Baptist?

[prophet1]

I thought Christ started the church?

Find one spot in Matthew 24 were the Church is mentioned. You assume because he is speaking to the apostles then that must mean he is speaking to the church. The apostles were Jews waiting for the kingdom to be restored to Israel. The church hadn't even been purchased yet at this time. In fact, according to Acts 2:14-22 there was still a chance for Israel to be saved and the tribulation to begin in Acts 2:14-22.

Read Acts 2:14-22.

So, Peter and the other Apostles weren't part of the church?

Jesus never called them the church?

Jesus never taught them anything about the church?

They weren't the human founders, you know, the actual physical humans who spread the Gospel ?

You are not honest.

Anishinaabe

[Steve Schwenke]

Nice - calling us dishonest now....

In case anyone missed it,

 

Anyone who disagrees with prophet1 has "not done their research" and they are "dishonest." 

 

Great argument! 

(somehow I feel like I am in a 5th grade lunch room!)

[prophet1]

Mat 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Mat 18:17
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church:but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


These 2 passages come before chapter 24, so No one can insinuate that Jesus wasn't talking to the Church, when he spoke to the disciples.

Elect are elect, regardless of race.

Rom 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom 10:12
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek:for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Gal 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Col 3:11
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:but Christ is all, and in all.


Dispensational nonsense used to be universally rejected among Baptists, until we got all mixed in with the Protestants.

Anishinaabe

[Salyan]

Okay all, let's calm down a bit, shall we? Prophet, the personal remarks are unnecessary - and rude. Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation does not mean they are being dishonest.

[Ukulelemike]

I haven't heard of ZHM.

But I have heard of Peter, James, John, Philip, Andrew, and etc.

They were told this:

Mat 24:29-31
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

I actually do have a question about this verse. Jesus says thatr there shall be the sound of a great trumpet when He gathers His elect. Is this the trumpet AFTER the "last trump" that occurred seven years earlier? Which occurred before seven more trumps from the sevent trumpet judgments?

 

Just how many "last" trumps can there be? Or is there a last one for the churches, a last one for the seven anbd then yet another one a bit late for the second rapture, which is actually not a second, but the second part of the first one? Also the second part of the first resurrection?

 

I'm confused now.

[prophet1]

Okay all, let's calm down a bit, shall we? Prophet, the personal remarks are unnecessary - and rude. Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation does not mean they are being dishonest.

Anyone who says that the disciples weren't viewed, by Jesus, as the church, is agenda driven, and not honest.
I stand by these words.

We cannot get to the bottom of the debate between the Calvinistic Dispensationalism that crept in to our Baptist churches, during the last 150 years, and those who wish to see a return to pure doctrine, unless we honestly look at the Scriptures.

No one reading the Scriptures, without an agenda, would see the disciples as being instructed by Jesus to "not be the church" until after His resurrection.

Now, what Jesus said to the Pharisees, and sometimes to the multitudes, like Matthew 5:17-20,
Yes, He was fulfilling the role of schoolmaster, setting an impossible bar, above even the extra laws of the Pharisees.
But what he said privately, to the disciples, was teaching, training, discipling His Church.
He called them, He empowered them, He sent them out to preach that He was here, in the flesh.
The only thing that changed, after His ascension, was His location, the message did not.

If we can't see a dishonest agenda, in wanting to pretend that Jesus didn't consider the Disciples His Church, then we can't see our way into ever settling this debate.

Dishonesty has to be regarded as such.

I remind you, that I was told that because the word church doesn't appear in Chapter 24 of Matthew, Jesus isn't telling to the church.
But in Chapter 16, and 18, in time : prior to 24, He called them, or taught them as His Church.
So saying that that one chapter must include the word church, to be "to the church", even though there is not one single person on this board that would say that Peter, James, and John weren't part of the church,
is agenda driven dishonesty. It is an attempt to make easy to understand principals become null and void, due to chapter divisions, and not actual events.
I believe this to be purposeful deceit, for the sake of argument, and not sincere searching of the Scriptures for Truth.

Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

I actually do have a question about this verse. Jesus says thatr there shall be the sound of a great trumpet when He gathers His elect. Is this the trumpet AFTER the "last trump" that occurred seven years earlier? Which occurred before seven more trumps from the sevent trumpet judgments? Just how many "last" trumps can there be? Or is there a last one for the churches, a last one for the seven anbd then yet another one a bit late for the second rapture, which is actually not a second, but the second part of the first one? Also the second part of the first resurrection? I'm confused now.

1Co 15:52 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. You mean this last trump? How about the fact that God can't count? How many first resurrections are there? Rev 20:4-6 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. Cuz this one includes those who died in the Tribulation. Hey Bill Clinton, what is your definition of 'is'? Anishinaabe

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Anyone who says that the disciples weren't viewed, by Jesus, as the church, is agenda driven, and not honest.
I stand by these words.

We cannot get to the bottom of the debate between the Calvinistic Dispensationalism that crept in to our Baptist churches, during the last 150 years, and those who wish to see a return to pure doctrine, unless we honestly look at the Scriptures.

No one reading the Scriptures, without an agenda, would see the disciples as being instructed by Jesus to "not be the church" until after His resurrection.

Now, what Jesus said to the Pharisees, and sometimes to the multitudes, like Matthew 5:17-20,
Yes, He was fulfilling the role of schoolmaster, setting an impossible bar, above even the extra laws of the Pharisees.
But what he said privately, to the disciples, was teaching, training, discipling His Church.
He called them, He empowered them, He sent them out to preach that He was here, in the flesh.
The only thing that changed, after His ascension, was His location, the message did not.

If we can't see a dishonest agenda, in wanting to pretend that Jesus didn't consider the Disciples His Church, then we can't see our way into ever settling this debate.

Dishonesty has to be regarded as such.

I remind you, that I was told that because the word church doesn't appear in Chapter 24 of Matthew, Jesus isn't telling to the church.
But in Chapter 16, and 18, in time : prior to 24, He called them, or taught them as His Church.
So saying that that one chapter must include the word church, to be "to the church", even though there is not one single person on this board that would say that Peter, James, and John weren't part of the church,
is agenda driven dishonesty. It is an attempt to make easy to understand principals become null and void, due to chapter divisions, and not actual events.
I believe this to be purposeful deceit, for the sake of argument, and not sincere searching of the Scriptures for Truth.

Anishinaabe

the Apostle Paul reveals why you cannot understand that Matthew 24 is not speaking of the Church, but Israel.

You'll find that revelation in 2 Corinthians 2:14.

[DaveW]

Prophet, are you honestly suggesting that the ONLY way someone could disagree with you on this is if they are being deliberately dishonest?

There's no chance they could be genuinely mistaken?

That is a little more than presumptuous on your part I think.

Have you ever considered putting your point in a less adversarial and more discussion based way?

"You are OBviously a liar because you can't see what is OBvious" is hardly a civil discussion.......

[OLD fashioned preacher]

 Hey Bill Clinton, what is your definition of 'is'? Anishinaabe

THIS is what the last mod was referring to. Not your stand, not your outspoken defense of that stand. 

 

It is the extra, unnecessary, snippy comments.  Sometimes I wonder if people know how to express themselves without personal invective anymore.

 

IOW, if you wish to continue the argument, discontinue the cutting remarks.

[Ukulelemike]

THIS is what the last mod was referring to. Not your stand, not your outspoken defense of that stand. 

 

It is the extra, unnecessary, snippy comments.  Sometimes I wonder if people know how to express themselves without personal invective anymore.

 

IOW, if you wish to continue the argument, discontinue the cutting remarks.

I actually kind of understood that as a joke. But thats me.

 

Remember folks, we are dead in Christ, and the amazing thing about the dead? They don't get offended. 

 

I recently made a comment on Facebook about a young man showing off his tattoos, and declaring his love for God, so I asked him how, exactly, his tattoos were honoring to God. Another young man got on and told me that I was terrible, to keep to my own business and that I wasn;'t God and had no right to speak for God. I answered him that I wasn't speaking for God, but that my desire in life was for people who claim God to know if they are really honoring him. Then he rebuked me and called me Satan. So, I went back privately and rebuke him for that, asked how his tattoos of the enemy of man in the garden of Eden, (snakes) was honoring to God. I quoted the verses about printing marks on the flesh, how that had to do with a follower of the Lord not following after the pagan customs of the lost and it still applies today. And I asked him, is HE honoring God this way.

 

Mind you, this is a friend of my wayward daughter.  I guess I scared him and he texted my daughter, who I assume rebuked him for acting as he dod toward me and she texted me to apologize for him, that he hadn't meant to disrespect me. I told her that in calling me Satan, how was this not meant as disrespect? But I told her I wasn't offended by it, that I just worried that his applying something of God to the Devil was very dangerous ground to tread and he needed to know that.

 

So, no, I wasn't offended at being called Satan, which is way worse than we see others call people here. Let us seek one another's good and edification above all else here, folks.

[prophet1]

Nice - calling us dishonest now....
In case anyone missed it,

Anyone who disagrees with prophet1 has "not done their research" and they are "dishonest."

Great argument!
(somehow I feel like I am in a 5th grade lunch room!)

See here is an example of your dishonesty.

I never said 'if you disagree with me',
or insinuated such, but rather that the practice of denying that Jesus was telling his church, in a private conversation with His church officers, less than 2 months before they became such, beyond any question by any of us, is AGENDA DRIVEN DISHONESTY.

This is addressing an idea.

Mat 24:3-4
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

After this:

Mat 23:37-39
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

That was addressed to a City. The Capital of a Nation.

Matthew 24 began a dialogue with His church.

Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

the Apostle Paul reveals why you cannot understand that Matthew 24 is not speaking of the Church, but Israel.

You'll find that revelation in 2 Corinthians 2:14.

2Co 2:14
14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

Is this the verse you meant?
It seems like you may have had another in mind.



Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

THIS is what the last mod was referring to. Not your stand, not your outspoken defense of that stand. It is the extra, unnecessary, snippy comments. Sometimes I wonder if people know how to express themselves without personal invective anymore. IOW, if you wish to continue the argument, discontinue the cutting remarks.

This was addressed to no one in particular. It was meant to ridicule the OBvious reinterpretation of a word that has a simple definition, like : 'is', or 'first'. Why is it, when someone repeats a lie, and claims it as truth, is the person who points it out is always immediately the bad guy? I believe what I said. Produce a counter point. Jesus said this to Nicodemus: Jn 3:10-12 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? Anishinaabe

[Steve Schwenke]

prophet1

There is no point in putting any counterpoint here because you have demonstrated that you are not truly interested in hearing any counterpoint.  All you will do is continue with your own interpretation of Scripture, and do your best to "prove" our side wrong. 

I see absolutely no edification in that.  We have hashed these arguments out on dispensationalism a dozen times over.  If you want to see my "counterpoints" then look up my previous posts on subjects pertaining to prophecy and dispensationalism. 

There is no point in attempting to argue a point with someone who is so strongly convinced otherwise.

 

As for me, I will continue on in what you call "heresy."  I guess I am in good company.  see Acts 24:14.