Jesus' coming Kingdom on land.

[Ronda]

"Wretched": I believe there are certainly truths we can learn from in Hebrews as well as James, just as there are truths we can find in the old testament.  For example, I believe we should "follow" the truths of the 10 commandments as shown in the OT.  However, I do not believe our salvation is contingent upon following the 10 commandments, since Jesus has saved us by His work on the cross, and we are saved by grace, saved by faith and not of works.  Jesus righteousness was imputed upon us when we accepted His gift of salvation. Therefore, we are not obligated (for salvation) to follow the 10 commandments, but we are advised to follow the commandments to live lives pleasing to God.  The same could be said of truths we find in both Hebrews and James. I do not "throw out" Hebrews and James simply because they are not written TO me.   And I do not "throw out" the old testament either, even though it also is clearly not written TO me either. However, Hebrews and James are both clearly speaking TO.... Jewish people! And in reference TO a different dispensation.  As for the map (above), I do not recall what site I "grabbed" it from. But I can assure you, I didn't read to see what they were even talking about, but only wanted the map image as a visual representation to describe the differences in locations of the various epistles (e.g.: Rome/Corinth/Galatia, etc). So as I stated, I do (in part) agree with both "Critical Mass" and "Beam Me Up"... but I do not know (just from what was written by them as it was short) exactly how far either of them "rightly divides". What I did agree with (from both of them) was that Hebrews is not written TO the current church age group (those of us saved during this age of grace). I hope that explained what you were asking?

[Invicta]

No. Wrongly dividing.  Paul wrote to the Hebrews of his day.

Hebrews 1:1 ¶  God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

It is in our bibles so God intended it for us as well as the Hebrews.  Just as Titus, Timothy, Romans  etc are also for us.  
 

[Ronda]

If you use that line of reasoning

12 minutes ago, Invicta said:

It is in our bibles so God intended it for us as well as the Hebrews.  Just as Titus, Timothy, Romans  etc are also for us

If you use that line of reasoning, "Invicta", then I suppose you also believe that the old testament was written TO and applies TO you as well? 

Or is if you want to make a "rightly divided" line between the old testament and the new testament, I suppose you believe that the wrath of God described throughout Revelation 6+ is also written TO you and applies TO you as well? 

When you don't make any dispensational divisions, you end up with contradictions which need to be "explained away" by allegorizing and spiritualizing.  I feel confident God inspired the written word to be understood using the study method He prescribed. Noting different dispensations and the different methods with which God deals with mankind in different dispensations has been the key (for me) in understanding the bible using the "rightly dividing" method, and studying like a workman. Using this method brings perfect harmony, and no need to "explain away" contradictions, because there aren't contradictions once it is understood which people group and time period is referenced.

Edited December 18, 2015 by Ronda
mis-spelled "if" as "is"

[Invicta]

Yes but you are not rightly dividing.  Teaching what scripture doesn't is not rightly dividing.

[wretched]

16 minutes ago, Ronda said:

"Wretched": I believe there are certainly truths we can learn from in Hebrews as well as James, just as there are truths we can find in the old testament.  For example, I believe we should "follow" the truths of the 10 commandments as shown in the OT.  However, I do not believe our salvation is contingent upon following the 10 commandments, since Jesus has saved us by His work on the cross, and we are saved by grace, saved by faith and not of works.  Jesus righteousness was imputed upon us when we accepted His gift of salvation. Therefore, we are not obligated (for salvation) to follow the 10 commandments, but we are advised to follow the commandments to live lives pleasing to God.  The same could be said of truths we find in both Hebrews and James. I do not "throw out" Hebrews and James simply because they are not written TO me.   And I do not "throw out" the old testament either, even though it also is clearly not written TO me either. However, Hebrews and James are both clearly speaking TO.... Jewish people! And in reference TO a different dispensation.  As for the map (above), I do not recall what site I "grabbed" it from. But I can assure you, I didn't read to see what they were even talking about, but only wanted the map image as a visual representation to describe the differences in locations of the various epistles (e.g.: Rome/Corinth/Galatia, etc). So as I stated, I do (in part) agree with both "Critical Mass" and "Beam Me Up"... but I do not know (just from what was written by them as it was short) exactly how far either of them "rightly divides". What I did agree with (from both of them) was that Hebrews is not written TO the current church age group (those of us saved during this age of grace). I hope that explained what you were asking?

Sound good to me

[Ronda]

4 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Yes but you are not rightly dividing.  Teaching what scripture doesn't is not rightly dividing.

Let's start with this then...

James 1:1 "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting."

Who was the "book" of James written to?

[Invicta]

I don't see your point.  When James was alive he church was mainly Jewish,.

[Ronda]

Of course you never answered my questions... as usual.  Should I assume that you believe that the old testament was written TO you and that Revelation 6 onward also was written TO you as well?

Okay, with that reasoning... even though the very words say that the "book" of James was written TO " the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad", and by your own admission, they were "mainly Jewish"... You still somehow believe this "book" of James was written TO you?

 

Edited December 18, 2015 by Ronda

[Invicta]

I believe that all the scriptures were written for us.

2Tim 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Yes of course all Revelation was written to us,

[beameup]

I'll give an example of not "rightly dividing".  I attended a MAJOR Philippine church, led by an internationally known businessman & pastor.  His sermon was based upon Exodus 19:5-6, and he preached that this is "our destiny" as Christians that WE are a "Holy Nation" and we are a "Kingdom of Priests".

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."  Exodus 19:5-6

Augustine of Hippo pushed "Replacement Theology" in the 4th Century, a theology which prevailed at the Council of Nicea, where the Catholic Church was formed under the leadership of Emperor Constantine.  Under this "Theology", ALL scripture is FOR the "Church" since Israel totally failed and has been Replaced by the Church.  All the "promises of scripture" (Old Testament) now belong to the Church.  In this 1,500+ year old "theology", everywhere in the OT where "Israel" appears, we are to substitute "Church" (of course, any curses are somehow NOT applied to the Church).

[Critical Mass]

15 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

(Hebrews 1:1-2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The writer of Hebrews included himself (us) as having heard Jesus' words which were spoken (hath - present tense)...the last days were then and will continue until they end.

 

Peter included himself in the last days in Acts 2:16-21 also but it didn't happen. Obviously, there was a postponement because God had different plans to be revealed through the Apostle Paul.

12 hours ago, Invicta said:

No. Wrongly dividing.  Paul wrote to the Hebrews of his day.

Hebrews 1:1 ¶  God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2  Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

It is in our bibles so God intended it for us as well as the Hebrews.  Just as Titus, Timothy, Romans  etc are also for us.  
 

Yes, he did, but then Isaiah wrote to the Israelites of his day but it didn't get fulfilled until a much later time.

12 hours ago, Ronda said:

"Wretched": I believe there are certainly truths we can learn from in Hebrews as well as James, just as there are truths we can find in the old testament.  For example, I believe we should "follow" the truths of the 10 commandments as shown in the OT.  However, I do not believe our salvation is contingent upon following the 10 commandments, since Jesus has saved us by His work on the cross, and we are saved by grace, saved by faith and not of works.  Jesus righteousness was imputed upon us when we accepted His gift of salvation. Therefore, we are not obligated (for salvation) to follow the 10 commandments, but we are advised to follow the commandments to live lives pleasing to God.  The same could be said of truths we find in both Hebrews and James. I do not "throw out" Hebrews and James simply because they are not written TO me.   And I do not "throw out" the old testament either, even though it also is clearly not written TO me either. However, Hebrews and James are both clearly speaking TO.... Jewish people! And in reference TO a different dispensation.  As for the map (above), I do not recall what site I "grabbed" it from. But I can assure you, I didn't read to see what they were even talking about, but only wanted the map image as a visual representation to describe the differences in locations of the various epistles (e.g.: Rome/Corinth/Galatia, etc). So as I stated, I do (in part) agree with both "Critical Mass" and "Beam Me Up"... but I do not know (just from what was written by them as it was short) exactly how far either of them "rightly divides". What I did agree with (from both of them) was that Hebrews is not written TO the current church age group (those of us saved during this age of grace). I hope that explained what you were asking?

If whatever is written in the Jewish epistles aligns rightly with Paul's revelations then it's good to go. All scripture is profitable in a devotional way but it doesn't all doctrinally apply to the church.

[Critical Mass]

16 hours ago, wretched said:

 

 Are you claiming that the church is excluded from applying any portion of Hebrews to themselves.

 

 

No, unless it goes against the teaching of the apostle to the Gentiles. Apparently, God postponed his return until the church would be called out after the Jews rejected the Davidic Kingdom. A spiritual kingdom was needed to be created before the literal, physical kingdom of Christ. It's clear that the Jews were expecting the return of Christ in Acts 2 and Peter even quotes it as thus. My guess Hebrews was written early before the other Pauline epistles (not later as most say) and therefore there's an overlapping application. That is, it was a warning to the Jews of early Acts not to harden to the gospel or they would be cast off. Well, they hardened (and God knew they would) so God had a backup plan in calling out the body of Christ (made up of Jews and Gentiles). Now after the rapture Israel will be God's primary focus again and Hebrews will apply doctrinally to them again.

There are things that are doctrinally acceptable to the church in Hebrews (as well as the rest of the Jewish epistles) because the book was written to the early church (prior to Paul's revelation of the body of Christ) but you still need to be careful because there's a transitionary period taking place. It was so confusing that even Peter found Paul's words hard to understand.

Edited December 19, 2015 by Critical Mass

[No Nicolaitans]

10 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

Peter included himself in the last days in also but it didn't happen. Obviously, there was a postponement because God had different plans to be revealed through the Apostle Paul.

I humbly can't accept or believe that Peter...who was filled with the Holy Ghost ()...who God used to preach the message that led to the salvation of about 3,000 souls...preached a lie to those people. In essence, that's what it would come down to...if what Peter referenced from Joel was wrong, then... 

1. Peter (while filled with the Holy Ghost) preached a lie. 
2. God then used that lie as a catalyst to save about 3,000 people.
3. The Holy Spirit subsequently inspired Luke to include that lie in the word of God.

Peter was simply answering the people as to what the tongues were...that was what led to the sermon. That's why Peter said, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel". He was referring to the tongues.

He said that some things would happen "in the last days"...and they were witnessing what were included as signs of the last days.

All Peter said was that those things would happen "in the last days". Part of what he quoted was happening; part of what he quoted wasn't happening and didn't happen. Therefore, the last days included then, continue until now, and they will continue until they end. The signs that the people witnessed proved they were in the last days.

Peter did exactly what Paul said was required for salvation...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Peter preached the word of God (). The word of God that he used included signs of the last days. Part of those signs were being fulfilled at that very moment; therefore, the last days had already begun.

Peter preached the word of God (). The word of God that he used included signs of the last days. Part of those signs were not fulfilled at that very moment; however, that doesn't negate the previous signs (that were fulfilled) as belonging to the last days.

Peter preached the word of God (). The word of God that he quoted ended with "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". He then preached the remainder of the sermon expounding upon Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection; wherefore, that makes it possible for "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" can be saved through faith in Christ's atoning work. God used the word of God to bring about 3,000 souls to salvation. 

Peter wasn't wrong, and Peter didn't preach a lie. He laid out some signs of the last days according to the word of God. Part of those signs were fulfilled, and that signified that the last days were already happening then. 

Edited December 19, 2015 by No Nicolaitans
fix a typo...

[No Nicolaitans]

Great...I edited my post above to fix one little typing error, and all of my scripture references disappeared from the post? I'm afraid to try to edit it again...don't know what else might disappear!       

[Ronda]

"Invicta": FOR us and TO us are 2 separate things. But if you can't see the difference... I won't bother to expound of the REST of 2nd Timothy 2... the context... since you are assured in your stand-alone verse.

"Beameup": I agree, isn't it the strangest thing.... all of the blessings of Israel, they will (wrongly) claim.
Yet, using that same theory, wouldn't they also have to claim the curses? Hyposcrisy in the extreme. 
When they use that erroneous theory, they then also have to omit huge portions of scripture, and twist what is remaining to "fit" the theory.

There is no reverence for God's word (and even for God Himself), when a person has to (erroneously) decide that God didn't know who He was talking about or what He was referring to.
When there is no reverence for God, when God's word doesn't mean what it says (to them), there is no hope of explaining the truth to them... they can't see it.

"Critical Mass": I agree (for the most part), and I see a clear transition in Acts.

In Acts 6 we read of how the body of Christ is growing in the Jewish realm. The disciples multiplied, AND many of the (Jewish) priests also came to Christ as well. 
Acts 6:7 "And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."
8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

So what did Stephen do that so enraged the remaining Jewish elders and scribes?
He spoke the truth of the gospel. They then "set him up" with false witnesses. And tried him as a criminal.

In Acts 7 we read of how Stephen tried to give them a history lesson, and explain to them that the covenant of circumcision (v.8) had not been followed by many of the people, and then after the history given, Stephen then goes on to liken the very scribes and elders (he was speaking to) to the past events where some (of their forefathers) had been "stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears".
Stephen tells them (the elders and scribes) that "ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye".

This enraged them (because it was true). So we see in verse 54, " When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth."
Verse 57: "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord"

It goes on to tell that they stoned Stephen to death.

*********** So from this point ONWARD, the gospel is given to the Gentiles as well. Yes, there were still many Jewish people saved (just as there are today Messianic Jews). However, prior to this time, the gospel had been given to the Jewish people.
But here at the end of Acts 8 (with the stoning of Stephen) we see a clear transition from predominantly Jewish to predominantly Gentile AND Jewish happening.

In Acts 9 we read of Saul (later renamed Paul) being knocked to the ground and temporarily blinded. 
Ananias didn't even want to help Saul(Paul) because of the atroscities  atrocities he had committed against the Jewish people who had accepted Christ.
But God told Ananias (about Paul): "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."

In Acts 10 we read that Peter is given a dream. His dream shows him how Gentiles are no longer to be considered unclean.
Acts 10:28 "And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean"

And now we see the Gentiles also accepting Christ and receiving the Holy Spirit 
Acts 10:45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Paul (not Peter) was given the mystery.  Colossians 1:25 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;"   26 "Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:"  27 "To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:"

1 Cor 15:51 "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."

Peter, himself, admitted that Paul's doctrine was hard for him to understand (2 Pet 3:15-16).

Paul had to admonish Peter about preaching the "faith + works" theme of salvation, and corrected him about the gospel being grace by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), as this IS the age of grace.

"No Nicolaitanss": 

Paul was given the mystery, not Peter. Peter didn't truly understand that the Gentiles were also clean (made clean by the work of Jesus on the cross). God had to give Peter the dream (in Acts 10).
Yet, Peter still clung to many of the Jewish customs and traditions. 

In Galatians 2:14 we read: "14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
Paul admonishes Peter for his misunderstanding of salvation by Christ alone without works.

What's the BIG DEAL???
Peter's scripture still contains many "faith PLUS works" themes.
Paul's scripture contains the grace by faith.
Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Did Peter LIE? No, (and I don't think that's what "Critical Mass" is saying either). Peter did not lie, he speaks of a time when Jesus will come back to earth (last day references) in which the Jewish people will be going through the time of Jacob's trouble.
He didn't realize, nor understand, the rapture. That was revealed to PAUL!!!
Paul is the apostle who understood the difference between the dispensations of "grace by faith" compared to Peter's teachings of "faith PLUS works".
(We see Paul "calling out" Peter on this in Galatians 2:14)

Was Peter responsible for bringing countless numbers of people to Christ? YES!!!
Can we learn from Peter's scripture? YES! We can, but it was not written TO us, it was written to the Jewish people, and much of it pertains to the time of Jacob's trouble, and specifically to the Jews during that time. (Peter misunderstood and believed that time was going to happen RIGHT THEN is his day).

Paul was given the mystery of the rapture. (And taught in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4).
Peter was not given this mystery from God, and Paul attempted to correct Peter, but clearly Peter did not understand, as Peter said in 2 Pet. 3
15 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;"
16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

YES YES YES We CAN learn from Peter's writing (as well as Hebrews and James). But they are not written TO us because we do not need to follow a "faith PLUS works" doctrine, we are saved by grace in this dispensation.  Paul's writing pertain to THIS current age of grace...Paul's writing are written TO us (saved in this dispensation).  

 

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by Ronda
spelling