A problem with premillennialism

[Josheb]

Greetings again Musicmaster and Josheb,

No, firmly and strongly premillennialist.

The two are not mutually exclusive of one another. All Christians a preterist to some degree. All Christians are messianically preterist simply because we believe all the messianic prophecies of the OT are fulfilled in Christ. Furthermore, many premillennialists view portions of NT prophecy as speaking about 70 AD. Noted Historical Premillennialist George Eldon Lad held that point of view. Dispensational Premillennialist John MacArthur also holds that point of view. His commentary on Revelation explicitly states he believes the first portion of Revelation was about the days during in which the seven letters were written and to the congregations when they first existed. It is, in fact quite possible to be both partial preterist and premillennial.

However, @Musicmaster means to be dismissive.

The resurrection and the Throne of David are distinct in Acts 2 also. You cannot merge the two.

Acts 2 states otherwise so I can in fact merge the two but I am not "merging" them. I am bluntly telling you what scripture explicitly states: When God promised David a descendant of his would sit on his throne God was speaking of the resurrection of Christ, that his body would not see decay. That is what is plainly, explicitly stated and that is what I believe.


Part 1:
Keep in mind God never wanted an earthly monarchy. Gd never wanted Israel to have a kinglike all the other nations. He took that request to be a rejection of Him as their king (and He was King already and He did not need or want a chair on earth to be their King). This is all plainly stated in 1 Samuel 8.

1 Samuel 8:1-22 (edited for the sake of space)
And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.... His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed to the LORD. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt... you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them." So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king. He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots... He will also take your daughters.... He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants... He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day... but the LORD will not answer you in that day." Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD'S hearing. The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it. This wasn't the first time this had happened. For example, when God summoned Moses before the burning bush He told Moses to go to Egypt and speak on His behalf, telling Pharoah to let God's people go, but Moses did not want to go. He debated and bargained with God, eventually suggesting Aaron go with him (God already knew Aaron was on his way to find Moses) and God consented. It was that moment right then and there the civil rule and religious rule became divided. God had asked Moses to be what we in NT terms would call a "royal priest" - a man like Melchizedek who was both king and priest - but Moses rebelled. Moses eventually became the head of the civil rule and Aaron the forerunner of the Levitical priesthood.

In 1 Samuel 8 we see the same sort of behavior. God want one thing and the people want another. God reiterates His desire and tells them what will happen if He gives them what they say they want (and everything God said proved true). God never wanted an earthly monarchy.

The division between the civil rule and religious rule became the pattern for Judaism, and it eventually crept into their theology. The same holds true for the civil rule. An earthly rule became the Judaic theology, so they interpreted all the promises of a future king through their misguided theology. The expected Jesus to rule on earth and when he didn't even some of his own disciples abandoned him. When he was put to death shamefully as a criminal even the eleven questioned themselves. It was their own prejudices they had to confront, their own mistaken Jewish theology.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

It gets worse. When David first got the notion to build God a temple (like all the other pagan religions had) God came to David through the prophet Nathan and told David he could not build God's temple because he had blood on his hands. God told David three people would build His temple: 1) God would build God's temple, 2) a son of God would build God's temple, and 3) a son of David's would build God's temple.

2 Samuel 7:1-17
Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you." But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, "Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, "Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day............. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. "When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'" In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David....

If you turn to the account of David speaking to Solomon on his death bed you will find David changed the words. David told Solomon words different then what God had told David. This is important because God told David the one who would build His temple would be a man of peace. David, naturally (pun intended) named his next boy "Solomon," which means "peace." God had told David to name the boy Jedidiah but David ignored God and named the boy Peace because David wanted his son to build the temple. Like the refusal to take on the priestly role, and like the rejection of God in the demand for an earthly king, David and his son's temple is an overt act of disobedience that God allowed! Solomon was NOT a man of peace. It was not until he was old in his reign that Israel enjoyed a time of physical peace and prosperity, but the man was an adulterous idolatry who'd done exactly as God had described in 1 Samuel 8, and in the end, Solomon declared life is meaningless, "Vanity! Vanity! Life is Vanity!"

In the New Testament we learn Jesus, the Son of God is God, not just another ordinary man who happened to be a descendant of Daivd. In the New Testament we learn Jesus (Jn. 2:19-20) and the body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16) is the temple of God, the temple not built by (sinful) human hands but built by God. In the New Testament we find the civil rule reunited in Christ, who is both King of kings AND a Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. In the New Tesament we find that when God promised David someone would one day sit in his seat and rule..... God spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his body would not see decay. That is exactly, specifically, explicitly what Acts 2:31 states.

It get worse because when Solomon built his temple (and again when Herod repeated the problem) Solomon hewed the stones used in the building of the temple. Solomon had the builder hew the stones by hand because God's law prohibited the use of tools when building an altar. The problem is God's laws also prohibited the hewing or shaping of the stones (see Ex. 20:25 and Dt. 25:5-6). How is someone supposed to build an altar if they cannot shape the stones? Never mind, I'm gonna ignore that edict and cut the stones by hand. God will have to settle for a compromise .

In other words, every single stone in that temple was an abomination to God! Every single stone was a work of flesh that completely ignored and defied what God had told David AND what God had told Israel through Samuel, AND what God had told Moses.

Every single misguided element became enshrined in Jewish theology. As a consequence, the theocracy proved no more just or effective than the monarchy. They got the priesthood wrong. They got the monarchy wrong. They got the temple wrong. And then, when the Messiah did finally come, they judged him through their thoroughly misguided theology and murdered him! This is a huge problem in many Christian theologies. They, in essence, Judaize Christianity (which is something Paul speaks against rather forcefully)! As I repeatedly tell @jeremiah1five, (and others).....

Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect.

And premillennialism is simply one example of how Judaism unduly influenced Christian eschatology. ALL of the above is hugely problematic for premillennialism. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the planet, physically ruling for the thousand years of Revelation and Revelation itself repeatedly states Jesus is in heaven until chapter 21, NOT chapter 20 (which is the only place in the entire Bible where the thousand years is explicitly mentioned). Anyone who genuinely takes Revelation to be either recapitulatory or chronological MUST acknowledge the coming of Christ with the new city of peace comes AFTER the thousand years of chapter 20. Otherwise, that person is contradicting themselves.





In closing I will say this: Historic Premillennialism is MUCH different than the Dispensational/Zionist version of premillennialism that arise in the 1800s. Historic Premillennialism does not think Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology at all. I think I posted a chart comparing the views of the four main eschatologies earlier in the thread (I'll check and, if not, I'll post it).


Here in this thread it has proven nearly impossible to get a premillennialist to acknowledge the explicit silence Jesus is not on earth AND the explicit declaration Jesus is in heaven. Then once all the irrelevancy is refocused the premillennialist is still faced with a pile of conflicts between the doctrine and scripture. The entire eschatology is built on an Old Testament-only understanding of end times, not a whole scripture view that relies on the New Testament treatment of Old Testament prophecy. Peter meant what Peter said: When God promised David a descendant of his would sit in his seat God spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he would not see decay in the grave.

No one is "merging" anything. I'm pointing out to you what is plainly, explicitly stated in God's word. It's a huge problem for the earthly-throne crowd.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

No one is "merging" anything. I'm pointing out to you what is plainly, explicitly stated in God's word. It's a huge problem for the earthly-throne crowd.

I appreciate the long explanations, but I disagree. The Davidic Throne is upon the earth, but it will be the Kingdom of Heaven, because the source of the Kingdom is from heaven, not in heaven, it is God's Kingdom upon the earth. The resurrection of Christ and his future position on the Throne of David are distinct entities.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[jeremiah1five]

Part 2:

It gets worse. When David first got the notion to build God a temple (like all the other pagan religions had) God came to David through the prophet Nathan and told David he could not build God's temple because he had blood on his hands. God told David three people would build His temple: 1) God would build God's temple, 2) a son of God would build God's temple, and 3) a son of David's would build God's temple.

2 Samuel 7:1-17
Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and the LORD had given him rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent curtains." Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that is in your mind, for the LORD is with you." But in the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, saying, "Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, "Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? "For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day............. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. "When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'" In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David....

If you turn to the account of David speaking to Solomon on his death bed you will find David changed the words. David told Solomon words different then what God had told David. This is important because God told David the one who would build His temple would be a man of peace. David, naturally (pun intended) named his next boy "Solomon," which means "peace." God had told David to name the boy Jedidiah but David ignored God and named the boy Peace because David wanted his son to build the temple. Like the refusal to take on the priestly role, and like the rejection of God in the demand for an earthly king, David and his son's temple is an overt act of disobedience that God allowed! Solomon was NOT a man of peace. It was not until he was old in his reign that Israel enjoyed a time of physical peace and prosperity, but the man was an adulterous idolatry who'd done exactly as God had described in 1 Samuel 8, and in the end, Solomon declared life is meaningless, "Vanity! Vanity! Life is Vanity!"

In the New Testament we learn Jesus, the Son of God is God, not just another ordinary man who happened to be a descendant of Daivd. In the New Testament we learn Jesus (Jn. 2:19-20) and the body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16) is the temple of God, the temple not built by (sinful) human hands but built by God. In the New Testament we find the civil rule reunited in Christ, who is both King of kings AND a Great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. In the New Tesament we find that when God promised David someone would one day sit in his seat and rule..... God spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his body would not see decay. That is exactly, specifically, explicitly what Acts 2:31 states.

It get worse because when Solomon built his temple (and again when Herod repeated the problem) Solomon hewed the stones used in the building of the temple. Solomon had the builder hew the stones by hand because God's law prohibited the use of tools when building an altar. The problem is God's laws also prohibited the hewing or shaping of the stones (see Ex. 20:25 and Dt. 25:5-6). How is someone supposed to build an altar if they cannot shape the stones? Never mind, I'm gonna ignore that edict and cut the stones by hand. God will have to settle for a compromise .

In other words, every single stone in that temple was an abomination to God! Every single stone was a work of flesh that completely ignored and defied what God had told David AND what God had told Israel through Samuel, AND what God had told Moses.

Every single misguided element became enshrined in Jewish theology. As a consequence, the theocracy proved no more just or effective than the monarchy. They got the priesthood wrong. They got the monarchy wrong. They got the temple wrong. And then, when the Messiah did finally come, they judged him through their thoroughly misguided theology and murdered him! This is a huge problem in many Christian theologies. They, in essence, Judaize Christianity (which is something Paul speaks against rather forcefully)! As I repeatedly tell @jeremiah1five, (and others).....

Tanakh is always correct. Judaism is often incorrect.

And premillennialism is simply one example of how Judaism unduly influenced Christian eschatology. ALL of the above is hugely problematic for premillennialism. There isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the planet, physically ruling for the thousand years of Revelation and Revelation itself repeatedly states Jesus is in heaven until chapter 21, NOT chapter 20 (which is the only place in the entire Bible where the thousand years is explicitly mentioned). Anyone who genuinely takes Revelation to be either recapitulatory or chronological MUST acknowledge the coming of Christ with the new city of peace comes AFTER the thousand years of chapter 20. Otherwise, that person is contradicting themselves.





In closing I will say this: Historic Premillennialism is MUCH different than the Dispensational/Zionist version of premillennialism that arise in the 1800s. Historic Premillennialism does not think Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology at all. I think I posted a chart comparing the views of the four main eschatologies earlier in the thread (I'll check and, if not, I'll post it).


Here in this thread it has proven nearly impossible to get a premillennialist to acknowledge the explicit silence Jesus is not on earth AND the explicit declaration Jesus is in heaven. Then once all the irrelevancy is refocused the premillennialist is still faced with a pile of conflicts between the doctrine and scripture. The entire eschatology is built on an Old Testament-only understanding of end times, not a whole scripture view that relies on the New Testament treatment of Old Testament prophecy. Peter meant what Peter said: When God promised David a descendant of his would sit in his seat God spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he would not see decay in the grave.

No one is "merging" anything. I'm pointing out to you what is plainly, explicitly stated in God's word. It's a huge problem for the earthly-throne crowd.

Saul, after meeting Christ continued to be obedient to the Law of Moses and there was no "Judaizing Christianity."

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

This is true, biblical Christianity.

It is tied to this one thing Jesus said, "If you love me obey my commandments" and His commandments if the Law of Moses, the same Law and Scripture that is given and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (Law of Moses) that the man of God be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Without the Law instructing believers in the things of God and how to live righteous lives then we are antinomian (without Law) and are left to ourselves and a leaning on our own understanding in the vanity of our minds.

The commands of Christ which are found in the Law of Moses, the Law which Jesus taught the people, are necessary if we are to live righteous lives in Christ.

 

[Musicmaster]

Saul, after meeting Christ continued to be obedient to the Law of Moses and there was no "Judaizing Christianity."

24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21:24.

This is true, biblical Christianity.

It is tied to this one thing Jesus said, "If you love me obey my commandments" and His commandments if the Law of Moses, the same Law and Scripture that is given and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (Law of Moses) that the man of God be thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Without the Law instructing believers in the things of God and how to live righteous lives then we are antinomian (without Law) and are left to ourselves and a leaning on our own understanding in the vanity of our minds.

The commands of Christ which are found in the Law of Moses, the Law which Jesus taught the people, are necessary if we are to live righteous lives in Christ.

Going back under enslavement to the Law of Moses will not ever add to the sufficiency of the Blood of Yahshuah. Pointing to what Paul did in order to win us Jews over to the Gospel is not at all a justification for trying to enslave the Gentiles to the Mosaic system of Law. At no point did Paul ever lay claim to his cleansing and other elements of the Mosaic Law he observed for the sake of the onlooking Jews to keep from being discredited among the hardline legalists among us Jews.

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Messianics don't keep the Law, and we can't possibly hope to ever keep it, just as was the case with our forefathers. Messianics trying to keep the Law today as an alleged requirement is hypocrisy and a denial of the Blood of Christ:

Romans 2:17-24
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest [his] will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Oh, and those who think the listed sins are the only ones that make one a hypocrite, think again. That list was only the worst case scenarios, not the totality of the breaches of the Law that make one a hypocrite and at odds against the Lord.

When we Jews boast for keeping of the Law, and yet ourselves break it every day, we have no testimony to anyone other than proselytes we bring into the fold of bondage to the Mosaic Law, trying to bond that together with the Blood of Yahshuah...we do indeed look the hypocrites that we are dare we go that path!

So, live by the Law the Spirit writes into the heart, because words written on stone, parchment of paper have not and never will possess the empowerment for obedience compared to what He writes into our hearts.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Enslavement to the Mosaic Law does indeed affect one's eschatology, just in case anyone was wondering how the above post fits in with all this.

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

Going back under enslavement to the Law of Moses will not ever add to the sufficiency of the Blood of Yahshuah. Pointing to what Paul did in order to win us Jews over to the Gospel is not at all a justification for trying to enslave the Gentiles to the Mosaic system of Law. At no point did Paul ever lay claim to his cleansing and other elements of the Mosaic Law he observed for the sake of the onlooking Jews to keep from being discredited among the hardline legalists among us Jews.

So, you're saying God delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian slavery and placed the children of Israel under God's slavery when He gave them His Law?
Why do you think so lowly of God's Holy Law? You do realize God commands His people after they are born-again to obey the Law, right? He does this because it "instructs in righteous living" and serves God's grace upon His people. When Jesus was here He taught the children of Israel the Mosaic Law. You're saying Jesus taught and commanded the children of Israel to obey the Law and was really an act to try to enslave Israel, right?

Lies do not remain hidden for long. You're again saying that Saul was obedient to the Law in order to fool the Jews that he was still one of them, one obedient to the Law. From my reading of the things Saul suffered for being obedient to the Law as a Jewish follower of Christ, Israel's Messiah, I don't think Saul would have continued being obedient to the Law if it brought him such deep suffering for Christ.

And at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15 - 50 AD) the Jewish Christians commanded the Gentiles to obedience to the Law. In reality they enslaved them, right? By putting these four Mosaic Laws upon the Gentiles to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication", all come from the Law of Moses. The Jewish Christians according to your belief placed Gentiles under the bondage of the Mosaic Law, right?

I can tell right off you're not a born-again Christian. What Gentile fellowship do you attend?

Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Messianics don't keep the Law, and we can't possibly hope to ever keep it, just as was the case with our forefathers. Messianics trying to keep the Law today as an alleged requirement is hypocrisy and a denial of the Blood of Christ:

There's a biblical doctrine you should learn, two actually. The first is justification and the second is sanctification.

Romans 2:17-24
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest [his] will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Oh, and those who think the listed sins are the only ones that make one a hypocrite, think again. That list was only the worst case scenarios, not the totality of the breaches of the Law that make one a hypocrite and at odds against the Lord.

When we Jews boast for keeping of the Law, and yet ourselves break it every day, we have no testimony to anyone other than proselytes we bring into the fold of bondage to the Mosaic Law, trying to bond that together with the Blood of Yahshuah...we do indeed look the hypocrites that we are dare we go that path!

So, live by the Law the Spirit writes into the heart, because words written on stone, parchment of paper have not and never will possess the empowerment for obedience compared to what He writes into our hearts.

MM

God is please when His true people obey the Law.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. Rev. 22:13–14.

Those who don't do not get to enter the Holy City.

 

[Musicmaster]

So, you're saying God delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian slavery and placed the children of Israel under God's slavery when He gave them His Law?
Why do you think so lowly of God's Holy Law?

You're misrepresenting what I said. The Lord giving to Israel the Law after their captivity under Egypt was not the Lord enslaving them all over again. They AGREED to the terms the Lord laid down, and stated that they would do it all, and yet they broke the Law of the Lord.

Now, if you're a higher authority, in your own mind, than that of the apostles, then that is what it is:

Acts 15:5-11
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

See that? Yoke! No difference when it comes to salvation! What is a yoke? It is a burden when it comes to us humans. We are not oxen, and the Law of Moses, in the minds of our fellow Jews who were apostles, stated that the Law of Moses was indeed a YOKE!

I've heard it all from fellow Messianic Jews who demand that this text doesn't mean what it says, and they do so at the expense to their own integrity and intellectual honesty. Some have even claimed that the Gentiles were required to attend synagogue in order to learn to obey the Law of Moses! Yeah, that indeed has its origins from within that spirit that motivated the Judaizers of Paul's day!

Yah's Law is indeed perfect, and we serve a Lord who LIVED it perfectly for us, and Who has written His Law in our hearts, which is superior to that which was written by Moses! If you don't believe that, then read where Yahshuah changed that Law, revealing some of what was to be written in our hearts, as stated in Matthew 5.

Nowhere are we instructed to place upon Gentiles the requirement of Mosaic Law! Anyone who teaches otherwise is in direct opposition to the Word of Yahshuah! It's really just that simple!

MM

 

[Josheb]

Saul, after meeting Christ continued to be obedient to the Law of Moses...

Yep. I have said so many, many times here and multiple other forums.

... and there was no "Judaizing Christianity."

That is correct, so you should stop doing it.

The commands of Christ which are found in the Law of Moses, the Law which Jesus taught the people, are necessary if we are to live righteous lives in Christ.

And this op is about the problem of a failed premillennial rule by Jesus. Thats all. Everything posted in Posts 201 and 202 can be summarized to say there are numerous problems with premillennialism. They beginning with the fact scripture never actually explicitly states Jesus is physically living on the earth physically ruling for Rev. 20's thousand years but what it does repeatedly state is Jesus is in heaven until Revelation chapter 21. There cannot be a physical rule if he is not physically here. This is axiomatic. What premils do is selecta few verses, remove them from their contexts, and infer content nowhere stated. They infer meaning that does not reconcile with the facts of Revelation (which has Jesus in heaven until chapter 21). They do not interpret those selectively employed verses in a manner consistent with Revelation (especially not chapters 21 and 22).

Why do they do this?

Because they fail to correctly discriminate where the OT is literal and where it is figurative/symbolic/allegorical. This happens because OT prophecy is NOT treated the same way the New Testament writers treated it. In other words, whole scripture is not employed. Another reason the misguided inferences occur is because of the failure to consider the contexts of premillennialism's predicate views, such as the priesthood, the monarchy, the temple, and more (Posts 201 and 202 cover only a few of the examples where Jewish understanding of God's words was different than what the NT writers taught and those mistakes influenced their theology wrongly).

The standard should be to treat the OT prophesies exactly as the NT writers did. Where the NT writers treated something from Tanakh literally, then we should do the same. Where they treated content in Tanakh figuratively/symbolically/allegorically then, we, again, should do likewise. That means we read the word "Israel" as the New Testament defines it, not as the Jews lacking the newer revelation understood the term. We read the priesthood, the monarchy, the temple and all the promises of Tanakh exactly as the NT writers who possessed the newer information told us to understand it all. When God promised His Hebrew audience he would make them a nation of priest the newer revelation tells us that it is the body of Christ, those who according to the foreknowledge of God have been sanctified by the work of the Spirit to obey Jesus Christ, those who have been sprinkled with his blood. The Jew of Deuteronomy knew nothing of the newer revelation that would come in the last days through Jesus. It's completely erroneous to ignore all the newer revelation and interpret older revelation literally where the NT instructs otherwise. Ironically, Posts 201 and 202 emphasize what is plainly stated in the OT, namely the priesthood was a mess, the monarchy was never wanted, and God does not dwell in houses built by human hands, nor does he live in ones made of stone (all aspects of various premillennialisms).

So do not get distracted. This op is not about the Law. Don't try to hijack the op. The op is specifically about the failed rule of Jesus. Jesus cannot have a physical rule physically here on earth if he is not physically living on the planet, an earthly monarchy was never God's desire, the temple over which Jesus is High Priest is not made of stone, and he doesn't come to earth until after the thousand years are over.


Let us not forget the Dispensationalist/Zionist/modern-futurist premils have been making prediction for the last 180 years and not a single one of them have ever come true. None! 100% fail rate. Zero success. Eschatologically speaking every single one of them has been a false teacher.

It is time for premillennialists to consider alternatives that have greater integrity with plainly read scripture.

 

[Musicmaster]

What anyone believes about pre-millinnialism, post-millinnialism, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath...whatever, it's all peripheral.

MM

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

I appreciate the long explanations, but I disagree.

As long as you acknowledge the disagreement is with God's word and not my views that's acceptable for the discussion.

Notice I started by asked the premils here where the physical living is explicitly stated. Notice it took a long time to get anyone to acknowledge the facts and truth of scripture: there is no such verse. Notice what I predicted proved correct: a few verses were selected, removed from their contexts, and interpreted to infer things they do not actually state AND none of the inferences are built on anything explicitly stated regarding Jesus physically living on the planet. That makes them inferential inferences, NOT inferences built on what is explicitly stated.

Notice I did not assert any alternative. I did not digress from the op to impose an alternative on the discussion because the discussion is not about comparative eschatology. What I did do in Posts 201 and 202 is point out numerous things that scripture actually, factually, explicitly states. Moses was first asked to alone and speak for God. God NEVER wanted the earthly monarchy and took the request as a rejection of Him as their King. David was told three people would build the temple (and Jesus fulfills all three conditions). Hewn stones were disobedience. God does not live in houses built by human hands. The temple God built is the body of Christ. Not all descendants of Abraham are Abraham's descendants, nor are all Israel actually Israel.

Unlike you and the rest of the premils here I can actually, factually point to explicit statements found in God's word to prove what I posted.


We should ALL be building our eschatology on what is stated in WHOLE scripture, not starting a fourth of the way through the OT or selectively sampling the few verses that support our preferred view of end times. We should most definitely not be adding to the book of Revelation.

The Davidic Throne is upon the earth...

Yes, it was, BUT the Davidic throne was a throne God never wanted. Every single king was an abomination to God! To God, the entire earthly monarchical system represented a wholesale rejection of God. The monarchy was an act of disobedience and every single king disobeyed God. They were idolators, thieves, and murderers. God was already King (and King over ALL He created, not just a little postage stamp-sized parcel of land on the east end of the Mediterranean). God was already King and He explicitly told those people He did not want them to have a king like all the other nations. Despite that overt, repeated, explicit statement the premillennialist comes along and says, "God wants Israel and the entire world to have a king just like all the other (pagan) nations had in the days of the Old Testament..... only this one is not going to be an idolator, thief, or murderer.

The premise if prima facie absurd because it blatantly contradicts what is plainly stated in God's word and it defies reason (Jesus is already King of all kings and has the rule above all other rules).

I expected someone to somewhere point out that a thousand years is not forever.

But no one did!

2 Samuel 7:13
He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

God establishing a throne on earth that lasts only a thousand years is NOT a fulfillment of that prophecy. By limiting Jesus' throne to a literal thousand years the premillennialist has contradicted himself if he also holds the throne of Christ is forever. In other words, the contradiction is not only external; it's also internal! The minute the premillennialist says Jesus has a throne in heaven that is eternal it becomes valid to ask, "Well, then why is he coming to earth? Is he going to have two thrones? Is he moving the heavenly throne (which already rules over all the heavens and earth) down to earth for what for him would be a very brief period of time (a thousand years is like a day to God)?" According to the premillennialist, at the end of the thousand years Revelation has him coming down to wage a war here on earth against the followers of Satan, presiding over the fiery lake in heaven, and then coming down with the new city of peace.

Premillennialism leaks like a sieve.

, but it will be the Kingdom of Heaven, because the source of the Kingdom is from heaven, not in heaven, it is God's Kingdom upon the earth.

All of which already exists.

Mark 1:14-15
Now after John was taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Jesus did NOT say, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God will come 2000 years from now, so repent and believe in the gospel."

Luke 17:20-21
Now He was questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, and He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”

Jesus did not say, "The kingdom of God is coming with signs that can be observed." Neither did Jesus say, "For, behold, the kingdom of God will come 2000 years after all of you to whom I am now speaking have died."

The current existence of the kingdom of heaven become all the more apparent when ALL of the verses about the kingdom are gathered together and examined as a whole. No credit is given for claiming the earthly kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, especially not when the fact of scripture is Jesus is already King over all of creation.

The resurrection of Christ and his future position on the Throne of David are distinct entities.

Kind regards
Trevor

Scripture proves otherwise.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You're misrepresenting what I said. The Lord giving to Israel the Law after their captivity under Egypt was not the Lord enslaving them all over again. They AGREED to the terms the Lord laid down, and stated that they would do it all, and yet they broke the Law of the Lord.

No, I rechecked. You said about Gentiles "being enslaved by the Law." The Law does not enslave.

The Law God gave the children of Israel is a reflection of His grace, but so many Constantinian Gentiles set Law and grace against each other, and this is wrong. Both complement each other. It would be cruel to have three million Hebrews in the desert and make covenant with them and God does not give them His Law for them to live under that guides their lives. The alternative would be to lean upon one's own understanding in the vanity of their minds. And this would result in disunion, anarchy, and death.

And Israel had no option to agree or disagree. They saw what God did. They saw the pillar of fire by night and pillar of cloud by day. They saw the Red Sea open before them. They saw God's judgment upon Egypt and their false gods. There was no question about their agreeing to obey God. There was no other choice, and none should be added.

Let's be clear on what the Law is and its purpose. The Law reflects the holy and righteous standard of God Himself. It is a measure of the nature of God in time. Another thing is the Law is type and shadow of the Promised Holy Spirit and the very Law God promised to put in the inward parts of the children of Israel to lead and guide them from within instead of the Law written in stone that led and guided their lives from without. So, when a born-again believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, and they sin it is the Holy Spirit within that causes remorse and sadness for their sin and He leads them to forgiveness and repentance. If God's people did not have God's Law, whether written in stone or in our hearts we would be bastards, illegitimate, orphaned. But you have much to learn about God's Law.

Now, if you're a higher authority, in your own mind, than that of the apostles, then that is what it is:

I have equal authority as the apostles, but I have different calling than they. I have different spiritual gifts, but I am on equal footing as the apostles, equal authority of Christ. But I can tell you need to learn much about the body of Christ, about calling, about authority, about gifts of the Spirit, about talents and pounds, and maybe then you'll understand.
Elevating the apostles above the rest of the members in the body of Christ injures the body and injures Christ.

Acts 15:5-11
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Yes, and the part about keeping the Law of Moses for Gentiles was specifically circumcision, which under the Abrahamic Covenant was a NO-NO. Hebrews are commanded to be circumcised, NOT GENTILES. And eventually these Jewish Christians that dealt with the matter came to the correct conclusion except they didn't go far enough.

See that? Yoke! No difference when it comes to salvation! What is a yoke? It is a burden when it comes to us humans. We are not oxen, and the Law of Moses, in the minds of our fellow Jews who were apostles, stated that the Law of Moses was indeed a YOKE!

Saul called it a "yoke" because many looked at the Law as a means of becoming righteous in the eyes of God and this was impossible. So, why burden yourself to attempt to attain what is impossible to attain. Saul understood it. I understood it. But you do not. There was no "yoke" or "burden" in obeying "thou shalt have no other gods before you," or "thou shalt not bear false witness." Here's a clue: The Law is spiritual but the unbeliever without the Holy Spirit is carnal through and through. This is why the Law killed. It killed unanointed flesh. But once a Jew became born-again, then natural Olive tree Israel became spiritual Olive tree Israel and as spiritual beings the Law could not touch them as the Law (Holy Spirit) now dwelt in the believer. Saul said, "there is therefore no condemnation to those in Christ (anointed)" and this is because Christ, as my substitute obeyed perfectly all the Law of God in the Mosaic Covenant, but Christ's sacrifice did nothing UNTIL it was applied to the believer. This is where our justification rests. When God sees me, He sees me as also perfectly obeying all the Law. And because of what Christ did and applied to me by the Holy Spirit of Promise God declares me, "NOT GUILTY!" And NOW i am able to live under the Law of God in my daily life because the Law is within me and no longer on stone but in fleshly tables of my heart.

I've heard it all from fellow Messianic Jews who demand that this text doesn't mean what it says, and they do so at the expense to their own integrity and intellectual honesty. Some have even claimed that the Gentiles were required to attend synagogue in order to learn to obey the Law of Moses! Yeah, that indeed has its origins from within that spirit that motivated the Judaizers of Paul's day!

Since for thousands of years Gentiles were never under the Law it was important for them to learn what God expects of their behavior and the place to do this was in the Temple and in synagogues.

There was nothing wrong with the Judaizers. There was nothing wrong with the Pharisees. As Saul said, we are not supposed to speak ill towards our leaders. There was nothing wrong with Judaism. It was an attempt by the leading tribe of Judah (Jesus' tribe) to maintain some semblance of their Law being in captivity in Babylon without a Temple. Other tribes joined them, and Ephraim did what they could to stay faithful to God under their testing and trial. As I said, there was nothing wrong with the Pharisees. Yes, in time they became disconnected from the people they were to serve and corrupt, but if you compare what they taught and what Jesus taught they were similar. Both believed in angels, in eternal life, in resurrection, and other points of doctrine. The issue Jesus had with them was two-fold. They could only understand and teach the letter of the Law while Jesus taught the spirit of the Law to the children of Israel. The other problem and Jesus pointed it out to them was their propensity to elevate the traditions of the elders above the very Word of God. And Jesus called them on it.

Yah's Law is indeed perfect, and we serve a Lord who LIVED it perfectly for us, and Who has written His Law in our hearts, which is superior to that which was written by Moses!

There is no other Law than the Law of Moses, so I don't know what you're talking about. You need to study up on this subject because I can read you have a bifurcated bias against God's Law, which is in reality having a bifurcated bias and hatred for the Holy Spirit and not even know it.

If you don't believe that, then read where Yahshuah changed that Law, revealing some of what was to be written in our hearts, as stated in Matthew 5.

Matthew 5 is Christ UPHOLDING the Law. He changed nothing because not even God Himself can change the Law nor destroy it. God says what He means and means what He says. And neither God nor Christ changed anything of the Law. It is impossible. The Holy Spirit is the Personification of the Law. And He is Perfect exactly the way He is.

Nowhere are we instructed to place upon Gentiles the requirement of Mosaic Law! Anyone who teaches otherwise is in direct opposition to the Word of Yahshuah! It's really just that simple!

MM

I have news for you. It is the Law that God will use to judge Gentiles. It will be the Law that will be in effect during the Millennium and the very same Law by which God's covenant people obey.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city Rev. 22:14.

Not only that but God's people will be under the Law and commanded to observe the Feast of Tabernacles during the Millennium.

16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations
Which came against Jerusalem
Shall even go up from year to year
To worship the King, the LORD of hosts,
And to keep the feast of tabernacles.
Zech. 14:16.

You need to study more because that false Constantinian Gentile theology you're infected with will be your undoing.

 

[Musicmaster]

No, I rechecked. You said about Gentiles "being enslaved by the Law." The Law does not enslave.

The misinterpretation on your part was to compare my use of "enslave" with that of what they had under the hand of the Egyptians.

The "yoke" of the Law was very real in the mind of Peter and James, as well as "burden."

The Law God gave the children of Israel is a reflection of His grace, but so many Constantinian Gentiles set Law and grace against each other, and this is wrong. Both complement each other. It would be cruel to have three million Hebrews in the desert and make covenant with them and God does not give them His Law for them to live under that guides their lives. The alternative would be to lean upon one's own understanding in the vanity of their minds. And this would result in disunion, anarchy, and death.

But we are not in the desert, nor are under the requirement of the Mosaic Law. None of us can keep it, which includes you, because the Law was only a shadow of what was to come. We are now under that reality, and so no longer burdened under the requirements of Law. If you want to try and live them, then you are free to try, but you, like all others, will fail.

And Israel had no option to agree or disagree. They saw what God did. They saw the pillar of fire by night and pillar of cloud by day. They saw the Red Sea open before them. They saw God's judgment upon Egypt and their false gods. There was no question about their agreeing to obey God. There was no other choice, and none should be added.

Well, what's written says otherwise:

Exodus 24:7-8
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Let's be clear on what the Law is and its purpose. The Law reflects the holy and righteous standard of God Himself. It is a measure of the nature of God in time. Another thing is the Law is type and shadow of the Promised Holy Spirit and the very Law God promised to put in the inward parts of the children of Israel to lead and guide them from within instead of the Law written in stone that led and guided their lives from without. So, when a born-again believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, and they sin it is the Holy Spirit within that causes remorse and sadness for their sin and He leads them to forgiveness and repentance. If God's people did not have God's Law, whether written in stone or in our hearts we would be bastards, illegitimate, orphaned. But you have much to learn about God's Law.

You really don't know me at all, and where I have been and how I was raised in the traditions of Judaism. I now rejoice in the freedoms we have in Yahshuah and His indwelling Spirit.

I have equal authority as the apostles, but I have different calling than they.

Equal authority? You really are a piece of work to think that, but I'm not here to take from you what you think you have, and what you really do not have...nor what you actually DO have. One thing I know is that you have not at all any teaching authority over others who are not willingly sitting under your misguided tutelage.

I have different spiritual gifts, but I am on equal footing as the apostles, equal authority of Christ.

Wow, you really are full of yourself. Yahshuah is Lord and King over all, not our Buddy. For crying out loud, there's enough of this stuff in the masses who follow Rome without people coming in here and pretending to be on equal footing with God Himself. Leave that crap to those who follow the false Mary and who describe a Messiah completely unknown to the inspired word of Yah.

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

The misinterpretation on your part was to compare my use of "enslave" with that of what they had under the hand of the Egyptians.

The "yoke" of the Law was very real in the mind of Peter and James, as well as "burden."

So, God places "yokes" and "burdens" on His people?
You have such a warped understanding of the Law and the grace of God.

But we are not in the desert, nor are under the requirement of the Mosaic Law. None of us can keep it, which includes you, because the Law was only a shadow of what was to come. We are now under that reality, and so no longer burdened under the requirements of Law. If you want to try and live them, then you are free to try, but you, like all others, will fail.

You're a Gentile. Gentiles were never under the Law so, you're OK.
And if Gentiles were NEVER under the Law, then we can now understand who Saul is writing about in Galatians 3:29 as being the "heirs according to the Promise."

29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. 3:28–29.

Saul is writing about Jews who are the heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant. Thanks for helping me clear that up.

Well, what's written says otherwise:

Exodus 24:7-8
7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.
8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

You really don't know me at all, and where I have been and how I was raised in the traditions of Judaism. I now rejoice in the freedoms we have in Yahshuah and His indwelling Spirit.

I know who you are and what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth, er, I mean, keyboard.
If you've unmoored true, biblical Christianity from its Hebrew roots, then you don't have Christianity but a form of false Constantinian Gentile religion.

Equal authority? You really are a piece of work to think that, but I'm not here to take from you what you think you have, and what you really do not have...nor what you actually DO have. One thing I know is that you have not at all any teaching authority over others who are not willingly sitting under your misguided tutelage.

I know what I have because I know who gave it to me. Again, you know nothing about calling, place in the body, spiritual gifts, talents and pounds. And because of this I see the erroneous understanding on the things in your comment.

Wow, you really are full of yourself. Yahshuah is Lord and King over all, not our Buddy. For crying out loud, there's enough of this stuff in the masses who follow Rome without people coming in here and pretending to be on equal footing with God Himself. Leave that crap to those who follow the false Mary and who describe a Messiah completely unknown to the inspired word of Yah.

MM

I never said I was on equal footing with God Himself. Putting words in another's mouth is dishonesty. Bearing false witness. Liar.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

As long as you acknowledge the disagreement is with God's word and not my views that's acceptable for the discussion.

I consider that your claim that The Throne of David and the Resurrection of Jesus are equivalent is the strangest idea that I have encountered.

Yes, it was, BUT the Davidic throne was a throne God never wanted. Every single king was an abomination to God! To God, the entire earthly monarchical system represented a wholesale rejection of God.

I suggest you have painted yourself into a corner. You equate the Throne of David with the Resurrection of Jesus, but you denigrate both David and his Kingdom and his Throne. The sacrifice, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus is the greatest event that has ever happened, and yet you equate this with something that you denigrate. What you wrote in this Post reminded me of what was discussed in my Psalm 1 thread and I checked and it was you who interacted on that thread. Out of the many times that I have posted a Psalm 1 thread on many forums, my encounter with your opinion on David and the Throne of David has been the most unusual view that I have ever encountered on David, the Psalms, and The Throne of David.

I expected someone to somewhere point out that a thousand years is not forever.

Exodus 15:18 (KJV): The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.
It is interesting that English words "ever" are two different Hebrew words. The first speaks of a long duration and the second the period beyond this. The Kingdom is a period of time, not eternity.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Musicmaster]

So, God places "yokes" and "burdens" on His people?
You have such a warped understanding of the Law and the grace of God.

You believe it's "warped" to speak precisely what the REAL apostles spoke, those who walked, ate and lived part of their lives with Yahshuah? You think Peter was warped when he said this:

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Lawful demands are precisely the topic of what Peter was addressing. If you think there is some disparity in the translation, then we can go there too.

The Greek word spoken by Peter concerning tempting God: "β. Men are said πειράζειν τόν Θεόν — by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted; by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were, to give proof of his perfections: Acts 15:10" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

As for the yoke: "b. metaphorically, used of any burden or bondage: as that of slavery, 1 Timothy 6:1 (Leviticus 26:13), δουλείας, Galatians 5:1 (Sophocles Aj. 944; δουλοσύνης, Demosthenes 322, 12); of troublesome laws imposed on one, especially of the Mosaic law, Acts 15:10"

So, dare we speak of anyone who has a warped understanding, given Peter's superior authority for teaching that you could not possibly hope to possess, given your improprieties and violations of the text in order to try and teach others the hypocrisies of the Law of God being divisible, that clearly is a dangerous place to be in relation to Yah. Yes, I did indeed say "divisible." I have many Messianic Jewish family and friends who believe and teach others that Torah can be divided up between what they say was fulfilled by Yahshuah and what is still binding for today from that Mosaic Law. That clearly is a CHANGE in the Law that Yahshuah said would be the point at which it will pass away. In case you choose to argue that point, you will lose once we delve into the Greek of it all.

So, you can save your typing time because I've heard just about all the warped and twisted misrepresentations of what's actually written in the original languages. In other words, I'm not among the uneducated sheeple whose eyes reflect the sparkle and glitter of that symbol you've adopted for your avatar...that symbol that has pagan origins otherwise called the "star of David." Our secular bothers in Israel rally around that symbol, but I am not taken by it, just as I am not taken by celebration of Christmas because of its pagan origins, including Easter bunnies and eggs. Paganism has never handed anything meaningful over to all of us who serve the One true Yah over all creation.

You're a Gentile. Gentiles were never under the Law so, you're OK.

Nope. I'm of Israel, as are the rest of my family. You trying to disparage me and the roots from which I hale, nice try.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

That causes me to wonder about YOU! Who else but those who are of the synagogue of Satan would speak so completely opposed to the very words of an apostle recorded in the scriptures? I mean, what else are we to understand from your denials of what scripture actually states that I have quoted to you? What else are we to glean from all that?

And if Gentiles were NEVER under the Law, then we can now understand who Saul is writing about in Galatians 3:29 as being the "heirs according to the Promise."

Yeah, there's that thing known as "replacement theology" that is justified on the basis of such claims as the one you just uttered. Where are you going with that?

Saul is writing about Jews who are the heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant. Thanks for helping me clear that up.

Be very careful with this, because it easily misleads those who are not of Jewish blood to try and "adopt" that for themselves.

I know who you are and what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth, er, I mean, keyboard.
If you've unmoored true, biblical Christianity from its Hebrew roots, then you don't have Christianity but a form of false Constantinian Gentile religion.

When you speak in terms to "Hebrew roots," that smacks of that movement out there of Gentiles who claim they are now Jews because of their alleged adherence to Torah. That filthy movement of vile trash comprised of false teachings from the Bible isn't worth the typing time to discredit its core, foundational assumptions.

Salvation is of the Jews, and that will never change. Period. Those who lay claim to being Jews because of their failed attempts at trying to live Torah in such a purely subjective selection of what Laws are still (allegedly) beholden upon all who claim allegiance to Yahshuah, they have their reward here on earth.

I know what I have because I know who gave it to me. Again, you know nothing about calling, place in the body, spiritual gifts, talents and pounds. And because of this I see the erroneous understanding on the things in your comment.

I never said I was on equal footing with God Himself. Putting words in another's mouth is dishonesty. Bearing false witness. Liar.

I don't mind you gauging my words on the basis of your purely subjective gifting to warping and twisting scripture. I see it all the time. Nothing new here. I hope you enjoy your Hebrew Roots meeting this weekend where their false teachers regale them with tales of them having allegedly taken upon themselves the very national identity of Yahshuah and the Orthodox Jewish religion. They have the freedom to believe that and anything else they want to believe. We all do.

However, Truth is a Person, not a collection of seemingly right and proper doctrines and dogmas. He is real, and He is seeking those who want ONLY Him. We ALL are liars by comparison...

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

You believe it's "warped" to speak precisely what the REAL apostles spoke, those who walked, ate and lived part of their lives with Yahshuah? You think Peter was warped when he said this:

Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

This took place thirty years after Pentecost. And I never said anything about what was spoken was "warped."

Lawful demands are precisely the topic of what Peter was addressing. If you think there is some disparity in the translation, then we can go there too.

The Greek word spoken by Peter concerning tempting God: "β. Men are said πειράζειν τόν Θεόν — by exhibitions of distrust, as though they wished to try whether he is not justly distrusted; by impious or wicked conduct to test God's justice and patience, and to challenge him, as it were, to give proof of his perfections: Acts 15:10" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

As for the yoke: "b. metaphorically, used of any burden or bondage: as that of slavery, 1 Timothy 6:1 (Leviticus 26:13), δουλείας, Galatians 5:1 (Sophocles Aj. 944; δουλοσύνης, Demosthenes 322, 12); of troublesome laws imposed on one, especially of the Mosaic law, Acts 15:10"

So, dare we speak of anyone who has a warped understanding, given Peter's superior authority for teaching that you could not possibly hope to possess, given your improprieties and violations of the text in order to try and teach others the hypocrisies of the Law of God being divisible, that clearly is a dangerous place to be in relation to Yah. Yes, I did indeed say "divisible." I have many Messianic Jewish family and friends who believe and teach others that Torah can be divided up between what they say was fulfilled by Yahshuah and what is still binding for today from that Mosaic Law. That clearly is a CHANGE in the Law that Yahshuah said would be the point at which it will pass away. In case you choose to argue that point, you will lose once we delve into the Greek of it all.

Peter's authority wasn't superior.

So, you can save your typing time because I've heard just about all the warped and twisted misrepresentations of what's actually written in the original languages. In other words, I'm not among the uneducated sheeple whose eyes reflect the sparkle and glitter of that symbol you've adopted for your avatar...that symbol that has pagan origins otherwise called the "star of David." Our secular bothers in Israel rally around that symbol, but I am not taken by it, just as I am not taken by celebration of Christmas because of its pagan origins, including Easter bunnies and eggs. Paganism has never handed anything meaningful over to all of us who serve the One true Yah over all creation.

Paganism is what drives Gentile "Christianity." You hit the nail on the head.

Nope. I'm of Israel, as are the rest of my family. You trying to disparage me and the roots from which I hale, nice try.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Yes, that verse applies to Gentiles who believe they are of the seed of Abraham all because of Saul's words in Galatians 3:29. THEY ARE of the assembly of the adversary opposed to God.

That causes me to wonder about YOU! Who else but those who are of the synagogue of Satan would speak so completely opposed to the very words of an apostle recorded in the scriptures? I mean, what else are we to understand from your denials of what scripture actually states that I have quoted to you? What else are we to glean from all that?

The synagogue of Satan are Gentiles who say they are Jews never being of the seed of Abraham but use Galatians 3:29 as their authority as being of the seed of Abraham. Such teaching IS Satanic.

Yeah, there's that thing known as "replacement theology" that is justified on the basis of such claims as the one you just uttered. Where are you going with that?

I don't hold to replacement theology. Gentiles do.

Be very careful with this, because it easily misleads those who are not of Jewish blood to try and "adopt" that for themselves.

Gentiles have 1900 years of non-Hebrew theology who make such claims. I don't.

When you speak in terms to "Hebrew roots," that smacks of that movement out there of Gentiles who claim they are now Jews because of their alleged adherence to Torah. That filthy movement of vile trash comprised of false teachings from the Bible isn't worth the typing time to discredit its core, foundational assumptions.

All three Hebrew covenants are between God and the Hebrew people. Gentiles have no part in these Hebrew covenants. If Jesus were still here on earth these past 1900 years, He would STILL be teaching the people the Law and command obedience to it.

Salvation is of the Jews, and that will never change. Period. Those who lay claim to being Jews because of their failed attempts at trying to live Torah in such a purely subjective selection of what Laws are still (allegedly) beholden upon all who claim allegiance to Yahshuah, they have their reward here on earth.

No, Gentiles lay claim to being Abraham's seed using Galatians 3:29.

I don't mind you gauging my words on the basis of your purely subjective gifting to warping and twisting scripture. I see it all the time. Nothing new here. I hope you enjoy your Hebrew Roots meeting this weekend where their false teachers regale them with tales of them having allegedly taken upon themselves the very national identity of Yahshuah and the Orthodox Jewish religion. They have the freedom to believe that and anything else they want to believe. We all do.

God has eternal covenant with the Hebrew people born from Abraham.
Gentiles have nothing to lay claim on. They have no covenant with God and Jesus as High Priest doesn't even include them in any deliverance from sin and death.

However, Truth is a Person, not a collection of seemingly right and proper doctrines and dogmas. He is real, and He is seeking those who want ONLY Him. We ALL are liars by comparison...

MM

And the Holy Spirit is the Law of God whom God said He would put in their (House of Israel's) inward parts.
God never said this to Gentiles.

 

[Musicmaster]

This took place thirty years after Pentecost. And I never said anything about what was spoken was "warped."

And yet the Mosaic Law was indeed a yoke, burden, enslavement, no matter how long after the fact.

Peter's authority wasn't superior.

He was vastly more authoritative then you or anyone else here!

Paganism is what drives Gentile "Christianity." You hit the nail on the head.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I stated that the "star of David" is of pagan origins, the very star you are sporting as your avatar!

Yes, that verse applies to Gentiles who believe they are of the seed of Abraham all because of Saul's words in Galatians 3:29. THEY ARE of the assembly of the adversary opposed to God.

So, you hate Paul? Your lone star thinking that drips from your words is most telling.

The synagogue of Satan are Gentiles who say they are Jews never being of the seed of Abraham but use Galatians 3:29 as their authority as being of the seed of Abraham. Such teaching IS Satanic.

I don't hold to replacement theology. Gentiles do.

Yes, and as a Gentile, you appear to be adopting what is not yours for the taking.

All three Hebrew covenants are between God and the Hebrew people. Gentiles have no part in these Hebrew covenants. If Jesus were still here on earth these past 1900 years, He would STILL be teaching the people the Law and command obedience to it.

I don't know what Jesus you're talking about, but the Yahshuah of scripture would teach precisely what He inspired His apostles to teach, which is that a number of changes have occurred in the Law, and thus it's passing as a thing to which we must all obey. There is much of the Law that not even YOU obey, so please spare us all the empty platitudes for obedience to what even YOU do not obey!

No, Gentiles lay claim to being Abraham's seed using Galatians 3:29.

You do!

God has eternal covenant with the Hebrew people born from Abraham.

I agree.

Gentiles have nothing to lay claim on. They have no covenant with God and Jesus as High Priest doesn't even include them in any deliverance from sin and death.

And the Holy Spirit is the Law of God whom God said He would put in their (House of Israel's) inward parts.
God never said this to Gentiles.

You really have a dim view of Gentiles, which includes you in that number. Why is that? They have been grafted into the same vine as Christ, right along with us Jews, even though we were cut off and cast aside, and will be grafted back in as a people, given that "...all Israel shall be saved."

MM

 

[jeremiah1five]

And yet the Mosaic Law was indeed a yoke, burden, enslavement, no matter how long after the fact.

How double minded can a person get?
You say the Law of Moses "enslaved" the children of Israel" and I called you on that lie and you tell me you didn't say that. Now you say the Law of God is a "yoke" a "burden" and "enslavement" God placed upon the children of Israel. So, God "enslaves" people, even the apple of His eye and His Betrothed? That reminds me of a man who physically abuses his GF or wife.

God's Law reveals God's grace. But Gentiles have this idea that by misinterpreting passages of Scripture they set Law and grace against each other. How can God be against God? Isn't that what Jesus said about a kingdom divided cannot stand? More false Gentile theology.

He was vastly more authoritative then you or anyone else here!

Peter's authority is not "vastly authoritative than [mine.] Authority merely means being given permission to do a thing. In the body of Christ, we are given a place in the body, and a calling to do service to the Lord and He gives us spiritual gifts to accomplish that call. Peter's authority to accomplish his call to the Lord is not "vastly authoritative" than mine or any other brethren who know their call, their place in the body and their spiritual gifts to accomplish that call. When you elevate members in the body above others you fulfill James' words about telling a man in fine apparel to sit at the head of the table and make someone who has equal rights in the kingdom of God wearing a pauper clothing to sit at your footstool. This is a sinful attitude and reveals a heart that practices "schizmo" (schizism) which is dividing the body of Christ through lack of love. It's like taking an axe to a block of wood and bringing it down upon the wood. The cleavage appears but there's no way to repair the division of slits you've created.

All this shows me is you never studied the meaning or the body of Christ, what calling is, what spiritual gifts are and our standing in the body of Christ as equal members in His eyes with different principal functions. Your biblical understanding is no doubt Gentile in origin and superficial in depth.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I stated that the "star of David" is of pagan origins, the very star you are sporting as your avatar!

Yes, that's the theology of Gentiles to discredit the Hebrews' place in their own covenants. It's usurpation of Israel as God's Chosen people, His Church, His Bride because pathological people do this behavior as they are self-conscious about themselves and have a crazed mental condition. It's the same for people on the ladder of success in the business world. They get up the ladder by stepping on others. Each of the twelve Hebrew tribes were given standards by God to represent them. Each tribe has a representative stone or mineral, flower, statement, mission, on their banner. Each tribe reflect some aspect of the character and Person of King of Israel. Your understanding of the Magen David is only biased antisemitism.

So, you hate Paul? Your lone star thinking that drips from your words is most telling.

I don't hate Saul. The man is Hebrew and the instruction to me of "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee (Abram the Hebrew) applies. No, I love God's Elect, Chosen, Church and Bride and apple of His eye. She looks marvelous at the side of her husband. Beautiful. Stunning. Gorgeous. Pure. Chaste. Without blemish.

I have found in Saul's letters he contradicts himself on major doctrine three times, changes a word of an Old Testament prophecy to make the prophecy say something else entirely in one of his letters. I also know that Gentiles who collected scrolls to put together a bible chose out writings that seem to support Gentile positions of doctrine, such as those that seem to claim Gentiles in the Abrahamic Covenant or that Gentiles have replaced Israel as God's "Church" "Bride" "Elect", even terms like "saint" that describe Israel and make them apply to Gentiles in our present dispensation. It's called "Inheritance theft" and Gentiles are guilty of it.

Yes, and as a Gentile, you appear to be adopting what is not yours for the taking.

I am not Gentile.

I don't know what Jesus you're talking about, but the Yahshuah of scripture would teach precisely what He inspired His apostles to teach,

Jesus taught the children of Israel God's Law. Examples of this are in Matthew 5.
As believers we would have the same instruction and that is to teach others in the body of Christ God's Law. There's no other set of Laws given to God's people to live by. Some pastors do this on Sunday mornings when they say, "let's turn to Isaiah 53," or "Psalms 22," or "Exodus 20." But the right pastors do not teach letter of the Law, but spirit of the Law as did all the Lord's apostles and then some.

which is that a number of changes have occurred in the Law, and thus it's passing as a thing to which we must all obey.

Jesus declared He didn't come to destroy the Law. Now think for a second. If the Law was written by the finger of God on stone and someone wanted to change the Law, they would typically have to use a hammer and chisel. This runs the risk of chipping something in the stone that cannot be repaired with glue or marker, and if a piece of stone is inadvertently chipped that was not intended then the stone is destroyed and cannot be repaired or used. That is the meaning of what Jesus said. So, any change in the Law - as you claim - is adding to the Law and any change effectively destroys the Law. Not even God Himself can change the Law. Gentiles may teach, "Oh, but God changed the priesthood in the Law."
There was no change because the prophecies of Moses and other prophets when put together reveal the Lamb of God as being the sacrifice and intercessor (intermediary) between God and man in the economy of God towards man. Beginning with Moses' declaration that God would "raise up a Prophet like unto me" and the prophecies that followed all help identify not only the plan of God's redemption of His Chosen Israel but the character and ministry of the Redeemer so that it may "appear" to be a change in the priesthood, but it is a priesthood that was already part of God's Law. God's redemption of the Hebrew people is progressive, not immediate. It's "line upon line, precept upon precept" and takes place piece by piece in every generation of the Hebrew people. It's a redemption that to date has taken six-thousand years to bring to a conclusion and there are still dozens of prophecies left to be fulfilled by God towards Israel.

There is much of the Law that not even YOU obey, so please spare us all the empty platitudes for obedience to what even YOU do not obey!

My justification is completed. I have been declared by God as having obeyed ALL His Law perfectly and obediently and this is the basis of His declaring me, "NOT GUILTY!"
But you don't understand this. You've never been discipled in the things of God under the anointing. You take Gentile theology from commentaries, other men's bible studies, and other Gentile theology books so readily without investigating every statement, every doctrine, every teaching without studying these things for yourself to see if they got it right and what these Gentiles say is in line with history and the bible. I know, because I was where you are today. But God called me out of that false church. And I thank God for it.

You do!
I agree.
You really have a dim view of Gentiles, which includes you in that number.

I am as a believer commanded and instructed to see the same Jesus of the bible and say the same thing as God.
And I do.
Gentiles are NOTHING!
Gentiles are NOTHING in God's eyes.
There. I've said the same thing as God.

Why is that? They have been grafted into the same vine as Christ, right along with us Jews, even though we were cut off and cast aside, and will be grafted back in as a people, given that "...all Israel shall be saved."

MM

There ya go. Gentile re-interpretation of God's Word.
Never does it say the "wild" Olive tree branches are Gentiles. There is no Scripture in all the bible that says Gentiles are an Olive tree let alone "wild" Olive tree. So, if this cannot be found in the Old Testament as type and shadow then it cannot be proved as existing in the New Covenant writings.
It's the disobedient that were broken off and grafted back in.
And it has nothing to do with Gentiles.

 

[Musicmaster]

How double minded can a person get?
You say the Law of Moses "enslaved" the children of Israel" and I called you on that lie and you tell me you didn't say that. Now you say the Law of God is a "yoke" a "burden" and "enslavement" God placed upon the children of Israel. So, God "enslaves" people, even the apple of His eye and His Betrothed? That reminds me of a man who physically abuses his GF or wife.

God's Law reveals God's grace. But Gentiles have this idea that by misinterpreting passages of Scripture they set Law and grace against each other. How can God be against God? Isn't that what Jesus said about a kingdom divided cannot stand? More false Gentile theology.

Peter's authority is not "vastly authoritative than [mine.] Authority merely means being given permission to do a thing. In the body of Christ, we are given a place in the body, and a calling to do service to the Lord and He gives us spiritual gifts to accomplish that call. Peter's authority to accomplish his call to the Lord is not "vastly authoritative" than mine or any other brethren who know their call, their place in the body and their spiritual gifts to accomplish that call. When you elevate members in the body above others you fulfill James' words about telling a man in fine apparel to sit at the head of the table and make someone who has equal rights in the kingdom of God wearing a pauper clothing to sit at your footstool. This is a sinful attitude and reveals a heart that practices "schizmo" (schizism) which is dividing the body of Christ through lack of love. It's like taking an axe to a block of wood and bringing it down upon the wood. The cleavage appears but there's no way to repair the division of slits you've created.

All this shows me is you never studied the meaning or the body of Christ, what calling is, what spiritual gifts are and our standing in the body of Christ as equal members in His eyes with different principal functions. Your biblical understanding is no doubt Gentile in origin and superficial in depth.

Yes, that's the theology of Gentiles to discredit the Hebrews' place in their own covenants. It's usurpation of Israel as God's Chosen people, His Church, His Bride because pathological people do this behavior as they are self-conscious about themselves and have a crazed mental condition. It's the same for people on the ladder of success in the business world. They get up the ladder by stepping on others. Each of the twelve Hebrew tribes were given standards by God to represent them. Each tribe has a representative stone or mineral, flower, statement, mission, on their banner. Each tribe reflect some aspect of the character and Person of King of Israel. Your understanding of the Magen David is only biased antisemitism.

I don't hate Saul. The man is Hebrew and the instruction to me of "I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee (Abram the Hebrew) applies. No, I love God's Elect, Chosen, Church and Bride and apple of His eye. She looks marvelous at the side of her husband. Beautiful. Stunning. Gorgeous. Pure. Chaste. Without blemish.

I have found in Saul's letters he contradicts himself on major doctrine three times, changes a word of an Old Testament prophecy to make the prophecy say something else entirely in one of his letters. I also know that Gentiles who collected scrolls to put together a bible chose out writings that seem to support Gentile positions of doctrine, such as those that seem to claim Gentiles in the Abrahamic Covenant or that Gentiles have replaced Israel as God's "Church" "Bride" "Elect", even terms like "saint" that describe Israel and make them apply to Gentiles in our present dispensation. It's called "Inheritance theft" and Gentiles are guilty of it.

I am not Gentile.

Jesus taught the children of Israel God's Law. Examples of this are in Matthew 5.
As believers we would have the same instruction and that is to teach others in the body of Christ God's Law. There's no other set of Laws given to God's people to live by. Some pastors do this on Sunday mornings when they say, "let's turn to Isaiah 53," or "Psalms 22," or "Exodus 20." But the right pastors do not teach letter of the Law, but spirit of the Law as did all the Lord's apostles and then some.

You can kick against what Peter said all you want! That only hints at the idea of YOU thinking that you're some sort of greater authority than Peter and the counsel of apostles in Jerusalem. If you think Peter was a renegade, and therefore not having spoken the very sentiments and beliefs of those men, then PROVE IT! Only a viper will try to stand as a higher authority than that of the apostles, calling them liars, and if you are one of those, then this will betray you for all to see!

It really is just that simple!

So, did Peter speak truly, or was he a liar speaking things that did not reflect what the apostles as a whole believed? Peter's accusation against the Judaizers TEMPTING GOD (putting Him to the test as to if God is evil or good), then PROVE YOUR CASE!

If you're going to try and claim that he wasn't talking about the Mosaic Law, then PROVE IT!

MM

MM