Daniel 9

[Eleanor]

God has immutable qualities that make Him not only God but perfect and just. So, God can not lie, so we know Jesus is going to rile a 1000 years with Abrahams "real" seed, the physical ones, in Jerusalem.

Your error is thinking that prophetic riddles not spoken clearly are literal rather than figurative.

Why is it not just for God to program human being to do his will? The same exact reason slavery is always wrong.

Please show where Scripture says slavery is wrong.

No it is not,

That you disagree with the plain text of 1 Th 4:15-17 puts you in error, not the text.

1 Cor. 15 specifically states that our flesh and blood can not enter heaven,

And being unaware of how Paul uses flesh and blood to mean the unregenerate man, you misunderstand 1 Co 15.

so that is why we need to be CHANGED in the twinkling of an eye, and thus we go to e with the Lord, in Heaven, as Spirit men, then receive our glorious bodies in heaven. 1 Cor. 15 also says the dead in Christ are raised as SPIRIT MEN, see below:

And not understanding Paul's meaning of "spiritual" (i.e., of the domain of the Holy Spirit), you incorrectly use it to mean "spirit."

1 Cor. 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

You are in error, God specifically has laws against slavery,

Please present the Biblical teaching on slavery, being true to its context.

servitude was nit slavery. Paul using a word is not a stand i for God's laws,
it was illegal fir any Jew to sit in wait and capture another human being.

That is man stealing, which is not the slavery authorized in Scripture.

 

[Rev. Man Ron]

Your error is thinking that prophetic riddles not spoken clearly are literal rather than figurative.

My calling of 40 years is prophecy, I just see the abstract better than others and put it al together.

Please show where Scripture says slavery is wrong.

Exodus 21:16 ESV “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:2-6 ESV When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

The problem with most people is they do not dig deep enough to understand that people sold themselves into servitude, just like Jacob did to win Rachel, but that is not really slavery, even though the bible calls it that in places, if we enter a contract, that is servitude, not slavery. I do not have the time to go in depth but thee are a few Youtube videos that go in depth on this. Also, God made "RULES" for men, we are sinners, God is just. But any Jew who enslaved a man would be put to death. If a man sold himself into servitude, God had laws for that, like Jacob, after 7 years he goes free with a certain percentage of the livestock, with monies with all of his family etc. So, in essence, Servitude is not Slavery, even though it is called that in the Translations we have.

That you disagree with the plain text of 1 Th 4:15-17 puts you in error, not the text.

Well, I do not really even understand what your point is here my sister, I covered so much, and I proved our Spirit Man is what goes to heaven, so I assume you are reaching a bit and saying that the Dead in Christ rise first, but it ALL HAPPENS in the twinkling of an eye, so you do understand that is faster than a second right?

By reading 1 Thess. and even 2 Thess. 2:3 which is the Departure of the Church, not the Departure from the faith, anyway, the Thessalonians had been asking about their loved, fretting that their loved ones would not be taken at the Rapture, so Paul turns it n them a wee bit, and he also puts a little spin on it, basically when he says "Hey, your loved ones (the dead) will be RAISED FIRST and then in a blink of an eye we will be raised, he's shooting the breeze in a letter, he neve intended his letters to be "Thus saith the Lord scriptures" (and they really aren't they are just his Epistles to his flock). But, he turns it back on them, as if to say, or think, oh you faithless, God is going to raise up your loved ones first, now you are going to start worrying about being raptured yourselves I guess !! So, when he says al this happens in the blink of an eye what part of that doesn't mean at the exact same time? He even say we will all meet the Lord in the air. If you wish to think a blink of an eyes is FIRST the be my guest, I understand what Paul is saying there. He is just letting the know God can be trusted in what He promises.

And being unaware of how Paul uses flesh and blood to mean the unregenerate man, you misunderstand 1 Co 15.

I showed exactly what it means.

And not understanding Paul's meaning of "spiritual" (i.e., of the domain of the Holy Spirit), you incorrectly use it to mean "spirit."

It says the dead are raised without CORRUPTION, then says Flesh and Blood can not enter heaven, then says that we must be changed, so its obvious the Dead are raised without SIN FLESH, and we must be changed. Its simple and obvious stuff tbh.

 

[makesends]

Why do you keep ignoring the full context of Romans 9-11? What does that verse say? And all Israel will be saved. Where does it say that? Right after it explains that because Israel rejected, by mercy salvation spread to the Gentiles, and in the same way, Israel will be shown mercy. Why do you keep ignoring/denying that? Even Augustine found he could not ignore it.

Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

 

[makesends]

Called out assembly is not a spiritual thing like the body of Christ.

It is simply a group of people separated from the world to be an assembly before God, as in the nation Israel.
Adam, Noah, Job, etc. were not part of either group (assembly, Israel), and there is no reason for them to be a part of those groups.

However, this is not about the elect to salvation, any more than the nation Israel is elect to salvation.
The assembly (ekklesia) is Israel in the OT (Ac 7:38) and the church (ekklesia) in the NT (Ac 20:28).
It's the literal meaning of the word "church," which church goes all the way back to Abraham (Ro 11:16-23).

It's the same as Adam, Noah, Job, etc. not being Israel.

Thanks. That answers my questions, and I understand what you were referring to.

 

[Eleanor]

My calling of 40 years is prophecy, I just see the abstract better than others and put it al together.

Exodus 21:16 ESV “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

Strawman.

The slavery practiced in Israel was not man-stealing.

Exodus 21:2-6 ESV When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
The problem with most people is they do not dig deep enough to understand that people sold themselves into servitude, just like Jacob did to win Rachel, but that is not really slavery, even though the bible calls it that in places

And that is where we disagree. The above is Biblical slavery, and it is not man-stealing.

if we enter a contract, that is servitude, not slavery. I do not have the time to go in depth but thee are a few Youtube videos that go in depth on this. Also, God made "RULES" for men, we are sinners, God is just. But any Jew who enslaved a man would be put to death. If a man sold himself into servitude, God had laws for that, like Jacob, after 7 years he goes free with a certain percentage of the livestock, with monies with all of his family etc. So, in essence, Servitude is not Slavery, even though it is called that in the Translations we have.

That is Bibilical slavery, and that is what I am talking about. when I say slavery is not unjust.

Well, I do not really even understand what your point is here my sister, I covered so much, and I proved our Spirit Man is what goes to heaven

You did no such thing, for there is no "Spirit Man" in the NT.
You do not understand Paul's use of "flesh, "natural" nor "spiritual."
Paul never uses "spiritual" to be mean bodiless, immaterial, or non-physical,
he always uses it to mean the realm of the Holy Spirit.
The 'spiritual man" is the sinless, immortal, glorified physical resurrection body, while the "natural man" is the sinful, mortal, weak physical body that goes into the grave..

so I assume you are reaching a bit and saying that the Dead in Christ rise first, but it ALL HAPPENS in the twinkling of an eye, so you do understand that is faster than a second right?

I am making no reference to the resurrection itself, I am discussing the nature of the resurrection body as physical, material flesh and bones, as was Jesus resurrection body, and it not being a bodiless "Spirit Man" as you present.

By reading 1 Thess. and even 2 Thess. 2:3 which is the Departure of the Church, not the Departure from the faith, anyway, the Thessalonians had been asking about their loved, fretting that their loved ones would not be taken at the Rapture, so Paul turns it n them a wee bit, and he also puts a little spin on it, basically when he says "Hey, your loved ones (the dead) will be RAISED FIRST and then in a blink of an eye we will be raised, he's shooting the breeze in a letter, he neve intended his letters to be "Thus saith the Lord scriptures"

Oh, WOW!. . .Just WOW!!!. . .some Scripture is just "shooting the breeze," never intended to be Scripture.

40 years, you say?

"HOUSTON, ARE YOU SEEIN' THIS?"

Well, that explains it all.
We have no basis for discussion if you do not believe all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

(and they really aren't they are just his Epistles to his flock). But, he turns it back on them, as if to say, or think, oh you faithless, God is going to raise up your loved ones first, now you are going to start worrying about being raptured yourselves I guess !! So, when he says al this happens in the blink of an eye what part of that doesn't mean at the exact same time? He even say we will all meet the Lord in the air. If you wish to think a blink of an eyes is FIRST the be my guest, I understand what Paul is saying there. He is just letting the know God can be trusted in what He promises.

It says the dead are raised without CORRUPTION, then says Flesh and Blood can not enter heaven, then says that we must be changed, so its obvious the Dead are raised without SIN FLESH, and we must be changed. Its simple and obvious stuff tbh.

Without sinful flesh does not mean without flesh altogether, it means with a transformed flesh from sinful to sinless, from mortal to immortal,
from weak to glorious.[/B]

 

[armylngst]

Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

If that is your response, then pray that God opens your eyes. There is A LOT more to it than that. There is a lot more to all of it than that.

 

[Carbon]

Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

That's true.

 

[Carbon]

Hmmm. Yes, I believe this text. But right now I have to ask as it came into my mind, what does "...are Isreal" mean? And this was written to the Roman believers, who were both Jew and Gentile, so does it apply to both?

Spiritual Israel of course.

 

[makesends]

Hmmm. Yes, I believe this text. But right now I have to ask as it came into my mind, what does "...are Isreal" mean? And this was written to the Roman believers, who were both Jew and Gentile, so does it apply to both?

Not really sure what you are asking me, by, "apply". The letter is written to both, but the principle contextually is that one's genetic heritage is no guarantee of any special status or mercy.

 

[makesends]

If that is your response, then pray that God opens your eyes. There is A LOT more to it than that. There is a lot more to all of it than that.

Of course there is a lot more to all of it than that. But it is relevant, none-the-less. And you seemed to ignore its relevance.

 

[armylngst]

Hmmm. Yes, I believe this text. But right now I have to ask as it came into my mind, what does "...are Isreal" mean? And this was written to the Roman believers, who were both Jew and Gentile, so does it apply to both?

This is the reason why you can't deal in snippets. (Which people do when the word in whole does not support their beliefs.) You have to look at the context. That is the context of the passage, and then, if there is a fuller context across scripture (Old and New Testaments), you have to consider that as well.

 

[Rev. Man Ron]

This is the reason why you can't deal in snippets. (Which people do when the word in whole does not support their beliefs.) You have to look at the context. That is the context of the passage, and then, if there is a fuller context across scripture (Old and New Testaments), you have to consider that as well.

Yes, manty see the Church as taking Israel's place, nothing can be further from the truth. The reason Paul tells the Roman's not all Israel is Israel is because Israel was born of God, because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all begot Israel via faith in God. Not every Jew will chose to believe thus not all Jews are of God. So why is he telling the Romans this? He wants them to understand that they also can fall into unbelief, he in fact warns them of this in Rom. 11. Paul probably understand (from God) the significance in the future Roman Church overcoming Rome the Beast, delivering the Mortal Wound to the Beast head. The Latin Vulgate and the Roman Church was vital to spreading the Gospel.

But as Paul says, Israel's calling is without repentance, she will rule with Jesus fir 1000 years, unless we are Martyrs who refused the Mark of the Beast we will not rule on earth with Jesus, read Rev. 20:4 it specifically states that only those Martyrs who died refusing the Mark reign on earth (with Glorious bodies) with Jesus for the 1000 years, I mean how many does he need? Those of us who are dead or Raptured will nit rule with Jesus 1000 years, we go back to heaven, probably to finish off the New Jerusalem, after all it is called the Bride of Christ when it descends.

They indeed take snippets and do not query out all the info.

 

[armylngst]

Of course there is a lot more to all of it than that. But it is relevant, none-the-less. And you seemed to ignore its relevance.

So, the relevance of the "God has rejected Israel though Paul says He has not" is more relevant than the greater context that Paul was dealing with? (That is where my issue with it lies.) There is a greater context ignored by the Catholic church, and in turn, since it was given birth by the Catholic Church... Preterism.

Yes, manty see the Church as taking Israel's place, nothing can be further from the truth. The reason Paul tells the Roman's not all Israel is Israel is because Israel was born of God, because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all begot Israel via faith in God. Not every Jew will chose to believe thus not all Jews are of God. So why is he telling the Romans this? He wants them to understand that they also can fall into unbelief, he in fact warns them of this in Rom. 11. Paul probably understand (from God) the significance in the future Roman Church overcoming Rome the Beast, delivering the Mortal Wound to the Beast head. The Latin Vulgate and the Roman Church was vital to spreading the Gospel.

That is definitely part of what Paul is telling the Roman's, but he is also warning them against boasting against Israel. God removed them to take us in, to the point of pushing God has rejected Israel. The Roman Church lost its way a long time ago, to the point where there is no value to be found there. The moment they introduced Marydolatry, they completely derailed the train.

But as Paul says, Israel's calling is without repentance, she will rule with Jesus fir 1000 years, unless we are Martyrs who refused the Mark of the Beast we will not rule on earth with Jesus, read Rev. 20:4 it specifically states that only those Martyrs who died refusing the Mark reign on earth (with Glorious bodies) with Jesus for the 1000 years, I mean how many does he need? Those of us who are dead or Raptured will nit rule with Jesus 1000 years, we go back to heaven, probably to finish off the New Jerusalem, after all it is called the Bride of Christ when it descends.

They indeed take snippets and do not query out all the info.

Would that not point out Israel as the bride of Christ? Just a question, I don't actually have a final answer to that, either way.

 

[armylngst]

Hmmm. Yes, I believe this text. But right now I have to ask as it came into my mind, what does "...are Isreal" mean? And this was written to the Roman believers, who were both Jew and Gentile, so does it apply to both?

Consider the verse (for fun): "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.""

Whose offspring?

Frame the scripture first. Israel was the chosen nation of God. As such, the Israelistes considered themselves God's people to the point that they could do no wrong. They are God's people, therefore they are saved and the Gentiles... no, not them. They aren't saved. The Jews believed salvation was their inheritance simply for being, God's chosen people. (I speak generally)

Here God sets the record straight. Just because you are a Jew, does not mean you have a place in God. Only those who come through Isaac are considered the children of Abraham. Everyone else is just a descendant. (Again, this is generally speaking.) Isaac is an archetype of Christ. The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham was prophetic to what would happen at the cross. Jesus took the place of the believer who were to be sacrificed (figuratively speaking) for their sin. So, those Jews who accept the Messiah are Israel, are truly the children of Abraham, and not simply a descendant. They are the ones who come through Isaac, that is through Christ. (who was also of Israel, as a Jew.)

This is why there are three kinds of branches, though five are mentioned, in Romans 11. The Jew who is born again, which is the natural branch that was always a part of the tree. The unbelieving Jew, which is the natural branch that was removed from the tree for unbelief. The Gentile of faith, which is the foreign branch that is grafted into the tree. The unbelieving Jew who comes to believe, which is the natural branch that is reattached to the tree. The Gentile of faith who ceases to continue in God, which is the foreign branch that is removed from the tree after having been grafted in.

This should make it clear that the church is not Israel. The Gentile branches are foreign to the tree, but are grafted in. They remain foreign, but are a part of the tree in that the branch gets nourishment from the tree. They do not become natural branches. The natural branches (Jews) that are removed and reattached remain natural branches. This does not mean that Israel and the church are divided, but that Israel is it, and the church became PART of Israel, but it did not take the place of Israel. The end of Revelation, and Zechariah 12 (yes there are other prophecies) deals with the branches that had been detached from the tree. God will reattach them. (I will stay away from the word ALL, but I believe it will be all... the branches that haven't been burned or ceased to exist due to death.) It will be for belief, just as Paul says in Romans 11. All who remain after the attempted destruction of Jerusalem by all who oppose Christ, will be saved by the grace and mercy of God. God will open their eyes to Him whom they had pierced.

Note how Paul says that Israel has not been rejected, because he (and others) were not rejected. Consider the rationality and logic of Paul in that statement. He is conflating individual Jews with Israel. If God rejected Israel, then God has rejected all who are of Israel, to include Paul and all the apostles. Since God did not reject them, then God has not rejected Israel.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, tribulation in general, however what about the time the Lord said regarding the A/D and `For there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.` (Matt. 24: 21) ?

He was referring to 1st cent Judea until v29. ‘Gea’ can sometimes just mean the land/country being spoken of. Most references in the section are pertinent to 1st cent. Judea.

 

[EarlyActs]

So, the relevance of the "God has rejected Israel though Paul says He has not" is more relevant than the greater context that Paul was dealing with? (That is where my issue with it lies.) There is a greater context ignored by the Catholic church, and in turn, since it was given birth by the Catholic Church... Preterism.

That is definitely part of what Paul is telling the Roman's, but he is also warning them against boasting against Israel. God removed them to take us in, to the point of pushing God has rejected Israel. The Roman Church lost its way a long time ago, to the point where there is no value to be found there. The moment they introduced Marydolatry, they completely derailed the train.

Would that not point out Israel as the bride of Christ? Just a question, I don't actually have a final answer to that, either way.

Well there is the image of Rev 18 that the adulterous Levitical wife is stoned and Christ gains a true bride. But we must all stop thinking in terms of race-nations Bc even that analogy would be about Judaism , not Jewish Christians at the time.

 

[EarlyActs]

Consider the verse (for fun): "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.""

Whose offspring?

Frame the scripture first. Israel was the chosen nation of God. As such, the Israelistes considered themselves God's people to the point that they could do no wrong. They are God's people, therefore they are saved and the Gentiles... no, not them. They aren't saved. The Jews believed salvation was their inheritance simply for being, God's chosen people. (I speak generally)

Here God sets the record straight. Just because you are a Jew, does not mean you have a place in God. Only those who come through Isaac are considered the children of Abraham. Everyone else is just a descendant. (Again, this is generally speaking.) Isaac is an archetype of Christ. The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham was prophetic to what would happen at the cross. Jesus took the place of the believer who were to be sacrificed (figuratively speaking) for their sin. So, those Jews who accept the Messiah are Israel, are truly the children of Abraham, and not simply a descendant. They are the ones who come through Isaac, that is through Christ. (who was also of Israel, as a Jew.)

This is why there are three kinds of branches, though five are mentioned, in Romans 11. The Jew who is born again, which is the natural branch that was always a part of the tree. The unbelieving Jew, which is the natural branch that was removed from the tree for unbelief. The Gentile of faith, which is the foreign branch that is grafted into the tree. The unbelieving Jew who comes to believe, which is the natural branch that is reattached to the tree. The Gentile of faith who ceases to continue in God, which is the foreign branch that is removed from the tree after having been grafted in.

This should make it clear that the church is not Israel. The Gentile branches are foreign to the tree, but are grafted in. They remain foreign, but are a part of the tree in that the branch gets nourishment from the tree. They do not become natural branches. The natural branches (Jews) that are removed and reattached remain natural branches. This does not mean that Israel and the church are divided, but that Israel is it, and the church became PART of Israel, but it did not take the place of Israel. The end of Revelation, and Zechariah 12 (yes there are other prophecies) deals with the branches that had been detached from the tree. God will reattach them. (I will stay away from the word ALL, but I believe it will be all... the branches that haven't been burned or ceased to exist due to death.) It will be for belief, just as Paul says in Romans 11. All who remain after the attempted destruction of Jerusalem by all who oppose Christ, will be saved by the grace and mercy of God. God will open their eyes to Him whom they had pierced.

Note how Paul says that Israel has not been rejected, because he (and others) were not rejected. Consider the rationality and logic of Paul in that statement. He is conflating individual Jews with Israel. If God rejected Israel, then God has rejected all who are of Israel, to include Paul and all the apostles. Since God did not reject them, then God has not rejected Israel.

He can say there was rejection generally but still allow exceptions of believers. The NT does not essentially have race-nation categories about this.

 

[armylngst]

He was referring to 1st cent Judea until v29. ‘Gea’ can sometimes just mean the land/country being spoken of. Most references in the section are pertinent to 1st cent. Judea.

So, since there was times that were worse than what happened to 1st Century Judea, did Jesus make some mistake? I mean, they faced the loss of what, a few hundred thousand and the destruction of Jerusalem? I mean, That was Hitler's coffee break. Half the population of all the Jews in Europe wiped out. 6+ million Jews, as part of an attempt to eradicate them all. Also, Jesus says that His physical return would happen immediately after that all happens. Yet... we are still waiting over two millennia later.

 

[armylngst]

Well there is the image of Rev 18 that the adulterous Levitical wife is stoned and Christ gains a true bride. But we must all stop thinking in terms of race-nations Bc even that analogy would be about Judaism , not Jewish Christians at the time.

I read it, since you mentioned it, so... could you point out where it says this, because I can't find it anywhere in there.

 

[armylngst]

He can say there was rejection generally but still allow exceptions of believers. The NT does not essentially have race-nation categories about this.

Then why didn't he? Why was he clear that the fact that he (and the apostles) are believers shows that God did not reject his people. Why would he even suggest that if God had rejected his people, then Paul would not be a believer? Why? Perhaps if you actually dealt with the question instead of just tossing it to the side with a simple "he can say there was rejection generally". Paul did not say that. He was adamant that the fact that he is who he said he is, proves that God had not rejected His people.