role did Israel or the Jews if you will play in God's plan?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

to claim that judaism is a made up religion is just crazy.  I know you think that every thing ended in 70AD, but the jews continued in the religion that they were taught from Abraham on down.

Can you tell me what about the jewish religion caused it to be "made up" after the Messiah came?  Was it a "made up" religion before Messiah came on the scene?  What about while he was growing up?  The first 30 years he was living here?  Was it a "made up" religion during that time?


Yes, I would agree that the path to God has changed since Christ died and rose again, but surely you will agree that up until that time, the jews followed the religion and practices that were ordained by God for them to follow?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> A whole nation wasn't hardened, a remnant was saved. And that remnant was the church of God,  the Same church of God Abraham,  Isaac,  and Jacob belonged to.
> Christianity is the continuation of that church.  Judaism is a made up religion just like Islam.



Please explain the remnant chosen from Israel is the Church.

Romans 10:21
But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
(Is Israel the Church yet? Oh wait you said the Remnant was the Church.)

Romans 11:1-2
I ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel:
(In what capacity/relationship did God foreknow Israel?)
(Still not the Church yet, we must wait for the remnant.)

Romans 11:5-6
5In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works. Otherwise, grace would no longer be grace.
(Finally a remnant was chosen from physical Israel)
(OK, I'll go along with you and say this is the beginning of the Church. They were chosen or elected by grace. That's they same way it works today, right?)

Romans 11:7-8
What then? What Israel was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”

(The Church was elected out of Israel by grace and not of works. The rest of Israel was hardened by being given a spirit of stupor. Eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear.)

And if we quit reading Romans 11 at that point, that is the end of physical Israel. The end of the promises made to the patriarchs. The Gentiles never getting a chance to the promises of the Commonwealth of Israel. The Gentiles never getting a chance to be grafted in to the tree of Israel.
Only a remnant of Jews is left which becomes the Church if we quit reading Romans 11 at that point Israel is never made jealous by the salvation granted to the Gentiles.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I must say the remnant elected by grace from national Israel becoming the Church is way more believable than the Church replacing Israel. 
It still doesn't answer God's reconciliation with the Israel that God foreknew. It doesn't explain the rest of Romans 11, the trespasses by the hardened Israel that  allowed the Gentiles salvation to make the hardened Israel jealous. It doesn't explain the promises to the patriarchs. That the promises are still promises. That after the full number of Gentiles comes in, all Israel will be saved. The rest of them. Those hardened by God. The ones God blinded. The ones that may one day be "elected" or "chosen" by grace and not by works.
I hope everyone realizes this is how salvation is granted. God elects by grace. God also has the ability to harden. If I was one that God foreknew, I could live a life of sin and then be chosen for salvation later. God foreknew Israel. 

When I read Romans 9-11, I see promises more than proof.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

a gentile could convert to being a jew since the time of Abraham.  There was a procedure in place to do this.

as a matter of fact, Ruth did it, the Roman centurian did it, Rahab did it... there are several examples of gentiles converting to be a practicing jew


----------



## Artfuldodger

Remember when I said I read verses pertaining to individuals and other verses pertaining to nations?

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Romans 11:1-2
ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel:

I get's very confusing when we try to separate or combine verses as they pertain to nations, individuals, and/or the Church.

Genesis 25:23
The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."

Romans 9:11-12
Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand, 12not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> to claim that judaism is a made up religion is just crazy.  I know you think that every thing ended in 70AD, but the jews continued in the religion that they were taught from Abraham on down.
> 
> Can you tell me what about the jewish religion caused it to be "made up" after the Messiah came?  Was it a "made up" religion before Messiah came on the scene?  What about while he was growing up?  The first 30 years he was living here?  Was it a "made up" religion during that time?
> 
> 
> Yes, I would agree that the path to God has changed since Christ died and rose again, but surely you will agree that up until that time, the jews followed the religion and practices that were ordained by God for them to follow?




Yes,  I can tell you what changed.  The old covenant is no more per 70 ad. 

It did not completely end at the cross,  as Hebrews 8:13 proves

It's all about covenant.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I must say the remnant elected by grace from national Israel becoming the Church is way more believable than the Church replacing Israel.
> It still doesn't answer God's reconciliation with the Israel that God foreknew. It doesn't explain the rest of Romans 11, the trespasses by the hardened Israel that  allowed the Gentiles salvation to make the hardened Israel jealous. It doesn't explain the promises to the patriarchs. That the promises are still promises. That after the full number of Gentiles comes in, all Israel will be saved. The rest of them. Those hardened by God. The ones God blinded. The ones that may one day be "elected" or "chosen" by grace and not by works.
> I hope everyone realizes this is how salvation is granted. God elects by grace. God also has the ability to harden. If I was one that God foreknew, I could live a life of sin and then be chosen for salvation later. God foreknew Israel.
> 
> When I read Romans 9-11, I see promises more than proof.



I think your answer is in Galatians 4.   Abraham had two sons.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I think your answer is in Galatians 4.   Abraham had two sons.



Get rid of the slave woman and her son. Answer or dilemma?

Interesting, you got me a little on that. Here in Galatians, Paul is telling the children of God not to follow Judiasm. I'm a bit confused why the Galatians who worshiped false Gods would want to convert to Judiasm after becoming Christians. Were they ever Jews? Children of God losing their salvation?

Anyway to the point, Paul tells them to get rid of the slave woman and her son. Which more or less could be telling them to get rid of the current physical Jerusalem and follow the new spiritual heavenly Jerusalem. It could appear that Paul is telling them the physical Jerusalem never was heirs as children and to abandon it as an heir. It could be that one needed to not follow the current hardened physical Jerusalem. The one that will be eventually saved in Romans 11. The occupants of that physical city that God foreknew and were heirs to the promises of the Commonwealth of Israel.

But how could an individual follow a heavenly Jerusalem instead of Jesus who came from the physical Jerusalem as well as the heavenly Jerusalem?
Jesus came from both the physical and spiritual Jerusalem. 
He was like the two brothers all wrapped up in one. 
The slave woman was born according to the flesh but so was Jesus. The Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. Jesus also comes from that Jerusalem as well.

And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law.
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. (What throws me for a loop is the word "Now." Where was the foreknowledge used in Romans?)

The kicker;
But what does Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."

Is that the same Jerusalem that in Romans 11 God says;
25I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob. 27And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”              28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, 31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you.

Maybe the slave woman and her son is the Old Covenant that was/is being practiced by the hardened inhabitants of physical Jerusalem. The plea being to abandon their beliefs and ways.

“The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob.The heavenly Jerusalem or the Jerusalem from above would have no sin. The heavenly Jerusalem would not need to be made jealous. The heavenly Jerusalem would not need saving. The heavenly Jerusalem had no patriarchs. The occupants of the heavenly Jerusalem does not have natural and unnatural branches. No need of the unnatural branches to be afraid.
No need of a warning of being arrogant towards the natural branches in a Jerusalem from above.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I think your answer is in Galatians 4.   Abraham had two sons.



Galatians 4:28
Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.
or;
And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac.

I'm just wondering how you view who the children of the promise are. Did it change from Old Jerusalem to the New? Was it never physical Israel and always spiritual Israel? 
Did these Galatians become children of the promise through Isaac being of the New Jerusalem or did something happen that let the Galatians become children through a "change" or "replacement?"
"Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children."
Hagar's son was Ishmael. He corresponds to physical Jerusalem and the Law not the children of the promise/heirs?
You see what I'm saying? Isaac corresponds to the New Jerusalem, salvation by Jesus/grace and heirs to the promise?
I mean this could be viewed as always being more than something that changed or was replaced.

What I'm trying to do is maybe take it one step farther from a change or replacement and see if it has never been physical Israel and has always been spiritual Israel. Can one take Galatians 4 even one step past what you are perceiving and show that the heirs or children of Abraham never were the genealogical offspring of Abraham. Maybe there never was a change or replacement.
"God sent Jesus to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children."
Did that remove physical Israel and put in place a spiritual Israel or was there always a spiritual Israel?

I had asked earlier "what was physical Israel's purpose in God's plan? Why make Christianity this great big Jewish thing if it never was a part of God's plan to begin with? If the promises never were to physical Israel. If the children of God never were a part of physical Israel. If all of Israel never were those who were genealogical descendants of Abraham?

I'm trying to figure out why God chose physical Israel if in actuality he never did. Even if he originally chose Israel as his children and heirs to the promises, he still knew that his Son would be born a Jew under the Law. 
He knew of the two children of Abraham. He knew who they represented.
One the Old Jerusalem/Law and the other the New Jerusalem/Grace. He knew this way before he sent his Son to be born in physical Israel.

I just don't see how anyone can remove the Jewish aspects or origins from Christianity and say it never was or it's a false religion. How can that be when Jesus was born a Jew and under the Law? 
How can one read Romans 11 and not see a physical Israel regardless of what Galatians 4 says? How can people not read Paul and understand he was telling of a mystery revealed to him?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Yes,  I can tell you what changed.  The old covenant is no more per 70 ad.
> 
> It did not completely end at the cross,  as Hebrews 8:13 proves
> 
> It's all about covenant.



so when did Judaism become a "made up" religion????

and no, the old covenant did not end in 70ad, regardless of how many times you say it did.  

While we are at it, why don't you tell us when the 'time of the gentiles' ended, since Jesus came back in 70AD and completed all things?


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> so when did Judaism become a "made up" religion????
> 
> and no, the old covenant did not end in 70ad, regardless of how many times you say it did.
> 
> While we are at it, why don't you tell us when the 'time of the gentiles' ended, since Jesus came back in 70AD and completed all things?




I ask again. Who is "us'? What is your relationship to it, them?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> I ask again. Who is "us'?



us = me and anyone else who cares to read this thread

does that suit you Gordon?


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> us = me and anyone else who cares to read this thread
> 
> does that suit you Gordon?



What is your authority to speak for anyone else who cares to read this thread?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> I ask again. Who is "us'? What is your relationship to it, them?



Maybe if you ask a different way. Are you asking what is my relationship to Israel or Judiasm?


----------



## Artfuldodger

NE GA Pappy said:


> so when did Judaism become a "made up" religion????
> 
> and no, the old covenant did not end in 70ad, regardless of how many times you say it did.
> 
> While we are at it, why don't you tell us when the 'time of the gentiles' ended, since Jesus came back in 70AD and completed all things?



I'd like to see Hobbs or anyone for that matter take Judiasm out of Christianity's past. 

I wanted to ask Hobbs when the Deliverer came from Zion and removed godlessness from Jacob but I think I know what his answer would be.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> What is your authority to speak for anyone else who cares to read this thread?



I wasnt speaking for anyone else in this thread.  If you don't like the way I word my post, then don't read them. Simple huh?  

Us might be me and the mouse I have in my pocket.  Us might be me and the cow in the pasture.  What is it to you anyway?

I wasn't speaking to you anyway


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> so when did Judaism become a "made up" religion????
> 
> and no, the old covenant did not end in 70ad, regardless of how many times you say it did.
> 
> While we are at it, why don't you tell us when the 'time of the gentiles' ended, since Jesus came back in 70AD and completed all things?




here... this is a Jewish site,  explaining how rabbinic Judaism was created after the temple destruction.  

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-after-the-temple/


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I'd like to see Hobbs or anyone for that matter take Judiasm out of Christianity's past.
> 
> I wanted to ask Hobbs when the Deliverer came from Zion and removed godlessness from Jacob but I think I know what his answer would be.



Was Job a Jew?  Was Abraham a Jew?  Was Jacob and Isaac Jew's?.... Nope,  they did belong to the church of God, the same church of God we belong to today. 

The Messiah was coming in their future.  For true believers when he came they accepted Him.  The apostates denied Him and denied the gospel,  they were the goats that were separated from the sheep. The sheep were the remnant.  Today we are believers in the very church of God that the remnant believed in. 

We haven't replaced Judaism, we aren't a less significant bunch to Judaism.  

Judaism,  made up of the house of Judah and the Old covenant law was destroyed... The church of God was rid of that harlot.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Was Job a Jew?  Was Abraham a Jew?  Was Jacob and Isaac Jew's?.... Nope,  they did belong to the church of God, the same church of God we belong to today.
> 
> The Messiah was coming in their future.  For true believers when he came they accepted Him.  The apostates denied Him and denied the gospel,  they were the goats that were separated from the sheep. The sheep were the remnant.  Today we are believers in the very church of God that the remnant believed in.
> 
> We haven't replaced Judaism, we aren't a less significant bunch to Judaism.
> 
> Judaism,  made up of the house of Judah and the Old covenant law was destroyed... The church of God was rid of that harlot.



Romans 11:1-2
ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel: 

"God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew."

"do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either."

Romans 11:25-27
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob. 27And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Was Job a Jew?  Was Abraham a Jew?  Was Jacob and Isaac Jew's?.... Nope,  they did belong to the church of God, the same church of God we belong to today.



What purpose did God use Israel for his plan to one's path to salvation?
Doesn't Jacob represent Israel? Wasn't Abraham the Father of the Hebrews?

How did God use Gentiles for his purpose of leading earthly Jews to salvation?
Paul said; I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Was Job a Jew?  Was Abraham a Jew?  Was Jacob and Isaac Jew's?.... Nope,  they did belong to the church of God, the same church of God we belong to today.
> 
> The Messiah was coming in their future.  For true believers when he came they accepted Him.  The apostates denied Him and denied the gospel,  they were the goats that were separated from the sheep. The sheep were the remnant.  Today we are believers in the very church of God that the remnant believed in.
> 
> We haven't replaced Judaism, we aren't a less significant bunch to Judaism.
> 
> Judaism,  made up of the house of Judah and the Old covenant law was destroyed... The church of God was rid of that harlot.



Funny.... Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.  You think that he cam and destroyed his own tribe?

Yes, I believe Abraham was the first Jew, and his descendants after him.  Issac was circumsized on the eighth day, in accordance to the law.  Abraham worshiped under the priest Melchizedek, who scripture says was the priest of the most high God.

Wonder who all the followers were of God at that point? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?  It does me.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Hobbs, you once said  that the heirs didn't replace Israel but were adopted into it as explained in Romans 11. The tree, the grafting, etc.

Now it sounds like your belief is more in line with the Reformed in that the heirs were never Israel and were always Christians from the beginning. Following that the heirs of the promises were never the genealogical seeds of Abraham.

Have your beliefs changed from that of being grafted into Israel? Do you see it now as national Jerusalem never being heirs to a belief that who God foreknew were only individual believers?
In other words no fulfillment or replacement as it has always been the same from the beginning.

How do you explain the God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew and that Gentiles were without God and excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> Funny.... Jesus was from the tribe of Judah.  You think that he cam and destroyed his own tribe?
> 
> Yes, I believe Abraham was the first Jew, and his descendants after him.  Issac was circumsized on the eighth day, in accordance to the law.  Abraham worshiped under the priest Melchizedek, who scripture says was the priest of the most high God.
> 
> Wonder who all the followers were of God at that point? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?  It does me.




 His own tribe spit upon Him,  cursed Him,  had Him beaten,  and crucified. Luke 21 says the temple destruction was the days of vengeance.  If Christ was to take out vengeance,  surely it would have to go out to His own tribe. 

Abraham was Father of the Israelites... Jew's were just one nation (tribe)  of Israel.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Jew's were just one nation (tribe)  of Israel.



nope.  not even close


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Hobbs, you once said  that the heirs didn't replace Israel but were adopted into it as explained in Romans 11. The tree, the grafting, etc.
> 
> Now it sounds like your belief is more in line with the Reformed in that the heirs were never Israel and were always Christians from the beginning. Following that the heirs of the promises were never the genealogical seeds of Abraham.
> 
> Have your beliefs changed from that of being grafted into Israel? Do you see it now as national Jerusalem never being heirs to a belief that who God foreknew were only individual believers?
> In other words no fulfillment or replacement as it has always been the same from the beginning.
> 
> How do you explain the God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew and that Gentiles were without God and excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world?




 His people He foreknew were the first century Christians from 30-70 ad.  
 Many of what scripture deems Gentiles were not gentiles in the sense we think of.. IE Greek. 
 Many were the diaspora,  those Israelites of the other houses,  not of the house of Judah.  They were found in Rome,  and Asia.  Many of them were hearing and accepting the Gospel.  As they came into the church,  it was bringing all Israel together again that All Israel may be saved.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I would love to see any biblical references that allude to the only jews being from the tribe of Judah.  I am not interested in any reference outside the bible that claim that jews are only from Judah.  

waiting on the scripture..........


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> I would love to see any biblical references that allude to the only jews being from the tribe of Judah.  I am not interested in any reference outside the bible that claim that jews are only from Judah.
> 
> waiting on the scripture..........



I can show commentary and concordance... maybe you can show me scripture that refers to members of the ten northern tribes as a Jew?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

lol

I don't think that burden is on my back.  You made the claim. Prove it in scripture.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> His people He foreknew were the first century Christians from 30-70 ad.



Romans 10:20-21
And later Isaiah spoke boldly for God, saying, "I was found by people who were not looking for me. I showed myself to those who were not asking for me."
But regarding Israel, God said, "All day long I opened my arms to them, but they were disobedient and rebellious."
Romans 11:1-
ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says about Elijah, how he appealed to God against Israel:

Paul is talking about Israel. How do you get that it's Christians of the early Church?
The early Church were the one's that were not looking for God. Verse 2 has God saying that he will not reject His people that He foreknew. Look at the context of what Paul is saying. 
God then elects a Remnant from Israel and hardens the rest of Israel. Because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous. For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob.

Who was Jacob? Maybe you are too hung up on the word Jewish or have some weird thing about using it. 
Anyway the Deliverer will come to or has already come to Zion. Where might that be? Who were it's occupants when the deliverer came? He removed godlessness from Jacob. Where might that have been as well?

"And so all Israel will be saved"
"And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Who is Israel, who is Zion, who is Jacob and who is "them" as in when I take away their sins?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Why did Paul say;
28Regarding the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs. 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience,31so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. 32For God has consigned all men to disobedience, so that He may have mercy on them all. 33 O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!

Why would Paul go to the trouble to say all that if it was never so? He is not talking about the early Church. He is talking about the promises to the patriarchs. Whatever you want to call them I don't care. Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, or Jacob.
Regardless of what we call them Romans 11 is explaining that they are loved on account of the patriarchs. That Gentiles have received mercy through their disobedience. That this was done to make Israel jealous.
That like the Gentiles, they too had to be disobedient in order for God to have mercy on them as well.

Regardless of how or who you call Israel or how or who you call Gentiles, Romans 11 is about the promises to the patriarchs.

Kinda weird isn't it? Paul knew we wouldn't understand God's ways.


----------



## gordon 2

Y'all recall many bifurcations ago when I wondered in this tread with the notion that the USA was going to be viewed as complicit with Israel in their schemes of ethnic cleansing  in Palestine?

  From News Reports this morning: 

CAIRO -- Arab foreign ministers on Sunday demanded that the United States rescind U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, calling it a "grave" development that puts Washington on the same side as "occupation" and the violation of international law.

( It did not take too long!)

 Other developments yesterday: Significant protest at US embassy in Lebanon.

I foresee that more embassy protests and worse are eminent! As many will realize that the USA is officially on the side of occupation.

Has God hardened the hearts of the so called occupiers or those who deem themselves dispossessed in this case? Bible verses? Is it possible that God would harden the hearts of Christians today? Scripture?

Hebrews 3:13
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.


----------



## hobbs27

Paul,  Peter,  James,  etc were Jew's,  but were Christian.  They were the first century Christians,  the remnant,  the elect,  true Israel. So were the scattered northern tribes that came into the Gospel.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Romans 9:16
So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

I'm sure that wherever Zion is or will be that God will not need our help in his plan for that Zion even if it will be in Independence, Missouri. 

We do know that God chose a remnant out of Israel based on grace and not works and hardened the rest. Until.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

gordon 2 said:


> Y'all recall many bifurcations ago when I wondered in this tread with the notion that the USA was going to be viewed as complicit with Israel in their schemes of ethnic cleansing  in Palestine?
> 
> From News Reports this morning:
> 
> CAIRO -- Arab foreign ministers on Sunday demanded that the United States rescind U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, calling it a "grave" development that puts Washington on the same side as "occupation" and the violation of international law.
> 
> ( It did not take too long!)
> 
> Other developments yesterday: Significant protest at US embassy in Lebanon.
> 
> I foresee that more embassy protests and worse are eminent! As many will realize that the USA is officially on the side of occupation.
> 
> Has God hardened the hearts of the so called occupiers or those who deem themselves dispossessed in this case? Bible verses? Is it possible that God would harden the hearts of Christians today? Scripture?
> 
> Hebrews 3:13
> 13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.




Gordon, I really don't care what the other nations think of the decision to put the embassy in Jerusalem, just as I don't care what other nations think of us electing PDT instead of HRC.  Their opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.

What I do care about is being on the side of right.  Israel has been kicked about, bullied, stomped on, and treated like a red headed step child for over 70 years now.  Most of the countries of the world are against her, and most of the arab nations would nuke the crap out of Israel, even if it meant destroying the Dome of the Rock to get rid of Israel.

There is an intense hatred in the mid east for the jews, and it is only because they are jews.  Not that they have done anything to provoke the anger, or deserve the bullying.  One of the most telling questions you can ask yourself concerning the conflicts among the mid east neighborhood.....  If the Arabs laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to the arabs?  On the other hand, If the Israeli's laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to Israel?


The answer to those 2 questions will show you where the conflict arises, and who continues to fan the flames of hatred in the middle east.

America has always been on the side of the underdog.  When Germany had France in a death grip, America stepped in and sacrificed thousands to liberate France.  We did the same as England came under attack from Germany.   Twice.  

Sure as a nation, we have our issues.  We make mistakes and do things that hurt other nations.  Just as we do as individuals.  My concern for our national leadership is that they stand for right, protect the weak, and comfort the hurting.   The exact same things that I try to do in my own life.


----------



## red neck richie

NE GA Pappy said:


> Gordon, I really don't care what the other nations think of the decision to put the embassy in Jerusalem, just as I don't care what other nations think of us electing PDT instead of HRC.  Their opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
> 
> What I do care about is being on the side of right.  Israel has been kicked about, bullied, stomped on, and treated like a red headed step child for over 70 years now.  Most of the countries of the world are against her, and most of the arab nations would nuke the crap out of Israel, even if it meant destroying the Dome of the Rock to get rid of Israel.
> 
> There is an intense hatred in the mid east for the jews, and it is only because they are jews.  Not that they have done anything to provoke the anger, or deserve the bullying.  One of the most telling questions you can ask yourself concerning the conflicts among the mid east neighborhood.....  If the Arabs laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to the arabs?  On the other hand, If the Israeli's laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to Israel?
> 
> 
> The answer to those 2 questions will show you where the conflict arises, and who continues to fan the flames of hatred in the middle east.
> 
> America has always been on the side of the underdog.  When Germany had France in a death grip, America stepped in and sacrificed thousands to liberate France.  We did the same as England came under attack from Germany.   Twice.
> 
> Sure as a nation, we have our issues.  We make mistakes and do things that hurt other nations.  Just as we do as individuals.  My concern for our national leadership is that they stand for right, protect the weak, and comfort the hurting.   The exact same things that I try to do in my own life.



You got that right Pappy. I agree with you the media will only show the violence from the Palestinians. They wont show this on tv.


----------



## Spineyman

hobbs27 said:


> I can show commentary and concordance... maybe you can show me scripture that refers to members of the ten northern tribes as a Jew?




Romans 2:25-29 


25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.


----------



## Spineyman

NE GA Pappy said:


> Gordon, I really don't care what the other nations think of the decision to put the embassy in Jerusalem, just as I don't care what other nations think of us electing PDT instead of HRC.  Their opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonalds.
> 
> What I do care about is being on the side of right.  Israel has been kicked about, bullied, stomped on, and treated like a red headed step child for over 70 years now.  Most of the countries of the world are against her, and most of the arab nations would nuke the crap out of Israel, even if it meant destroying the Dome of the Rock to get rid of Israel.
> 
> There is an intense hatred in the mid east for the jews, and it is only because they are jews.  Not that they have done anything to provoke the anger, or deserve the bullying.  One of the most telling questions you can ask yourself concerning the conflicts among the mid east neighborhood.....  If the Arabs laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to the arabs?  On the other hand, If the Israeli's laid down all their arms and declared they would fight no more, what would happen to Israel?
> 
> 
> The answer to those 2 questions will show you where the conflict arises, and who continues to fan the flames of hatred in the middle east.
> 
> America has always been on the side of the underdog.  When Germany had France in a death grip, America stepped in and sacrificed thousands to liberate France.  We did the same as England came under attack from Germany.   Twice.
> 
> Sure as a nation, we have our issues.  We make mistakes and do things that hurt other nations.  Just as we do as individuals.  My concern for our national leadership is that they stand for right, protect the weak, and comfort the hurting.   The exact same things that I try to do in my own life.



Let me also add that it was God who set the boundaries of Israel not man. Trump was just affirming what God said long ago.


----------



## hobbs27

Spineyman said:


> Romans 2:25-29
> 
> 
> 25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.



Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


----------



## hummerpoo

Gal 3:29  And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Joel 2:27-29
Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, And that I am the LORD your God, And there is no other; And My people will never be put to shame. 28"It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.  29"Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.…


----------



## Spineyman

hobbs27 said:


> Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.



I don't think that means what you think it means. God did in fact set a covenant up with Israel. That covenant is a two way street. It is between God and Israel. They are the two parties involved. He also went on to give the rules for said covenant. If you do this then I will do this, but if you do this then I will do this. there were blessings and cursings according to the set rules. Now on to your scripture you quoted. It simply means God is no respecter of persons. He deals with all regardless of color, creed, male, female, nationality, or any other distinction you can figure out equally at the foot of the cross. There is no distinction as far as that goes, because He freely gives to all who seek Him. Now obviously He has set up boundaries and roles and functions. There are true distinctions.


----------



## gordon 2

I suspect that life being so busy few are making a point to count the dead and wounded so far...?? and I understand that  some are not counting cause they could care less?  But I'm betting some are and Oh! the headlines today : " Turkey aims to open embassy in East Jerusalem"? Hum!


----------



## hobbs27

Spineyman said:


> I don't think that means what you think it means. God did in fact set a covenant up with Israel. That covenant is a two way street. It is between God and Israel. They are the two parties involved. He also went on to give the rules for said covenant. If you do this then I will do this, but if you do this then I will do this. there were blessings and cursings according to the set rules. Now on to your scripture you quoted. It simply means God is no respecter of persons. He deals with all regardless of color, creed, male, female, nationality, or any other distinction you can figure out equally at the foot of the cross. There is no distinction as far as that goes, because He freely gives to all who seek Him. Now obviously He has set up boundaries and roles and functions. There are true distinctions.




Are you saying God has two active covenants with man today,  and we can be Christian or Jew and either is OK?  ... So much for Jesus being the only way.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> I suspect that life being so busy few are making a point to count the dead and wounded so far...?? and I understand that  some are not counting cause they could care less?  But I'm betting some are and Oh! the headlines today : " Turkey aims to open embassy in East Jerusalem"? Hum!



Gordon... Israel is a strange political partner for the US.  I don't get it.  The Republican Party by majority supports Israel.....The Jewish community in the US by majority supports the Democrat party... 

 Israel is just a mess that will never be solved.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

yeah, the Israel/Arab issue will be solved.  

I don't think it will be long either in coming.  I believe that Prez DJT declaring Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel will probably solidify the Arabs into a block that comes against Israel.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> yeah, the Israel/Arab issue will be solved.
> 
> I don't think it will be long either in coming.  I believe that Prez DJT declaring Jerusalem the eternal capital of Israel will probably solidify the Arabs into a block that comes against Israel.




nothing has worked since we declared them a state in 1948. It's a perpetual fight and constant blood bath.  Has been since the beginning of Israel in 1948, always will be,  unless Iran nukes them.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

It has been going on a lot longer than since 1948.  But it will quickly come to a head, and be settled.  This has been going on since around 560ad


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> It has been going on a lot longer than since 1948.  But it will quickly come to a head, and be settled.  This has been going on since around 560ad



Not this. In 1867 Mark Twain visited palestine and wrote about a desolate country.

""..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
 (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)"


all that is there now in what we recognize as Israel,  is a result of Zionism


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Not this. In 1867 Mark Twain visited palestine and wrote about a desolate country.
> 
> ""..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."
> (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)"
> 
> 
> all that is there now in what we recognize as Israel,  is a result of Zionism



I was speaking of the muslim/jewish turmoil that has been going on since before 600ad.  

I know your beliefs in Israel, and you get so many facts wrong.  You do know that jews actually went in before the 48 decree and purchased land in the Jezreel valley that was basically swamp land.  They drained it, and now it is some of the most fertile land in the middle east.  A lot of land was purchased, and now the arabs want it all back, because they have seen what the jews were able to do with it.  I wonder why, on the other side of the Jordan river, they aren't doing the same thing as Israel does on the west side.  They have the land and the knowledge is available for them to make Jordan a lush nation, but they haven't done it.

Go on with your hatred of Israel, and your belief that there are no jews there. Support those arabs that call themselves palestinians (not such group of people have ever existed) and watch what happens.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

if the arabs controlled it for centuries, and it was such a fertile land, why didn't the arabs do something to improve the land for all those hundreds of years they had between 70ad and 1948??????


----------



## hobbs27

I don't support the Muslim's or the Jew's.  I'd like to bring them all to Jesus,  because they are both heathens.... I don't hate either,  but facts are facts and can be rather blunt at times.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

how can you want a race. that you say doesn't exist, to come to Jesus?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> how can you want a race. that you say doesn't exist, to come to Jesus?



Those people that claim to be Jew's,  need Jesus,  so do all other false religions.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

So, now Judaism is a false religion?

The religion that Jesus practiced is a false religion


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> So, now Judaism is a false religion?
> 
> The religion that Jesus practiced is a false religion



of course, but it's not the religion Jesus practiced,  it Rabbinic Judaism created after the temple destruction.  Any religion that doesn't point to Christ as the way... Which is what Christ practiced,  is a false religion.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> of course, but it's not the religion Jesus practiced,  it Rabbinic Judaism created after the temple destruction.  Any religion that doesn't point to Christ as the way... Which is what Christ practiced,  is a false religion.



so, up until 70ad Judaism was a true religion, but then after the temple was destroyed, it became a false religion, because?????

Do you not know that Judaism does point to redemption from sin by a savior, and that some Jews have seen this and accept Jesus, but others have be blinded by the truth until the time of the gentiles be fulfilled?  Oh yeah... I forgot... 70ad....

Jews didn't invent a new religion just because the temple was destroyed.  They followed the laws of Moses as much as was possible even after the temple was destroyed.  

Even Jesus said that he didn't come to destroy the law, (Judaism) but to fulfill it.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, up until 70ad Judaism was a true religion, but then after the temple was destroyed, it became a false religion, because?????
> 
> Do you not know that Judaism does point to redemption from sin by a savior, and that some Jews have seen this and accept Jesus, but others have be blinded by the truth until the time of the gentiles be fulfilled?  Oh yeah... I forgot... 70ad....
> 
> Jews didn't invent a new religion just because the temple was destroyed.  They followed the laws of Moses as much as was possible even after the temple was destroyed.
> 
> Even Jesus said that he didn't come to destroy the law, (Judaism) but to fulfill it.



up until 70 ad,  they still had hope.  Those that refused to believe Christ is Lord paid the price. 

The old covenant was still with them,  but was about  to vanish.  Hebrews 8:13

It became a false religion because they did not recognize Christ as the Messiah,  as the Son of God,  therefore they were no longer worshipping God,  but had begun to worship Rome.. " We have no king but Caesar "

I'm glad some Jew's are coming to Jesus... I recently watched a man read a chapter of Isaiah to these rabbinic Jew,  and they marveled at that chapter ( can't remember which one right now),  but it's a chapter Rabbis do not teach,  and if I'm not mistaken is taken out of the tanakh.

Jew's admit their religion , rabbinic Judaism,  was invented after the Temple destruction. 

And Jesus has fulfilled the Law.


----------



## hobbs27




----------



## hobbs27

To be fair and honest.  Muslim's can also find Christ in their Quran.


----------



## Spineyman

hobbs27 said:


> To be fair and honest.  Muslim's can also find Christ in their Quran.



Sorry but not the right One!


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Jew's admit their religion , rabbinic Judaism,  was invented after the Temple destruction.
> 
> And Jesus has fulfilled the Law.



I have talked to several rabbis and lots of jews.  Although I have never asked this question, I doubt that any of them would agree that their present day religion was invented after 70ad.  They are reading the same Torah and practicing as closely as possible its teaching, so my thoughts are that they would claim to be following the religion of Abraham, as recorded by Moses in the Torah.

I too, am praying for the jews to find Jesus as savior, and we support missionaries in Israel to that end.  We do approach Israeli's differently than some other nationalities.  The jews have a distrust of  Christians because of the way some people have treated them over the years, and some of them mistakenly lump most gentiles together as Christian, regardless if they are followers or not.  Some even say Hitler was a Christian.

So, we supply bomb shelters, clothing, food, toiletries and such.  We go into west bank neighborhoods and meet practical needs.  And then when they have accepted that we are there as friends, not enemies, they are much more open to listen to us.  This type of ministry is very labor intensive, and takes a lot of time.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> up until 70 ad,  they still had hope.  Those that refused to believe Christ is Lord paid the price.



so, are you saying that between the death of Christ, and 70ad, that following judaism would still result in salvation in the end?  That up until 70ad, because the temple still stood and sacrifices were going on, there was redemption from sin because of those sacrifices, just as in the 1600 or so years prior to this?

I am taking it that you do believe that there was remission of sins in the prescribed sacrifices that God laid out in the Torah???


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> so, are you saying that between the death of Christ, and 70ad, that following judaism would still result in salvation in the end?  That up until 70ad, because the temple still stood and sacrifices were going on, there was redemption from sin because of those sacrifices, just as in the 1600 or so years prior to this?
> 
> 
> 
> I am taking it that you do believe that there was remission of sins in the prescribed sacrifices that God laid out in the Torah???




 There was no permanent or individual redemption of sin in the Torah.  Otherwise they wouldn't have needed a resurrection and judgment. 

It's really simple. God cleaned house.  Christianity is the remnant,  the true believers , the continuation of God's relationship with man.  

Rabbinic Judaism,  and Islam were all created in the absence of the Temple.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

if there were no individual redemption, then why did God demand individual sacrifice?  

Surely you aren't saying that if one was condemned the entire nation was condemned?  During the time of Ahab and Jezebel, when there were 700 prophet who hadn't worshipped Baal, did they not receive redemption when they died because of the sins of the nation?

Sure there was individual redemption offered thru the sacrafices God demanded, or why would anyone do them?  If one failed to follow thru, they all were cursed?  Nah. 

That would be like saying on the night of Passover, if one jewish father failed to sacrifice and paint the door posts, all the jewish first born would die.

We are forgiven and redeemed as individuals, and we always have been.  It is not a corporate insurance policy.


----------



## hobbs27

Hebrews 10:1-4 
 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Lev 5:6 and he must bring his penalty for guilt to the Lord for his sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, whether a female sheep or a female goat, for a sin offering. So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin

please define atonement, if not forgiveness.

I agree, the sacrifice was to be made at least yearly, and was a temporary covering, up it was a method for sins to be forgiven and make the person clean before God


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Num 15:27-28 15:27 “‘If any person sins unintentionally, then he must bring a yearling female goat for a purification offering. 28 And the priest must make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally – when he sins unintentionally before the Lord – to make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.

and he will be forgiven??????  sounds like a complete forgiveness for the sins he had committed.  If he died in this state, he was forgiven and he went to Abrahams bossum upon his death, waiting for Jesus to come and take back the keys (authority over)death, hades, and the grave.  This is the authority that Adam surrendered to satan in the garden of Eden, when he believed the lie of the serpent, rather than the truth that God spoke directly to him.  

This is one reason the Bible says in Matt 28, " 8 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. "


----------



## hobbs27

Pappy.... They did not have a good enough sacrifice to make them pure.  They did have a temporary atonement , but until God sent His only begotten Son which was the unblemished lamb, as a sacrifice, eternal life was not known

Praise be to God and His Son,  that the old covenant has vanished and the New is established that by His marvelous grace through our faith,  we may live forever.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Hobbs, you talk as if eternal life only began with Christ's death.  Man has had eternal life since he was first created in the garden of Eden.  The question is where would he spend eternity after his short stint here on earth.  

I would argue that anyone who held the sacrifices and rituals that were given to Moses, and passed down to the jews, would be judged righteous at their death.  If not, the Abraham,Issac,Jacob,Elijah,David and a list of millions of others would have never found salvation because they were living before Jesus was crucified.  

Yes, now we have a more perfect way, but don't you think the law that God gave Moses was a way to salvation for those that followed it?  Or was it just a game God was playing with mankind for a few centuries just to pass time until He decided it was time for Jesus to appear?


----------



## hobbs27

Galatians 2:16 Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law."


Also John 3:16 Says we don't all have eternal life,  only those that believe in Christ,  others perish. 

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.


There's a reason Lazarus was going to be raised in the last day.  He had died under the old covenant and gone to Hades... Separated from God by sin,  either his or from Adam.  It took the atonement of Christ to end Hades,  to raise the dead,  and gather His church together in one body.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

you are confusing pre Christ, post Christ.

I asked did the patriarchs have salvation or not?  Or at least that is what I tried to ask.  

Did the sacrifices ordered by God result in forgiveness of sins or not?  I am not worried about the temporary or permanentcy of this question right now.  Did they get forgiveness?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> you are confusing pre Christ, post Christ.
> 
> I asked did the patriarchs have salvation or not?  Or at least that is what I tried to ask.
> 
> Did the sacrifices ordered by God result in forgiveness of sins or not?  I am not worried about the temporary or permanentcy of this question right now.  Did they get forgiveness?



Not the complete remission of sins.  They got forgiveness but they still had imputed sin.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Not the complete remission of sins.  They got forgiveness but they still had imputed sin.




Salvation, or no salvation?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> Salvation, or no salvation?



Pappy... They had no salvation. They had to await the atonement of Christ and to hear His voice,  before they could receive eternal life. 

If they had salvation without the atonement of Christ in your opinion,  why did Christ even have to become a sacrifice?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Pappy... They had no salvation. They had to await the atonement of Christ and to hear His voice,  before they could receive eternal life.
> 
> If they had salvation without the atonement of Christ in your opinion,  why did Christ even have to become a sacrifice?



you are delusional


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> you are delusional



Ive provided a lot of Bible,  you've been silent on.

Is it your belief that the blood of bulls and goats was sufficient ?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Ive provided a lot of Bible,  you've been silent on.
> 
> Is it your belief that the blood of bulls and goats was sufficient ?



I belief that God devised a system where by man was justified and forgiven for the sins that were covered by the sacrifice offered.

Was the sacrifice perfect? NO.  Was the sacrifice a permanent solution? no.  Was it sufficient to cover the sins that it was offered? yes.  

We have been give a more perfect system than they had offered. A permanent fix for a permanent problem.  But to think that God somehow offered forgiveness and then rejected His forgiveness for those sins is just unbelievable.  This was their means to salvation.  Faith in the system laid out by God for forgiveness of their sins.

Christ came to be a perfect sacrifice to cover mankinds sins.  He was the end all of all sacrifices.  He completed the need for any more sacrifices. 

I don't understand your thought process at all on eternal life.  Each and everyone of us have eternal life.  The question is where will you spend eternity.  It seems to be that you believe that if you are not saved when you die, you go to somewhere to die again, and are no more.

Is that what you are trying to convey?


----------



## hobbs27

John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

 So at the time Jesus was doing His earthly ministry,  no man had been to heaven... The dead were dead and without consciousness according to the scriptures... Not alive,  but dead,  awaiting to be raised in the last day as Martha made clear. 

Sin kept them separated from the Father,  had any old testament sacrifice purified them of  sin,  they could have been with the father in heaven. 

John 3:16 says to obtain eternal life we must have faith in Christ,  otherwise we perish.... This is a clear text that not everyone has eternal life.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

well, so much for getting a straight answer from you.

the reason no one was in heaven was because until Jesus decended into Hades, satan held the keys to death, hades and the grave.  Jesus went and reclaimed that authority to rule over death,hades and the grave.

Until Jesus did this, people dwelt in a place called Abrahams bossum.  Living there until they were set free when Jesus came back to life.  Several old testament saints and prophet were seen walking about Jerusalem at that time.

I know... You don't believe that, but at a minimum you could stop beating around the bush and say what you believe happens to people who die without salvation


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> well, so much for getting a straight answer from you.
> 
> the reason no one was in heaven was because until Jesus decended into Hades, satan held the keys to death, hades and the grave.  Jesus went and reclaimed that authority to rule over death,hades and the grave.
> 
> Until Jesus did this, people dwelt in a place called Abrahams bossum.  Living there until they were set free when Jesus came back to life.  Several old testament saints and prophet were seen walking about Jerusalem at that time.
> 
> I know... You don't believe that, but at a minimum you could stop beating around the bush and say what you believe happens to people who die without salvation



Actually,  I believe most of what you said.  I don't think Abraham's bosom is Hades,  but I'm with you that old covenant folks were dead in Hades or the grave, until Jesus came and made atonement for them. 

As for the unsaved dead... I thought I answered that when I referred to John 3:16. Let me make it clearer. 
 Those without faith never obtained eternal life and perish upon death per John 3:16


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Those without faith never obtained eternal life and perish upon death per John 3:16



so you basically believe if you are not saved, when you die, you are just dead.  No afterlife, no punishment, no knowledge of anything because you are just laying in that grave forever?


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> so you basically believe if you are not saved, when you die, you are just dead.  No afterlife, no punishment, no knowledge of anything because you are just laying in that grave forever?



per John 3:16 yes.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

so what do you do with the scripture that talks about everlasting punishment?

Matt 25:46  And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life

Mark 9:43-48 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’

45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where 
‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored fire— 48 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’

Rev 20:12- 15 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.gs which were written in the books, according to their deeds.  Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.This is the second death, the lake of fire.     And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. 

there is a multitude of scripture that teaches an eternal punishment after death and rejection of Christ.

You don't just lay in the ground, never to be remember anymore for eternity.  Just as in this life, there are everlasting consequences for decisions we make.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> so what do you do with the scripture that talks about everlasting punishment?
> 
> Matt 25:46  And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life
> 
> Mark 9:43-48 43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’
> 
> 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where
> ‘Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.’
> 
> 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored fire— 48 where ‘Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched.’
> 
> Rev 20:12- 15 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.gs which were written in the books, according to their deeds.  Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.This is the second death, the lake of fire.     And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
> 
> there is a multitude of scripture that teaches an eternal punishment after death and rejection of Christ.
> 
> You don't just lay in the ground, never to be remember anymore for eternity.  Just as in this life, there are everlasting consequences for decisions we make.



Is the death penalty an eternal punishment?  I believe it is.

You aught to watch that movie... He11 and Mr. Fudge.  Very telling.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Are you saying God has two active covenants with man today,  and we can be Christian or Jew and either is OK?  ... So much for Jesus being the only way.



Are you saying there is no longer male and female?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> Is the death penalty an eternal punishment?  I believe it is.
> 
> You aught to watch that movie... He11 and Mr. Fudge.  Very telling.



no, death is not the final punishment.  Read the verses I quoted.  It is plain that those people were living somewhere after they died.  and they were sentenced to eternity of punishment.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Pappy.... They did not have a good enough sacrifice to make them pure.  They did have a temporary atonement , but until God sent His only begotten Son which was the unblemished lamb, as a sacrifice, eternal life was not known
> 
> Praise be to God and His Son,  that the old covenant has vanished and the New is established that by His marvelous grace through our faith,  we may live forever.



These Jews that don't exist, can they find Jesus if God opens their eyes?


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> These Jews that don't exist, can they find Jesus if God opens their eyes?



Their eyes were opened.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Artfuldodger said:


> These Jews that don't exist, can they find Jesus if God opens their eyes?



how can they since they don't exist?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

non-existing jews having their non-existing eyes opened


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> no, death is not the final punishment.  Read the verses I quoted.  It is plain that those people were living somewhere after they died.  and they were sentenced to eternity of punishment.



No such place as a place of eternal torments.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> No such place as a place of eternal torments.



again... you are delusional 

lots and lots of verses that teach that there is a place of eternal punishment that goes on forever and ever.

if that ain't eternal, I don't know what is.


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> again... you are delusional
> 
> lots and lots of verses that teach that there is a place of eternal punishment that goes on forever and ever.
> 
> if that ain't eternal, I don't know what is.



It was tormenting studying this topic a while back and finding out that such a place doesn't exist.  I tried really hard to prove he11 exists in scripture... It doesn't,  the whole concept was added to Christianity later on... The apostles never mentioned such a place.. Jesus never mentioned such a place ( when His words are actually studied). 

Sheol / hades... Both translated as he11, are the same place is. The grave. 

Gehenna  translated as he11 is an actual place and should have never been translated at all. 

and Tartarus is a place angels were bound until the day of judgment... Not a place of eternal torments. 

So there you have it,  the four words in the Bible translated as he11, and none of them are a place of eternal torments.. Strange huh?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> It was tormenting studying this topic a while back and finding out that such a place doesn't exist.  I tried really hard to prove he11 exists in scripture... It doesn't,  the whole concept was added to Christianity later on... The apostles never mentioned such a place.. Jesus never mentioned such a place ( when His words are actually studied).
> 
> Sheol / hades... Both translated as he11, are the same place is. The grave.
> 
> Gehenna  translated as he11 is an actual place and should have never been translated at all.
> 
> and Tartarus is a place angels were bound until the day of judgment... Not a place of eternal torments.
> 
> So there you have it,  the four words in the Bible translated as he11, and none of them are a place of eternal torments.. Strange huh?




you have been deceived.  I know you won't accept that, but you have been deceived. 

and you know that the valley Ge-Hinnom was named that because the jews burned there trash there, and there was a flame that came from the trash pit there day and night.  It reminded them of the teachings on Ge-Hinnom and so that is what they called it.  It doesn't mean Jesus was referring to that particular valley just to the southwest of Jerusalem.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Their eyes were opened.



Romans 11 tells us a remnant was chosen from physical Israel and the rest of Israel were hardened. They were blind until the full number of Gentiles came in. 
 “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Can we assume the full number of Gentiles came in at 70AD and then at that time God kept his covenant and removed Israels sins? Can we assume that regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs?
That in 70AD God’s gifts and His call were irrevocable?
So that they too then, in 70AD received mercy through the mercy shown to the Gentiles?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

I know another local guy who believes like you do.  I believe he is a sincere believer, but on this topic I believe you and he have got it wrong.

I really like the guy, bu he is a nutcase too


----------



## hobbs27

NE GA Pappy said:


> I know another local guy who believes like you do.  I believe he is a sincere believer, but on this topic I believe you and he have got it wrong.
> 
> I really like the guy, bu he is a nutcase too


 

I didn't come by this way of thinking easily.  It really agonized me,  I studied long and hard on it just to prove the opposite of what I concluded.  . You should really watch the movie He11 and Mr.  Fudge.  Or watch some of his YouTube videos with your Bible and commentary.  ...The movie is fairly good,  but the meat of his studies are on his YouTube videos. 
 Edward Fudge.. Rethinking he11.   


I've now come to the realization that he11 is an added doctrine of pagan origins.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

hobbs27 said:


> I didn't come by this way of thinking easily.  It really agonized me,  I studied long and hard on it just to prove the opposite of what I concluded.  . You should really watch the movie He11 and Mr.  Fudge.  Or watch some of his YouTube videos with your Bible and commentary.  ...The movie is fairly good,  but the meat of his studies are on his YouTube videos.
> Edward Fudge.. Rethinking he11.
> 
> 
> I've now come to the realization that he11 is an added doctrine of pagan origins.




I have been up and down this dirt road with the local guy for over 4 years now.  I have done intense study on eternal punishment, and I am comfortable with the conclusions I have drawn after this study.  I looked up the original meanings to the words, the turn of phrase that was used, and the jewish background/understanding of the words used.  

If I wasted my time watching Mr Fudge, it wouldn't change my mind.  If that is were you want to come down on this belief, so be it.  I know what I believe, and why I believe it also.


----------



## gordon 2

Holy Land Christian officials will not meet with Vice Pres. Pence? Wonder why?


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> Holy Land Christian officials will not meet with Vice Pres. Pence? Wonder why?



I think most blame Pence for Trumps Jerusalem debacle. Trump has made some good decisions and poor decisions as almost anyone would,  but this is the worst decision he's made IMO.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 11 tells us a remnant was chosen from physical Israel and the rest of Israel were hardened. They were blind until the full number of Gentiles came in.
> “The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove godlessness from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
> 
> Can we assume the full number of Gentiles came in at 70AD and then at that time God kept his covenant and removed Israels sins? Can we assume that regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs?
> That in 70AD God’s gifts and His call were irrevocable?
> So that they too then, in 70AD received mercy through the mercy shown to the Gentiles?



I'm not assuming anything.  Here's what happened.  When Paul's ministry to the Gentile had reached its fullness , although it was after Paul's death,  the godlessness of Jacob was removed  IE.. The judgment on Israel in 70 ad.  
The remnant from physical Israel had recognized the signs given to them and fled to the mountains.. Others blinded to the signs,  deaf to the Gospel,  stayed and paid the price.. They were cut off.  

True Israel had a new land,  a new priesthood, a new covenant,  a spiritual body of believers known as the Church.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> I think most blame Pence for Trumps Jerusalem debacle. Trump has made some good decisions and poor decisions as almost anyone would,  but this is the worst decision he's made IMO.



I was not aware of this. What is Pence's connection(s) that he would promote Zionism? Why would he think it was a good policy to get the US Embassy to Jerusalem now?


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> I was not aware of this. What is Pence's connection(s) that he would promote Zionism? Why would he think it was a good policy?



Apparently he's an evangelical... Most likely dispensationist which are Christian Zionist.. I'll research that though.


----------



## hobbs27

Gordon... Found this under the "what we believe " tag of grace evangelical church in Indianapolis,  the last known church that Mike Pence belonged to. 

"11.) THE BLESSED HOPE / SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
We believe in the personal, premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this “Blessed Hope” has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer. Furthermore, we believe that the Lord Jesus will receive to Himself the dead in Christ and the believers who are alive at His coming, otherwise known as the Rapture of the Church. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will, in glorified resurrection body, return to establish His Millennial kingdom, which will climax the fulfillment of Israel’s seventieth week called the Tribulation. (1 Corinthians 15:51-57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Titus 2:11-15; Revelation 6:1-20:6)"

So yes.. He's a big Christian Zionist, or at least attended a church that is.


----------



## gordon 2

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.(Act 10:34-35 )

In every nation?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.(Act 10:34-35 )
> 
> In every nation?



“God shows no partiality.”

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:9	
who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Romans 9:15
For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Romans 11:28-29
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.

33 O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  33O, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!, and untraceable His ways!

There are still male and females, Jews and Gentiles but not as it concerns God's mercy or election. Election is not based on works. A remnant was chosen from Israel but not based on works. 

It's almost like God can do what he wants to. He can have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Personally, I find this difficult. Paul knew that I would. How unsearchable His judgments, and untraceable His ways!

The weird thing is it's not based on works. So even if a nation was blinded, God can open their eyes and elect the rest of them that was blinded earlier.
He can have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Their previous works or disbelief has nothing to do with his mercy. It has nothing to do with his grace. 

34“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor?” 35“Who has given so much to God, that God should repay him?” 36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.

God is everything. His plan. His choosing. His, well, everything. I still have trouble fathoming that concept.
It's not even what I was taught. So even if the rest of Israel was hardened, God can graft them back in again. Their salvation has nothing to do with their works. It's all about God's plan, his grace, and whatever the Potter wants to do with the clay.


----------



## Artfuldodger

In every nation? Sure, even Lithuania!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy

Wow!  It's a sad state when we cannot even give the President props for doing what he promised to do.

Every other president for decades has promised the same thing, but all but Trump broke those promises.

I am not a Trump fan.  I did not vote for Trump.  But a man keeping his promises is something I generally support.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Wow!  It's a sad state when we cannot even give the President props for doing what he promised to do.
> 
> Every other president for decades has promised the same thing, but all but Trump broke those promises.
> 
> I am not a Trump fan.  I did not vote for Trump.  But a man keeping his promises is something I generally support.




this thread took a hard left turn at 70AD and never looked back at the President actually following thru with what he promised.  

These threads have gotten to a point that I don't really know why I even come in here to voice an opinion on the OP.  After 8 or 10 posts, the subject of the thread has been forgotten, and off we go down some rabbit trail where the track is so cold even Snoopy couldn't find it.

I am as guilty as anyone at this, and I am not pointing fingers, it is just I find it a waste of time to try and hold intelligent discussions among this group.

I do believe I will limit my participation in this thread to a minimum for the foreseeable future.


----------



## hobbs27

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Wow!  It's a sad state when we cannot even give the President props for doing what he promised to do.
> 
> Every other president for decades has promised the same thing, but all but Trump broke those promises.
> 
> I am not a Trump fan.  I did not vote for Trump.  But a man keeping his promises is something I generally support.




Just because he does something he promised to do doesn't mean I have to agree with it or give him props.  

 Where's Mexico's money to build the wall?  Why has Hillary not been jailed?  Why is Obama care still the law of the land?


----------



## NE GA Pappy

not gonna post it


----------



## gordon 2

NE GA Pappy said:


> this thread took a hard left turn at 70AD and never looked back at the President actually following thru with what he promised.
> 
> These threads have gotten to a point that I don't really know why I even come in here to voice an opinion on the OP.  After 8 or 10 posts, the subject of the thread has been forgotten, and off we go down some rabbit trail where the track is so cold even Snoopy couldn't find it.
> 
> I am as guilty as anyone at this, and I am not pointing fingers, it is just I find it a waste of time to try and hold intelligent discussions among this group.
> 
> I do believe I will limit my participation in this thread to a minimum for the foreseeable future.



Ok. I understand. I will pray for you. And maybe "us" the group here can also.


----------



## gordon 2

What I have gleaned spiritually from the meager posts in this tread so far is that a) an interesting segment of Christians back their views of Mid-East politics ref: Jerusalem, from a biblical or "word of God" understanding at the exclusion of the international and individual consequences. b) Another segment equally back their view from  their understanding of scripture, but at the inclusion of the international and individual consequences. c) And another group can't seem to control a spiritual look at the issue  without some spill over into their politics and their personalities.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Yet the OP was presented in a Religious forum. One would think therefore he could tolerate or even wanted a religious view compared to just a political view.

Kinda hard not to look at Israel's future on a Religious forum without input as to how one actually views exactly what Israel is from a Scriptural context.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet the OP was presented in a Religious forum. One would think therefore he could tolerate or even wanted a religious view compared to just a political view.
> 
> Kinda hard not to look at Israel's future on a Religious forum without input as to how one actually views exactly what Israel is from a Scriptural context.



I agree. So Israel today is at least two different things to Christians. OK. Next, if I was to move the topic along. I would ask, " Can the Israels, both of them due to both understandings in Christianity, fall from righteousness? Is their scripture for this? Can they both fall from righteousness at the same time? If one or both of these Israels is unrighteous can God still chastise them? Or is everyone scot free? Jerusalem will be the capital of both Israels?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Zionists label Christians was first mentioned in post #12 which changed the discussion from political to religious.

Both Israels according to Christian beliefs? I think there are two groups that see Israel differently. Maybe some see two different Israels. Some see one changing to the other. Some say there never was a physical Israel. 
Can Jerusalem be the capital of both? Sure. I don't think either can be scot free without a belief in Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> I agree. So Israel today is at least two different things to Christians. OK. Next, if I was to move the topic along. I would ask, " Can the Israels, both of them due to both understandings in Christianity, fall from righteousness? Is their scripture for this? Can they both fall from righteousness at the same time? If one or both of these Israels is unrighteous can God still chastise them? Or is everyone scot free? Jerusalem will be the capital of both Israels?




 God was married to Jerusalem in the old covenant.  she played the harlot and was divorced in death and raised spiritually to remarry God in the New covenant.  

The children of the new covenant come into the family by faith not genealogy,  therefore the church is a faithful bride and will never fall from righteousness as the old covenant bride did.


----------



## gordon 2

hobbs27 said:


> God was married to Jerusalem in the old covenant.  she played the harlot and was divorced in death and raised spiritually to remarry God in the New covenant.
> 
> The children of the new covenant come into the family by faith not genealogy,  therefore the church is a faithful bride and will never fall from righteousness as the old covenant bride did.



I want to believe you... I understand the the church will be forever... but it cannot fall from righteousness? Got scripture? Not arguing... just want to read it... if exits..?


----------



## ryanh487

Judgement fire is an event,  not a place.  Satan's prison is earth, he does not have a kingdom called he11.  The fire of God's wrath will destroy Satan,  his angels, and those who deny Christ, to ash.  And a new earth with be created with no sin.  The bible makes it clear that only God is immortal,  and man can only be immortal when transformed as a reward for righteousness.  There is no separate eternal soul,  we are souls. Those that accept Christ will be transformed upon his return,  those that do not will be judged and destroyed by fire.

As it says in John 3:16, God gave his only son,  that whosoever believes in him shall NOT PERISH but have everlasting life.  

Those who believe receive eternal life,  those that do not, perish. The idea that man has an eternal soul is called plutonic duality and is a pagan belief from Roman mythology that was one of many doctrines adopted by the Catholic church in Rome as it was infiltrated by power hungry politicians who were not true converts.


----------



## hobbs27

gordon 2 said:


> I want to believe you... I understand the the church will be forever... but it cannot fall from righteousness? Got scripture? Not arguing... just want to read it... if exits..?



Ephesians 3:20-21
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.


Isaiah 9:7 	Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon His Kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this

there's more,  but both of these prove Christian Zionism ( dispensationalism)  a false doctrine.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> God was married to Jerusalem in the old covenant.  she played the harlot and was divorced in death and raised spiritually to remarry God in the New covenant.
> 
> The children of the new covenant come into the family by faith not genealogy,  therefore the church is a faithful bride and will never fall from righteousness as the old covenant bride did.



I think Gordon wants scripture that the Church will never fall from righteousness like the old Israel did.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> I think Gordon wants scripture that the Church will never fall from righteousness like the old Israel did.



I posted a couple.  Ephesians 3:20-21
Isaiah 9:7

 want more?


----------



## hobbs27

ryanh487 said:


> Judgement fire is an event,  not a place.  Satan's prison is earth, he does not have a kingdom called he11.  The fire of God's wrath will destroy Satan,  his angels, and those who deny Christ, to ash.  And a new earth with be created with no sin.  The bible makes it clear that only God is immortal,  and man can only be immortal when transformed as a reward for righteousness.  There is no separate eternal soul,  we are souls. Those that accept Christ will be transformed upon his return,  those that do not will be judged and destroyed by fire.
> 
> As it says in John 3:16, God gave his only son,  that whosoever believes in him shall NOT PERISH but have everlasting life.
> 
> Those who believe receive eternal life,  those that do not, perish. The idea that man has an eternal soul is called plutonic duality and is a pagan belief from Roman mythology that was one of many doctrines adopted by the Catholic church in Rome as it was infiltrated by power hungry politicians who were not true converts.



 I think you've studied this well.  I only differ in timing and see the new earth as a covenant,  not a physical place... And it's come already.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ryanh487 said:


> Judgement fire is an event,  not a place.  Satan's prison is earth, he does not have a kingdom called he11.  The fire of God's wrath will destroy Satan,  his angels, and those who deny Christ, to ash.  And a new earth with be created with no sin.  The bible makes it clear that only God is immortal,  and man can only be immortal when transformed as a reward for righteousness.  There is no separate eternal soul,  we are souls. Those that accept Christ will be transformed upon his return,  those that do not will be judged and destroyed by fire.
> 
> As it says in John 3:16, God gave his only son,  that whosoever believes in him shall NOT PERISH but have everlasting life.
> 
> Those who believe receive eternal life,  those that do not, perish. The idea that man has an eternal soul is called plutonic duality and is a pagan belief from Roman mythology that was one of many doctrines adopted by the Catholic church in Rome as it was infiltrated by power hungry politicians who were not true converts.



I have always thought, unverified, that angels, even fallen, were eternal beings, thus the confusion of he11 is that man will be consumed and eternal being fallen angels will be locked in he11? Do you recall where the idea that only God is immortal comes from?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Also interesting is that created beings can become immortal. Some believe our spirits are created but then become eternal. 
What word describes having  no beginning or end compared to just having no end?


----------



## ryanh487

1gr8bldr said:


> I have always thought, unverified, that angels, even fallen, were eternal beings, thus the confusion of he11 is that man will be consumed and eternal being fallen angels will be locked in he11? Do you recall where the idea that only God is immortal comes from?



From 1 Timothy 6:15-16: God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ryanh487 said:


> From 1 Timothy 6:15-16: God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal


The remainder of the verse; 

He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. N*o one has ever seen Him*, nor can anyone see Him.

should be problematic for the belief that Jesus is God???? Unless they say it implies the Father, which.... it does not however, it can be assumed if that's the belief


----------



## 1gr8bldr

ryanh487 said:


> From 1 Timothy 6:15-16: God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal


How are angels not immortal???? That's strange to ponder


----------



## Artfuldodger

Immortal;
1. living forever; never dying or decaying.

The definition says nothing of one's beginning. Even a created spirit can become immortal by this definition. 
This is way different from God who has no Alpha or Omega.

1 Timothy 6:16
who alone is immortal
He alone can never die
He alone has endless life
He is the only one who cannot die.

Can I die? Did Jesus die?
Again what is death? Physical or spiritual?


----------



## ryanh487

Death is the penalty of sin.  No sin can be present in God's kingdom.  Angels are capable of sin,  and those that joined Satan in sin were cast out and will die with Satan. God is incapable of sin,  therefore he is incapable of dying. All created beings are capable of dying,  and are therefore not immortal.


----------



## hobbs27

ryanh487 said:


> Death is the penalty of sin.  No sin can be present in God's kingdom.  Angels are capable of sin,  and those that joined Satan in sin were cast out and will die with Satan. God is incapable of sin,  therefore he is incapable of dying. All created beings are capable of dying,  and are therefore not immortal.




 Christ covers sin,  therefore we can be citizens of the Kingdom with Christ as our mediator that we too can be in the presence of God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

One who was surely going to die can, through Christ, gain everlasting life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Christ covers sin,  therefore we can be citizens of the Kingdom with Christ as our mediator that we too can be in the presence of God.



That's a good way of looking at it. We couldn't be present with God because of our sin unless we had our Mediator with us in his presence.


----------



## Spineyman

hobbs27 said:


> Christ covers sin,  therefore we can be citizens of the Kingdom with Christ as our mediator that we too can be in the presence of God.



Aren't you glad He became sin so that we could become the righteousness of God in Christ. His righteousness is imputed to us, because of His perfect obedience!


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> Immortal;
> 1. living forever; never dying or decaying.
> 
> The definition says nothing of one's beginning. Even a created spirit can become immortal by this definition.
> This is way different from God who has no Alpha or Omega.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:16
> who alone is immortal
> He alone can never die
> He alone has endless life
> He is the only one who cannot die.
> 
> Can I die? Did Jesus die?
> Again what is death? Physical or spiritual?



We will taste death and then put on immortality. Yes Jesus died so that we might live. Yes death is both physical and spiritual.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> We will taste death and then put on immortality. Yes Jesus died so that we might live. Yes death is both physical and spiritual.



1 Timothy 6:16
who alone is immortal
He alone can never die
He alone has endless life
He is the only one who cannot die.

I think the "He is the only one who cannot die" is a better interpretation. We can die. We aren't born immortal. Like you say we must "put on immortality.

Wouldn't this mean that if we don't "put on immortality" that we will die when we die?


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> 1 Timothy 6:16
> who alone is immortal
> He alone can never die
> He alone has endless life
> He is the only one who cannot die.
> 
> I think the "He is the only one who cannot die" is a better interpretation. We can die. We aren't born immortal. Like you say we must "put on immortality.
> 
> Wouldn't this mean that if we don't "put on immortality" that we will die when we die?



You are a spirit being that lives in a mortal body. The body will die, the spirit will not die but will either spend eternity with the Creator, Lord or spend eternity without the presence of the Lord in eternal darkness.

You do realize that the scripture you quoted is referring to God the Father, and revealed in God the Son. Not oneness but three in One, don't you?


1 Timothy 6:13-16New King James Version (NKJV)

13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, 15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Spineyman said:


> You are a spirit being that lives in a mortal body. The body will die, the spirit will not die but will either spend eternity with the Creator, Lord or spend eternity without the presence of the Lord in eternal darkness.
> 
> You do realize that the scripture you quoted is referring to God the Father, and revealed in God the Son. Not oneness but three in One, don't you?
> 
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:13-16New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, 14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, 15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.



Pertaining to the Trinity, I'll have to see what "King of kings" means. Is it ever applied to other kings, etc. 
The study of the Greek text, etc.

To me it sounds like God will manifest Jesus in the future.
Acts 3:20
and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus.

Back to immortality, was Jesus born immortal? His spirit? His body? Did he die? 

Were our spirits created or immortal having no beginning? I guess what you are saying is that the day we were created, including our spirit, we became immortal.
The way I read scripture is we are born mortal and must become immortal. We must take on immortality. Otherwise, we'll die when we die. If we believe in Jesus we'll receive everlasting life.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> Pertaining to the Trinity, I'll have to see what "King of kings" means. Is it ever applied to other kings, etc.
> The study of the Greek text, etc.


 Often the definitions are reverse engineered. Defined to make it work, for them. For example, Only begotten. If you look it up you find un verified hog wash. However, when we look at the greek and other uses, we see how they defined it, with real examples, not how biased NT translators translated it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If Jesus was 100% man, and most people say he had to be in order to die for man's sins, then he would have to be born mortal.
Otherwise he could not die.


----------



## Artfuldodger

king of kings;

Ezra 7:12
Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.

Ezekiel 26:7
"For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.

Daniel 2:37
Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory;

The king of kings in Daniel was given power from God in Heaven. Everything that king did was from the power of God in Heaven.

1 Timothy 6:15
For at just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords.

This has to be God, King of all kings.

Notice another interpretation where Jesus will show instead of God;

Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

another with God showing;

14that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,15 which He will bring about at the proper time-- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,

It really shows God, the blessed and only Sovereign, bringing about Christ's return.

When Christ returns, all authority will be given to him and he will receive the title of King of kings from his Father.

Revelation 17:14
They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."


----------



## Artfuldodger

God of all gods;

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

Jesus can become by the authority of his Father, King of all kings and Lord of all lords, but he can never become God of all gods.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> king of kings;
> 
> Ezra 7:12
> Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings.
> 
> Ezekiel 26:7
> "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army.
> 
> Daniel 2:37
> Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory;
> 
> The king of kings in Daniel was given power from God in Heaven. Everything that king did was from the power of God in Heaven.
> 
> 1 Timothy 6:15
> For at just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords.
> 
> This has to be God, King of all kings.
> 
> Notice another interpretation where Jesus will show instead of God;
> "


A Jesus is God  go to verse that does not work
1 Tim 6:15-17, 
…14Keep this commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which God will bring about in His own time — He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords. 16He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.…

I see no confusion here saying Jesus is God. The wording does not say this at all. It does credit Jesus with being King of Kings but is referring to God as being immortal , and God in charge of Jesus appearance.


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> Pertaining to the Trinity, I'll have to see what "King of kings" means. Is it ever applied to other kings, etc.
> The study of the Greek text, etc.
> 
> To me it sounds like God will manifest Jesus in the future.
> Acts 3:20
> and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus.
> 
> Back to immortality, was Jesus born immortal? His spirit? His body? Did he die?
> 
> Were our spirits created or immortal having no beginning? I guess what you are saying is that the day we were created, including our spirit, we became immortal.
> The way I read scripture is we are born mortal and must become immortal. We must take on immortality. Otherwise, we'll die when we die. If we believe in Jesus we'll receive everlasting life.



As for the Trinity.
Bible verses showing the plurality of God in the Old and New Testaments

by Matt Slick
11/24/2008
https://carm.org/verses-showing-plurality-god-old-and-new-testaments
The Bible teaches a plurality within the Godhead in both the Old and New Testaments. It is these verses, in part, that lay down the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. For more information on the Trinity, please see What is the Trinity? and The Trinity Chart on how the doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at. See more information on the Holy Spirit.
Plurality of God in the Old Testament

    Gen. 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'"
        Angels do not create. We are not made in the image of angels.
        There is no place in the OT where a leader refers to himself with the term "us."
    Gen. 3:22, "Then the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'"
    Gen. 11:7, "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech."
    Gen. 19:24, "Then the Lord [YHWH] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord [YHWH] out of heaven."
    Psalm 45:6-7, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 7 You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You."
        This is quoted in Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He [God] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom."

    Isaiah 6:8, "Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!'"
    Isaiah 48:16, "Come near to Me [God], listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret. From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
    Amos 4:10-11, “I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils. Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the Lord [YHWH]. 11 “I overthrew you as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the Lord."

Plurality of God in the New Testament

    Matt. 3:16-17, "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
    Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
        Note that there is one name and three persons.
    1 Cor. 12:4-6, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."
        "Lord" here is probably Jesus.
    2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
    Eph. 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
    1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
    Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> Pertaining to the Trinity, I'll have to see what "King of kings" means. Is it ever applied to other kings, etc.
> The study of the Greek text, etc.
> 
> To me it sounds like God will manifest Jesus in the future.
> Acts 3:20
> and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you--even Jesus.
> 
> Back to immortality, was Jesus born immortal? His spirit? His body? Did he die?
> 
> Were our spirits created or immortal having no beginning? I guess what you are saying is that the day we were created, including our spirit, we became immortal.
> The way I read scripture is we are born mortal and must become immortal. We must take on immortality. Otherwise, we'll die when we die. If we believe in Jesus we'll receive everlasting life.



As to Jesus Revealed in due time.

 Romans 16:25-27


25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith— 27 to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.


----------



## Spineyman

Artfuldodger said:


> Back to immortality, was Jesus born immortal? His spirit? His body? Did he die?



Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was born with both natures.

 How Can Jesus Be God and Man?
Article by Matt Perman

Guest Contributor

Equally amazing to the doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine of the Incarnation — that Jesus Christ is God and man, yet one person, forever. As J.I. Packer has said, “Here are two mysteries for the price of one — the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. . . . Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation.”1

The early church considered the Incarnation to be one of the most important truths of our faith. Because of this, they formulated what has come to be called the Chalcedonean Creed, a statement which sets forth what we are to believe and what we are not to believe about the Incarnation. This creed was the fruit of a large council that took place from October 8 to November 1, 451, in the city of Chalcedon and “has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by” all the major branches of Christianity.2 There are five main truths with which the creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation:

    1. Jesus has two natures — He is God and man.
    2. Each nature is full and complete — He is fully God and fully man.
    3. Each nature remains distinct.
    4. Christ is only one Person.
    5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

A proper understanding of these truths clears up much confusion and many difficulties we may have in our mind. How can Jesus be both God and man? Why doesn’t this make him two people? How does his Incarnation relate to the Trinity? How could Jesus have hungered (Matthew 4:2) and died (Mark 15:37) when he was on earth, and yet still be God? Did Jesus give up any of his divine attributes in the Incarnation? Why is it inaccurate to say that Jesus is a “part” of God? Is Jesus still human now, and does he still have his human body?
Jesus has two natures — God and man

The first truth we need to understand is that Jesus is one Person who has two natures: a divine nature and a human nature. In other words, Jesus is both God and man. We will look at each nature accordingly.

Jesus Is God

The Bible teaches that Jesus is not merely someone who is a lot like God, or someone who has a very close walk with God. Rather, Jesus is the Most High God himself. Titus 2:13 says that as Christians we are “looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.” Upon seeing the resurrected Christ, Thomas cried out, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Likewise, the book of Hebrews gives us God the Father’s direct testimony about Christ: “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever" and the gospel of John calls Jesus “the only begotten God” (John 1:18).

Another way the Bible teaches that Jesus is God is by showing that he has all of the attributes of God. He knows everything (Matthew 16:21; Luke 11:17; John 4:29), is everywhere (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; Acts 18:10), has all power (Matthew 8:26–27; 28:18; John 11:38–44; Luke 7:14–15; Revelation 1:8), depends on nothing outside of himself for life (John 1:4; 14:6; 8:58), rules over everything (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 1:5; 19:16, never began to exist and never will cease to exist (John 1:1; 8:58), and is our Creator (Colossians 1:16). In other words, everything that God is, Jesus is. For Jesus is God.

Specifically, Jesus Is God the Son

In order to have a more complete grasp of Christ’s incarnation, it is necessary to have some sort of understanding of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being, and this one God exists as three distinct Persons. This truth means, first of all, that we must distinguish each Person of the Trinity from the other two. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are each a distinct center of consciousness, a distinct form of personal existence. Yet, they all share the exact same divine nature/essence. Thus, the three persons are one being. The divine being/essence is not something that is divided between the Persons with each Person receiving one-third. Rather, the divine being is fully and equally possessed by all three Persons such that all three Persons are each fully and equally God.

How does the fact that God is three Persons in one Being relate to the incarnation? To answer, let’s consider another question: Which Person became incarnate in Jesus Christ? All three? Or just one? Which one? The biblical answer is that only God the Son became incarnate. The Father did not become incarnate in Jesus and neither did the Holy Spirit. Thus, Jesus is God, but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God the Son.

The truth that it is only God the Son who became incarnate is taught, for example, in John 1:14, which says “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” In context, the Word is God the Son (cf. 1:1, 18, and 3:16). Thus, it wasn’t the Father or the Holy Spirit who became man, but God the Son.

Likewise, at Jesus’s baptism we see the Father affirming, “You are my beloved Son, in You I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). He did not say, “You are me, and with myself I am well pleased.” Rather, the Father affirmed that Jesus is the Son, his Son, and that Jesus is well pleasing to him. In this same verse we also see that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, for the Holy Spirit is present in “bodily form like a dove.”

Why is it important to know that Jesus is specifically God the Son? For one thing, if we do not understand this truth, we will be mistaken about the very identity of our Savior. Further, it greatly affects how we relate to our triune God. If we think that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Spirit, we will be greatly misguided and confused in our prayers. Last, it is considered heresy to believe that the Father became incarnate in Jesus.

Jesus Is Man

It should be obvious that if Jesus is God, then he has always been God. There was never a time when he became God, for God is eternal. But Jesus has not always been man. The fantastic miracle is that this eternal God became man through the incarnation approximately 2,000 years ago. That’s what the Incarnation was: God the Son becoming man. And that is the great event we celebrate at Christmas.

But what exactly do we mean when we say that God the Son became man? We certainly do not mean that he turned into a man in the sense that he stopped being God and started being man. Jesus did not give up any of his divinity in the incarnation, as is evident from the verses we saw earlier. Rather, as one early theologian put it, “Remaining what he was, he became what he was not.” Christ “was not now God minus some elements of his deity, but God plus all that he had made his own by taking manhood to himself.”3 Thus, Jesus did not give up any of his divine attributes at the incarnation. He remained in full possession of all of them. For if he were to ever give up any of his divine attributes, he would cease being God.

The truth of Jesus’s humanity is just as important to hold to as the truth of his deity. The apostle John teaches how denying that Jesus is man is of the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Jesus’s humanity is displayed in the fact that he was born as a baby from a human mother (Luke 2:7; Galatians 4:4), that he became weary (John 4:6), thirsty (John 19:28), and hungry (Matthew 4:2), and that he experienced the full range of human emotions such as marvel (Matthew 8:10) and sorrow (John 11:35). He lived on earth just as we do.

Jesus Is a Sinless Man

It is also essential to know that Christ does not have a sinful nature, and neither did he ever commit sin — even though he was tempted in all ways (Hebrews 4:15). Thus, Jesus is fully and perfectly man and has also experienced the full range of human experience. We have a Savior who can truly identify with us because he is man and who can also truly help us in temptation because he has never sinned. That is an awesome truth to cherish and sets Christianity apart from all other religions.
Each Nature Is Full and Complete

Having seen the biblical basis that Jesus is both God and man, the second truth that we must recognize is that each of Christ’s natures is full and complete. In other words, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Another helpful way to say it is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.

Jesus Is Fully God

We saw earlier that each Person of the Trinity is fully God. The three Persons of the Trinity are not each one-third of God, but are each all of God. Thus, Jesus is fully God since he is God the Son incarnate. Which means that everything that is essential to being God is true of Jesus. Jesus is not part of God or one-third of God. Rather, he is fully God. “For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

Jesus Is Fully Man

It is also important to recognize that when we say that Jesus is man, we do not simply mean that he is partially man. We mean that he is fully human — everything that belongs to the essence of true humanity is true of him. He is just as truly human as the rest of us.

The fact that Jesus is truly and fully human is clear from the fact that he has a human body (Luke 24:39), a human mind (Luke 2:52), and a human soul (Matthew 26:38). Jesus does not just look like a man. He does not just have some aspects of what is essential for true humanity but not others. Rather, he possess full humanity.

It is helpful to be aware of the false views concerning Christ. For if we have a grasp of what we are not to believe, it will give us a fuller picture of what we are to believe. One of the false views that was rejected at the Council of Chalcedon taught that “the one person of Christ had a human body but not a human mind or spirit, and that the mind and spirit of Christ were from the divine nature of the Son of God.”4 Since this view did not believe that Jesus has a human mind and spirit, it in effect denied that Christ is fully and truly man. Rather, it presented Christ as a sort of half-man who has a human body, but whose human mind and soul were replaced by the divine nature.

But as we saw earlier, Jesus is just as fully human as the rest of us, for just as he has all of the essential elements of the Godhead, he has all the essential elements of human nature: a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, and human emotions. His human mind was not replaced by his divine mind. Rather, he has both a human and divine mind. For these reasons, it can be misleading to use phrases such as “Jesus is God in a body” or “Jesus is God with skin on.”

Jesus Will Be Fully God and Fully Man Forever

For most people it is obvious that Jesus will be God forever. But for some reason it escapes a lot of us that Jesus will also be man forever. He is still man right now as you read this and will be forever. The Bible is clear that Jesus rose physically from the dead in the same body that had died (Luke 24:39) and then ascended into heaven as a man in his physical body (Acts 1:9; Luke 24:50–51). It would make no sense for him to have done this if he was simply going to ditch his body and stop being man when he arrived in heaven.

That Christ continued being man with a physical body after his ascension is confirmed by the fact that when he returns, it will be as a man in his body. He will return physically. Philippians 3:21 says that at his second coming, Christ “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory.” This verse is clear that Jesus still has his body. It is a glorified body, which Paul calls, “the body of his glory.” And when Christ returns, he will still have it because this verse says that he will transform our bodies to be like his. Both Jesus and all Christians will then continue living together in their bodies forever, because the resurrection body cannot die (1 Corinthians 15:42) since it is eternal (2 Corinthians 5:1).

Why did Jesus become man, and why will he be man forever? The book of Hebrews says it was so that Christ could be an adequate Savior who has all that we need. “He had to be made like his brothers in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (2:17).

First, notice that Jesus became man so that he could die for our sins. He had to be human in order to pay the penalty for humans. Second, this verse says that because Jesus is human like us, he is able to be a merciful and faithful High Priest. His humanity enables him to more fully sympathize with us and identify with us. I cannot help but believe that it is very destructive to our comfort and faith to not know that Jesus is still man and in his body. For if he is not still man in heaven, how could we have comfort knowing that he can fully sympathize with us? He can sympathize and be a faithful high priest and know what we are going through not just because he was once on earth as a man, but because he continues forever as that same man.
Each Nature Remains Distinct

The truths of Christ’s two natures — his full manhood and full Godhood — are pretty well understood and known by Christians. But for a right understanding of the incarnation we must go even further. We must understand that the two natures of Christ remain distinct and retain their own properties. What does this truth mean? Two things: (1) They do not alter one another’s essential properties and (2) neither do they mix together into a mysterious third kind of nature.

First, it would be wrong to think that Christ’s two natures mix together to form a third kind of nature. This is one of the heresies that the early church had to fight. This heresy taught that

    the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted. An analogy to [this] can be seen if we put a drop of ink in a glass of water: the mixture resulting is neither pure ink nor pure water, but some kind of third substance, a mixture of the two in which both the ink and the water are changed. Similarly, [this view] taught that Jesus was a mixture of divine and human elements in which both were somewhat modified to form one new nature.5

This view is unbiblical because it demolishes both Christ’s deity and humanity. For if Christ’s two natures mixed together, then he is no longer truly and fully God and truly and fully man, but is some entirely different kind of being that resulted from a mixture of the two natures.

Second, even if we acknowledge that the natures do not mix together into a third kind of nature, it would also be wrong to think that the two natures changed one another. For example, it would be wrong to conclude that Jesus’s human nature became divine in some ways or that his divine nature became human in some ways. Rather, each nature remains distinct and thereby retains its own individual properties and does not change.

As the Council of Chalcedon stated it, “. . . the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved . . .”6 Jesus’s human nature is human, and human only. His divine nature is divine, and divine only. For example, Jesus’s human nature did not become all-knowing through its union with God the Son, and neither did his divine nature become ignorant of anything. If any of the natures underwent a change in its essential nature, then Christ is no longer truly and fully human, or truly and fully divine.
Christ Is Only One Person

What we have seen so far about the deity and humanity of Christ shows us that Christ has two natures — a divine nature and a human nature — that each nature is full and complete, that they remain distinct and do not mix together to form a third kind of nature, and that Christ will be both God and man forever.

But if Christ has two natures, does this mean that he is also two people? No, it does not. Christ remains one person. There is only one Christ. The church has historically stated this truth in this way: Christ has two natures united in one person forever.

At this point we find another heretical view to beware of. This view, while acknowledging that Jesus is fully God and fully man, denies that he is only one Person. According to this view, there are two separate persons in Christ as well as two natures. In contrast to this, the Bible is very clear that, while Jesus has two natures, he is only one Person. In other words, what this means is that there are not two Jesus Christ’s. In spite of the fact that he has a duality of natures, he is not two Christ’s, but one. While remaining distinct, the two natures are united together in such a way so as to be one Person.

To put it simply, there is a certain sense in which Christ is two, and a different sense in which Christ is one. He is two in that he has two real, full natures — one divine and one human. He is one in that, while remaining distinct, these two natures exist together in such a way so that they constitute “one thing.” In other words, the two natures are both the same Jesus, and thus are one Person. As the Chalcedonean Creed says, Christ is “to be acknowledged in two natures . . . concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ . . .”

Evidence That Christ Is Only One Person

We will look at three pieces of the biblical teaching that, while Christ has two distinct and unchanged natures, he nonetheless remains one Person.

1. Both natures are represented in Scripture as constituting “one thing;” that is, as united in one Person. We read in John 1:14, “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here we see the two natures: the Word (his deity) and flesh (humanity). Yet we also see that there is one Person, for we read that the Word became flesh. “Became” requires that we acknowledge a unity of the two natures such that they are one thing — that is, one Person. For in what sense could John write that the word became flesh if the natures do not constitute one Person? It surely cannot mean “turned into” flesh, for that is against the scriptural teaching on the distinctness of the natures. Additional Scriptures relating to this line of evidence include Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 2:11–14, and 1 John 4:2–3.


----------



## Spineyman

2. Jesus never speaks of himself as “We,” but always as “I.”

3. Many passages refer to both natures of Christ, but it is clear that only one person is intended. It is impossible to read the following passages, which clearly affirm Christ’s two natures, and conclude that Christ is two Persons: “For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh . . .” (Romans 8:3). “But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law . . .” (Galatians 4:4). “. . . who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped [that is, exploited to his own advantage], but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6–7).

Having seen that Christ is two natures in one person, and having also seen some of what is involved in this reality, we will now examine one of the major implications which should help us to complete the picture and our understanding.

Implication: Things that are true of one nature but not the other are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

As we saw earlier, the fact that Christ is two natures means that there are things that are true of his human nature that are not true of his divine nature. And there are things true of his divine nature that are not true of his human nature. For example, his human nature hungered, but his divine nature could never be hungry. So when Christ hungered on earth, it was his humanity that hungered, not his divine nature.

But the truth that we are now in a position to understand is that by virtue of the union of the natures in one Person, the things that are true of and done by only one of Christ’s natures are nonetheless true of and done by the Person of Christ. In other words, things which only one nature does can be considered to have been done by Christ himself. Likewise, things that are true of one nature but not the other are true of the Person of Christ as a whole. What this means, in simple terms, is that if there is something that only one of Christ’s natures did, he can still say, “I did it.”

We have many instances in Scripture which demonstrate this reality. For example, Jesus says in John 8:58, “. . . before Abraham was, I am.” Now, Christ’s human nature did not exist before Abraham. It is Christ’s divine nature that eternally exists before Abraham. But since Christ is one Person, he could say that before Abraham was, he is.

Another example is Christ’s death. God cannot die. We should never speak of Christ’s death as the death of God. But humans can die, and Jesus’s human nature did die. Thus, even though Jesus’s divine nature did not die, we can still say that the Person of Christ experienced death because of the union of the two natures in the one Person of Christ. Because of this truth, Grudem says, “by virtue of union with Jesus’s human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The person of Christ experienced death.”7

Have you ever wondered how Jesus could say that he did not know the day or hour of his return (Matthew 24:36) even though he is omniscient (John 21:17)? If Jesus is God, why didn’t he know the day of his return? This dilemma is solved by our understanding that Christ is one Person with two natures. The answer is that in regards to his human nature, Jesus does not have all knowledge. Thus, in his human nature he really did not know the day or hour of his return. But in his divine nature, he does have all knowledge and thus in his divine nature he did know when he would return.

Here comes the most fascinating part: Since the two natures are united in one Person, the fact that Christ’s human nature didn’t know when he would return means that the Person of Christ did not know when he would return. Thus, Jesus the Person could truly say, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matthew 24:36). At the same time, by virtue of his divine nature, we can also say that the Person of Christ did know when he would return. Knowledge and ignorance of the time of his return are both true of the Christ, but in different ways. In his human nature, the Person of Christ was ignorant of when he would return. In his divine nature, the Person of Christ did know when he would return. Thus, Christ himself both knew and did not know when he would return.
Conclusion

We have seen the biblical evidence for the fact that Christ is God the Son, that he has both a divine and human nature, that each nature is full and complete, that each nature remains distinct, that Christ is nonetheless one Person, and that things which are true of one nature are true of the Person.

The relevance of these truths to us should go without saying. For they go to the very heart of who Christ is. Knowing these truths will greatly affect the way you view Christ and will make the gospel accounts of his life come more alive. As such, this understanding will deepen our devotion to Christ.

Second, having this richer understanding of the incarnation of God the Son should greatly enhance our worship. We will have great marvel and gladness at the fact that the eternal Person of God the Son became man forever. Our recognition of Christ’s worth will be heightened. And our faith in him will be strengthened by having this deeper understanding of who he is.

The union of Christ’s deity and humanity in one Person makes it such that we have all that we need in the same Savior. How glorious! Because Jesus is God, he is all-powerful and he cannot be defeated. Because he is God, he is the only adequate Savior. Because he is God, believers are safe and can never perish; we have security. Because he is God, we can have confidence that he will empower us for the task that he commands us for. And because he is God, all people will be accountable to him when he returns to judge the world.

Because Jesus is man, he has experienced the same things that we do. Because he is man, he can identify with us more intimately. Because he is man, he can come to our aid as our sympathetic High Priest when we reach the limits of our human weaknesses. Because he is man, we can relate to him — he is not far off and uninvolved. Because he is man, we cannot complain that God does not know what we are going through. He experienced it firsthand.

Finally, we need to be ready to defend the truth of Jesus’s deity, Jesus’s humanity, and their joining inconfusedly in one Person. Therefore, consider committing to memory many of the verses which teach that Jesus is both God and man, and be able to explain the relationship between Christ’s two natures to others.

May we look forward to the day when we see him face to face. Until then, may the joyful hope of this day inspire in us a great diligence in serving and worshiping him.
Notes

1 J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993 edition), p. 53.
2 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (InterVarsity and Zondervan Publishing, 1994), p. 556.
3 Packer, p. 57.
4 Grudem, p. 554.
5 Grudem, p. 556.
6 Chalcedonean Creed, quoted in Grudem, p. 557.
7 Grudem, p. 560.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-can-jesus-be-god-and-man


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Interesting how some see this. I look at it and think... how can a theology be built out of such? For example, none of this is context found it the bible. It all is "pulled" from the bible. There is no context. The context is missing. It is grasping for verses in an attempt to create a doctrine. Furthermore, it assumes that the cumulative of a few verses taken from different writers, from different times, from different locations, can be used to build a theology. That's like a puzzle, not context. As if God never intended the writers of the NT to know what they are writing about, but for us later after the cumulative of all the books  of the NT, to take these pieces of this puzzle and put them together and say the picture is the trinity. That's poor theology. What is context?  Context would be something like, most of the NT, wordy attempts in great detail to explain that which they were trying to convey. It might be stories of how they were persecuted for this. Such as being stoned because they could not accept that their God was triune. Or any hint of explanation of these new triune teachings. To say that "the bible teaches" these is simply false. It does not "teach" it. Man does with his foreign terms such as incarnation, hypostatic union, 1 God in 3 persons, dual natures, etc. Don't you think if this were biblical, that Paul would have spent many words in explanation of it. Don't you think he would have pulled OT verses in order to show them that the one God is triune. He would have referred to the "us" himself. Are we really going to think that the understanding of the gospel "first entrusted to the saints" was only discovered by the cumulative of many different books, from many different writers in different locations? Many years later?


----------



## Artfuldodger

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be led astray from your simple and pure devotion to Christ.4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

(simple and pure)


----------



## Artfuldodger

I see Jerusalem, Israel, and the Jews in this same logic which is context. To see who and what they were in all of scripture. Read the context of their plight. God's purpose for them. From the Word that was with God and was God.

God said "And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

God starts out way back in the Old Testament choosing national Israel.  "regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs."

"For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable."


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Artfuldodger said:


> I see Jerusalem, Israel, and the Jews in this same logic which is context. To see who and what they were in all of scripture. Read the context of their plight. God's purpose for them. From the Word that was with God and was God.
> 
> God said "And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
> 
> God starts out way back in the Old Testament choosing national Israel.  "regarding election, they are loved on account of the patriarchs."
> 
> "For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable."


There is a verse somewhere in the OT calling Israel God's firstborn


----------



## Spineyman

1gr8bldr said:


> Interesting how some see this. I look at it and think... how can a theology be built out of such? For example, none of this is context found it the bible. It all is "pulled" from the bible. There is no context. The context is missing. It is grasping for verses in an attempt to create a doctrine. Furthermore, it assumes that the cumulative of a few verses taken from different writers, from different times, from different locations, can be used to build a theology. That's like a puzzle, not context. As if God never intended the writers of the NT to know what they are writing about, but for us later after the cumulative of all the books  of the NT, to take these pieces of this puzzle and put them together and say the picture is the trinity. That's poor theology. What is context?  Context would be something like, most of the NT, wordy attempts in great detail to explain that which they were trying to convey. It might be stories of how they were persecuted for this. Such as being stoned because they could not accept that their God was triune. Or any hint of explanation of these new triune teachings. To say that "the bible teaches" these is simply false. It does not "teach" it. Man does with his foreign terms such as incarnation, hypostatic union, 1 God in 3 persons, dual natures, etc. Don't you think if this were biblical, that Paul would have spent many words in explanation of it. Don't you think he would have pulled OT verses in order to show them that the one God is triune. He would have referred to the "us" himself. Are we really going to think that the understanding of the gospel "first entrusted to the saints" was only discovered by the cumulative of many different books, from many different writers in different locations? Many years later?



1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 Matthew 3:16-17. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
2 Corinthians 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. 
John 10:30. I and my Father are one.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Spineyman said:


> 1 John 5:7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
> Matthew 3:16-17. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
> 2 Corinthians 13:14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
> John 10:30. I and my Father are one.


! John 5:7, corrupted as it gets.....or they were simply hirlings to translate the bible for King James, whom knew nothing about the bible. Let me show you. Who is it that believes Jesus is the son of God, he is the one who came by water and blood. What does this mean? It's the spirit who testifies , three, the spirit, the water and the blood. What is this. Jesus was a phrophet likened to Moses. How will they know you sent me says Moses. God told him take your staff......put your hand in your coat....... and if they don't believe I sent you with these miracles take water from the nile and it will turn to blood. Jesus told them as they asked are you the Christ, tell us plainly. He said if you don't believe me at least believe the miracles [proving he was sent]. When Jesus was stabbed the blood and water poured out. The spirit thus testifies that this is the Christ. The attempt at trying to force a trin theology in here is corruption. The greek does not at all say Father, Son and HS.
How does Matt 3 16-17 point to trinitarian theology? Actually it refutes it. Why would the co equal 3rd person of the Godhead descend on the coequal 2nd person of the Godhead? Why would Jesus need to receive the HS?
Matt 28:19 originally said go baptize in my name, so the trins translated it as go baptize in the name of the F, S and HS. Just google it, the original Matt 28:19
2 Cor 3_14, hmmmm, hardly much to build on there. 
I and the Father are one? Hmmm then Christians are Jesus, the 3rd person of the trinity, because we are one with him.


----------



## Spineyman

1gr8bldr said:


> ! John 5:7, corrupted as it gets.....or they were simply hirlings to translate the bible for King James, whom knew nothing about the bible. Let me show you. Who is it that believes Jesus is the son of God, he is the one who came by water and blood. What does this mean? It's the spirit who testifies , three, the spirit, the water and the blood. What is this. Jesus was a phrophet likened to Moses. How will they know you sent me says Moses. God told him take your staff......put your hand in your coat....... and if they don't believe I sent you with these miracles take water from the nile and it will turn to blood. Jesus told them as they asked are you the Christ, tell us plainly. He said if you don't believe me at least believe the miracles [proving he was sent]. When Jesus was stabbed the blood and water poured out. The spirit thus testifies that this is the Christ. The attempt at trying to force a trin theology in here is corruption. The greek does not at all say Father, Son and HS.
> How does Matt 3 16-17 point to trinitarian theology? Actually it refutes it. Why would the co equal 3rd person of the Godhead descend on the coequal 2nd person of the Godhead? Why would Jesus need to receive the HS?
> Matt 28:19 originally said go baptize in my name, so the trins translated it as go baptize in the name of the F, S and HS. Just google it, the original Matt 28:19
> 2 Cor 3_14, hmmmm, hardly much to build on there.
> I and the Father are one? Hmmm then Christians are Jesus, the 3rd person of the trinity, because we are one with him.



The first question, Who. The Who was the disciples.
Matthew 16:15-17 
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 

The second thing is water, blood, and spirit.
First off Jesus is called the living water in many places, He was also born of water (natural birth). As for His blood, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. 

Hebrews 9:22 
22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Which takes us back to the Spirit, the water birth, and living water, and His blood shed for us. Testifying to the fact that He is indeed the Son of the Living God 

1 John 5:8 
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.


----------



## Spineyman

IS THE TRINITY
REALLY IN THE BIBLE
???
By Dr. Michael E. Todd

Can it clearly be proven that God is three in one or a Tri-Unity? Many people in the world today say that the Trinity is not in the Bible and therefore reject this teaching and also that Jesus Christ is God.

Forget what someone has told you and look at the FINAL AUTHORITY the Bible and see for yourself. The Bible IS your final authority isn't it? Then you should not have a problem in looking up the following.

GOD THE FATHER,
GOD THE SON &
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT
WERE TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS

What? You mean to tell me that all three were tempted in the wilderness? Well let's compare scripture with scripture and see just exactly what the Bible says about it, shall we?

The following three passages of scripture clearly show that God is three in one (a Tri-Unity).

1. THE LORD - (JEHOVAH GOD) - Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye TEMPT THE LORD? (Exodus 17:2)

Who did Moses say was tempted? Why the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL of course. Look at the context and see for yourself. Now take a look at this next verse and see what the Bible says about Jesus Christ being in the wilderness.

2. CHRIST - Neither let us TEMPT CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. (1 Corinthians 10:9)

Did you notice that in the contexts the LORD in His word uses both the Father and Christ interchangeably in the above passages? Now hang onto you seat because the Bible not only uses the Father and the Son, but next comes another personage in the Bible
that was tempted in the wilderness.

3. THE HOLY GHOST - Wherefore (as the HOLY GHOST SAITH, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers TEMPTED ME, proved me, and saw my works forty years. (Hebrews 3:7-9)

NOW WHO WAS TEMPTED?

Why the Bible says,

GOD THE FATHER,
GOD THE SON,
GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Go back and read the above verses again. The Bible says, "Prove all things." (1 Thes 5:21) Don't just stand there.
Open your Bible and check it out!

NOW LET'S LOOK AT SOME OTHER PASSAGES THAT
CLEARLY REVEAL THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE.

The Lord Jesus Christ gave us a command in how to baptize believers. Please note the following carefully.
Remember! Every word is important.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
NAME
of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:
(Matthew 28:19)

Did you note that the above verse said, "in the NAME" (singular) NOT in the NAMES of ... (plural)? The reason the writer of Matthew said "NAME" and not NAMES is because he knew that God was a TRI-UNITY and not three separate people or things.
Go back and read the verse again.
And this time note clearly every word that is used,
and not what you just thought was there.

Many modern perversions (including the New World Translation) omit the following verse which clearly reveals God as a Trinity. Yet, from the clear statements above it is obvious that the Trinity should be there just as the Kind James Bible presents it.

For there are THREE that bear record in heaven,
the Father,
the Word,
and the Holy Ghost:
and THESE THREE ARE ONE.
(1 John 5:7)

As a matter of fact, many perverted bibles omit this verse and say that it should not be there. However, according to other verses in the Bible there is NO CONTRADICTION or misuse of scripture by the King James translators. The modern versions are WRONG including the New World Translation. The TRINITY (TRI-UNITY) is a Bible doctrine and God clearly reveals this in His word.

NOTE ALSO THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE
DEALING WITH THE TRINITY

FATHER - SON - HOLY GHOST
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven,
which said, Thou art my beloved Son;
in thee I am well pleased.
(Luke 3:22)

THE "WORD" IS MENTIONED THREE TIMES
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
(John 1:1)

SPIRIT MENTIONED THREE TIMES
HOLY SPIRIT - SPIRIT OF GOD - SPIRIT OF CHRIST

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,
if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his.
(Rom 8:9)

THE GOD HEAD
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all. Amen.
(2 Cor 13:14)

TRINITY - FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST
Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard,
that the everlasting God,
the LORD,
the Creator of the ends of the earth,
fainteth not, neither is weary?
(Isa 40:28)

Thus saith thy Lord
the LORD,
and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people:
(Isa 51:22)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all. Amen.
(2 Corinthians 13:14)

THREE TYPES OF CROSSES
REPRESENTED AT CALVARY

Of Christ
Of the believer
Of the unbeliever

TRINITIES IN THE BIBLE

Father, Son, Holy Spirit
Body, Soul, Spirit
Creation, Conscience, Word of God
Satan, Beast, False Prophet
First Heaven, Second Heaven, Third Heaven.
Death, Burial, Resurrection.
Sin, Righteousness, Judgment.
3 crosses - Jesus, Saint, Sinner.
Power, Love, Wisdom

http://1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/trinity.html


----------



## Spineyman

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

https://carm.org/what-is-the-trinity


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Spineyman said:


> The first question, Who. The Who was the disciples.
> Matthew 16:15-17
> 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
> 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
> 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
> 
> The second thing is water, blood, and spirit.
> First off Jesus is called the living water in many places, He was also born of water (natural birth). As for His blood, without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
> 
> Hebrews 9:22
> 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
> Which takes us back to the Spirit, the water birth, and living water, and His blood shed for us. Testifying to the fact that He is indeed the Son of the Living God
> 
> 1 John 5:8
> 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.


How does this justify the KJ corrupt use of F, S and HS. The disciples tell us plainly, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, EDIT, I see you have addressed it in the next post.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Spineyman said:


> IS THE TRINITY
> REALLY IN THE BIBLE
> ???
> By Dr. Michael E. Todd
> 
> Can it clearly be proven that God is three in one or a Tri-Unity? Many people in the world today say that the Trinity is not in the Bible and therefore reject this teaching and also that Jesus Christ is God.
> 
> Forget what someone has told you and look at the FINAL AUTHORITY the Bible and see for yourself. The Bible IS your final authority isn't it? Then you should not have a problem in looking up the following.
> 
> GOD THE FATHER,
> GOD THE SON &
> GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT
> WERE TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS
> 
> What? You mean to tell me that all three were tempted in the wilderness? Well let's compare scripture with scripture and see just exactly what the Bible says about it, shall we?
> 
> The following three passages of scripture clearly show that God is three in one (a Tri-Unity).
> 
> 1. THE LORD - (JEHOVAH GOD) - Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye TEMPT THE LORD? (Exodus 17:2)
> 
> Who did Moses say was tempted? Why the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL of course. Look at the context and see for yourself. Now take a look at this next verse and see what the Bible says about Jesus Christ being in the wilderness.
> 
> 2. CHRIST - Neither let us TEMPT CHRIST, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. (1 Corinthians 10:9)
> 
> Did you notice that in the contexts the LORD in His word uses both the Father and Christ interchangeably in the above passages? Now hang onto you seat because the Bible not only uses the Father and the Son, but next comes another personage in the Bible
> that was tempted in the wilderness.
> 
> 3. THE HOLY GHOST - Wherefore (as the HOLY GHOST SAITH, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers TEMPTED ME, proved me, and saw my works forty years. (Hebrews 3:7-9)
> 
> NOW WHO WAS TEMPTED?
> 
> Why the Bible says,
> 
> GOD THE FATHER,
> GOD THE SON,
> GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT.
> 
> Go back and read the above verses again. The Bible says, "Prove all things." (1 Thes 5:21) Don't just stand there.
> Open your Bible and check it out!
> 
> NOW LET'S LOOK AT SOME OTHER PASSAGES THAT
> CLEARLY REVEAL THE TRINITY IN THE BIBLE.
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ gave us a command in how to baptize believers. Please note the following carefully.
> Remember! Every word is important.
> 
> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
> NAME
> of the Father,
> and of the Son,
> and of the Holy Ghost:
> (Matthew 28:19)
> 
> Did you note that the above verse said, "in the NAME" (singular) NOT in the NAMES of ... (plural)? The reason the writer of Matthew said "NAME" and not NAMES is because he knew that God was a TRI-UNITY and not three separate people or things.
> Go back and read the verse again.
> And this time note clearly every word that is used,
> and not what you just thought was there.
> 
> Many modern perversions (including the New World Translation) omit the following verse which clearly reveals God as a Trinity. Yet, from the clear statements above it is obvious that the Trinity should be there just as the Kind James Bible presents it.
> 
> For there are THREE that bear record in heaven,
> the Father,
> the Word,
> and the Holy Ghost:
> and THESE THREE ARE ONE.
> (1 John 5:7)
> 
> As a matter of fact, many perverted bibles omit this verse and say that it should not be there. However, according to other verses in the Bible there is NO CONTRADICTION or misuse of scripture by the King James translators. The modern versions are WRONG including the New World Translation. The TRINITY (TRI-UNITY) is a Bible doctrine and God clearly reveals this in His word.
> 
> NOTE ALSO THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE
> DEALING WITH THE TRINITY
> 
> FATHER - SON - HOLY GHOST
> And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven,
> which said, Thou art my beloved Son;
> in thee I am well pleased.
> (Luke 3:22)
> 
> THE "WORD" IS MENTIONED THREE TIMES
> In the beginning was the Word,
> and the Word was with God,
> and the Word was God.
> (John 1:1)
> 
> SPIRIT MENTIONED THREE TIMES
> HOLY SPIRIT - SPIRIT OF GOD - SPIRIT OF CHRIST
> 
> But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,
> if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
> Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
> he is none of his.
> (Rom 8:9)
> 
> THE GOD HEAD
> The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
> and the love of God,
> and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
> be with you all. Amen.
> (2 Cor 13:14)
> 
> TRINITY - FATHER, SON, HOLY GHOST
> Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard,
> that the everlasting God,
> the LORD,
> the Creator of the ends of the earth,
> fainteth not, neither is weary?
> (Isa 40:28)
> 
> Thus saith thy Lord
> the LORD,
> and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people:
> (Isa 51:22)
> 
> The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
> and the love of God,
> and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
> be with you all. Amen.
> (2 Corinthians 13:14)
> 
> THREE TYPES OF CROSSES
> REPRESENTED AT CALVARY
> 
> Of Christ
> Of the believer
> Of the unbeliever
> 
> TRINITIES IN THE BIBLE
> 
> Father, Son, Holy Spirit
> Body, Soul, Spirit
> Creation, Conscience, Word of God
> Satan, Beast, False Prophet
> First Heaven, Second Heaven, Third Heaven.
> Death, Burial, Resurrection.
> Sin, Righteousness, Judgment.
> 3 crosses - Jesus, Saint, Sinner.
> Power, Love, Wisdom
> 
> http://1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/trinity.html


Hmmmm, exactly what I have been saying, A "pulling" of verses to create a doctrine that is outside of context. As if the bible is a mix of puzzle pieces where we pull pieces to create a picture, and the one's who drew the pictures on the pieces did not know what the end result would be


----------



## Artfuldodger

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me” (John 17:20-23).

Simple answer is "Unity."


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I should stop here. I know that my views are not the views of the majority and no one needs me poking stabs at everything they post. I enjoy the deep thought that the post provoke me to however I realize I could ruin it for others. This is why I stopped posting here for almost a year, now having been back for 3 weeks, I am becoming a thorn again.  I will refrain from responding again. I debated the trinity at CARM for years until I got burned out on it, so I have a rebuttal for every aspect that I will spare you from. Everything from the greek, to early church fathers, waaaay more than you or I care to beginning debating 
 LOL, because of all the typeing


----------



## Artfuldodger

1gr8bldr said:


> I should stop here. I know that my views are not the views of the majority and no one needs me poking stabs at everything they post. I enjoy the deep thought that the post provoke me to however I realize I could ruin it for others. This is why I stopped posting here for almost a year, now having been back for 3 weeks, I am becoming a thorn again.  I will refrain from responding again. I debated the trinity at CARM for years until I got burned out on it, so I have a rebuttal for every aspect that I will spare you from. Everything from the greek, to early church fathers, waaaay more than you or I care to beginning debating
> LOL, because of all the typeing



It's hard not to get into it. Believe me I know. Stick around for the other topics and we'll try not to get into the Trinity or Oneness.
Let's just call it "Unity."


----------



## gordon 2

1gr8bldr said:


> I should stop here. I know that my views are not the views of the majority and no one needs me poking stabs at everything they post. I enjoy the deep thought that the post provoke me to however I realize I could ruin it for others. This is why I stopped posting here for almost a year, now having been back for 3 weeks, I am becoming a thorn again.  I will refrain from responding again. I debated the trinity at CARM for years until I got burned out on it, so I have a rebuttal for every aspect that I will spare you from. Everything from the greek, to early church fathers, waaaay more than you or I care to beginning debating
> LOL, because of all the typeing



Keep poking and stabbing. It is refreshing to see pokes and stabs that are genuine these days and that are not eristic- specious in nature. CARM is a waste of time....and spiritual energy! in my opinion. But hey...they are a good pastime for many.


----------



## Artfuldodger

2 John 1:9 
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

I want both!


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> 2 John 1:9
> Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
> 
> I want both!



So you asked right? And if you did, who did you ask?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> So you asked right? And if you did, who did you ask?



I asked the Father through the Son. The Father lead me to the Son. The Father sent the Son. It was God who sent his begotten Son. When I read "God", I automatically think of the Father.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Can I ask a serious question about this whole trinity thought process?


Is it possible that God, being who He is, could sit on His throne in Heaven and speak, while appearing on earth as the Christ, and also appear as the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, all at the same instant in our time scale of existence?


----------



## hummerpoo

NE GA Pappy said:


> Can I ask a serious question about this whole trinity thought process?
> 
> 
> Is it possible that God, being who He is, could sit on His throne in Heaven and speak, while appearing on earth as the Christ, and also appear as the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, all at the same instant in our time scale of existence?



Whether the appropriate answer is yes or no, it seems to me, hinges on the highlighted phase.  Others have of course considered this question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVI0gSOudFQ
(in some publications of Mere Christianity this is found as Chapter 25, in others as Book 4, Chapter 3)

Another author ends his discourse on the subject with a practical application.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf101.vi.XI.XXXI.html
"Let him who understandeth confess unto Thee; and let him who understandeth not, confess unto Thee. Oh, how exalted art Thou, and yet the humble in heart are Thy dwelling-place; for Thou raisest up those that are bowed down, and they whose exaltation Thou art fall not."


----------



## NE GA Pappy

God can only deal with us in our time scale of existence.  It is the only place we can dwell in this body.

So, I suppose the entire phrase is unneeded.  The question then remains.  Can God, being who he is, sit on His throne in Heaven, appear as the Christ, and also as a dove/Holy Spirit, all at the same instant???

I refuse to put God in a box of my understanding, and seeing as how He said in the beginning, I am.  He said 'I am Alpha and Omega'  He said He sees the end from the beginning

I say He can do what He wishes to do


----------



## hummerpoo

NE GA Pappy said:


> God can only deal with us in our time scale of existence.
> 
> ......
> 
> I refuse to put God in a box of my understanding,
> 
> .....
> 
> I say He can do what He wishes to do



And I say that all is as He wishes.

Which does not mean that we disagree at all.  It only reflects a difference in our understanding of God's relationship to time.


----------

