The BLB Blog

The official blog of Blue Letter Bible

The New Testament on the Second Coming of Jesus (part 4)

Posted on Posted by

ntprophecies

Guest post by Justin Alfred

Previous posts in this series:

A few weeks ago, we entered the primary focus of this study:  an analysis of the the New Testament prophecies considering the Second Coming of Jesus. We began with Matthew 24, and will continue to unpack that passage over the next few weeks. Jesus Himself is speaking in Matthew 24, so the passage is of primary significance in its prophetic insight.

The following is a continuation of this study.

Today, we will look at Matthew 24:15-28,

15 “Therefore when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 “Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things out that are in his house. 18 “Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 “But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 “For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 “Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. 24 “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 “Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 “So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 “For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

These warnings are referring to the time when the Antichrist has made his move described in II Thessalonians 2:3-4: “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”

Abomination of Desolation

The “Abomination of Desolation” is mentioned in Daniel 9:27, 11:31, & 12:11, and in 9:27 & 12:11, it is referring to the end times described in II Thessalonians 2:1-4, while 11:31 is referring the historical account of Antiochus Epiphanes in the middle of the 2nd century BC, who became the proto-type of the future Antichrist in the end times. This is a very common feature of biblical prophecy – that is, using a historical personage or event as the proto-type of a future prophetic fulfillment, and the brutal actions of Antiochus Epiphanes are a foretaste of the horror that the Antichrist will enact against the Jews and Jerusalem. The following is an account of Antiochus:

In 167 B.C., Apollonius, his chief tax collector, was dispatched with 22,000 men and attacked Jerusalem on the Sabbath. Most of the male population was killed and the women and children enslaved; those few who could left the city. The city walls were demolished and the old city of David refortified (the Akra) and furnished with a military garrison (1 Macc 1:29–36; 2 Macc 5:24–26). There followed the prohibition of all Jewish rites and the rededication of the high temple to Olympian Zeus. A monthly check was made, and anyone found with a copy of the Book of the Law or a child who had been circumcised was put to death. In December 167 b.c. (on 25 Kislev) the first pagan sacrifice was performed on the altar to Zeus which had been erected over the altar of burnt offering in the temple: . . . . (David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, Antiochus (Person) [New York: Doubleday, 1996], 270)

Once again, this is the “Abomination of Desolation” that Daniel is referring to historically in Daniel 11:21, and it is also the proto-type that is being referred to for end time events Daniel 9:27 and 12:11, as well as the proto-type that Jesus was referring to that will be repeated in a far greater capacity of brutality, wickedness, and absolute, human corruption in the end times description found in II Thessalonians 2:3-4: “Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”

Antichrist displays himself as God

After the Antichrist displays “himself as being God,” then we see Jesus saying that “then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.” It is at this point that there is a discussion as to whether or not there will be a pre-tribulation rapture occurring at the beginning of the seven year tribulation; a mid-tribulation rapture that will occur after the first 3 1⁄2 years, which will be a time of great trial and persecution for believers, but not the “great tribulation,” which will begin at the midway point, and then the Church will be raptured; and a post- tribulation rapture, which believes that even though the Church will remain during the 7 year tribulation period, God will sovereignly protect and shield the Church from His wrath. However, regardless which position one may take on this issue, there are two things that are certain:

  1. All true believers in Jesus Christ will suffer persecution (see Romans 8:14-17,35-39; 2 Corinthians 1:3-11; 4:7-11; Philippians 1:29-30; 3:7- 11; 1Thssalonians 3:4; 2 Timothy 3:10-12).
  2. God has unequivocally promised to deliver those who are His children from His wrath that will be poured out on this earth (see 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10; 5:1-11).

What is also significant about the verses in this section (24:21-28) is that it is a reiteration of what we find in Revelation 13 concerning the “dragon,” the “first beast,” and the “second beast” with regard to “false Christs . . . great signs and wonders” (v. 24), and the fact that “unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short” (24:22). In addition, verse 24 states that the deception of those “great signs and wonders” by the “second beast” would be so great “so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect,” but, according to Revelation 13:7-10, concerning the “beast” and his rule and deception, those who are the “elect” will not turn:

7 And it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. 8 And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear. 10 If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.
(Revelation 13:7-10)

The next question, therefore, is, “just who are the ‘elect’ in this section of Scripture in Matthew, as well as in Revelation 13:7-10, if the ‘church’ has already been raptured?” The answer to that is that these are the 144,000 Jews who will come to Christ during this time, as well as those Gentiles who may come to Christ during the “Great Tribulation” as a result of their evangelism (Revelation 7). Then, at the end of the “Great Tribulation,” Jesus will return, as is stated in Matthew 24:27, and then will begin His millennial reign. However, another very interesting verse in this section is verse 24:28: “Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” The word for “vultures” is ἀετός (aetos), which is also translated “eagle.” The idea behind both is that of the “swiftness” of the eagle to retrieve its “prey,” and the circling of the vulture awaiting the proper time to swoop down on its “dead prey” – that is, with regard to the “vulture,” wherever “dead prey” may be, that is where the “vulture” will also be, and thus, wherever God’s “elect” will be, that is where Jesus will come and retrieve them unto Himself.

We will discuss this next week.

Comments

  1. The Abomination of Desolation (Standing in the holy place)was fulfilled in 70ad when The Siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE was the decisive event of the First Jewish-Roman War. The Roman army, led by the future Emperor Titus, with Tiberius Julius Alexander as his second-in-command, besieged and conquered the city of Jerusalem, which had been occupied by its Jewish defenders in 66 CE. TITUS completed that……
    Likewise there is no such PERSON as “The Antichrist”
    Antichrist is mentioned in 4 places in the bible 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:22, 1Jo 4:3, 2Jo 1:7 …..1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

  2. Justin,

    This may help you out understanding who the “elect” are, בָּחִיר, bachiyr, Strong’s H972.

    Forcing Replacement Theology into biblical interpretation will always cause us to invent conclusions like your last paragraph that don’t align with the rest of scripture because Replacement Theology is a false teaching. The “Church” does not replace “Israel”. The “elect” are GODS chosen people Israel, belief in their Messiah not withstanding. Just as they are called so in all the pre-carnate scripture that contains the Hebrew word above. Israel is the elect or chosen because GOD said so, not because of their faith.

    J.

    • Jerry~

      You are, again, trying to force the doctrine of “Replacement Theology” into Christianity’s biblical view, but it just isn’t there. The “elect” are God’s chosen people, Jews and Gentiles alike, who have given themselves to Christ. Those people who are merely of the physical house of Israel are not God’s chosen people because they have rejected their Messiah. It’s not that anyone, including Justin, is replacing “Israel” with the “Church.” It’s that he and everyone else, except those who keep insisting that there actually is something that is referred to as “Replacement Theology,” understand that from the time of Christ, “Israel” is defined as spiritual, not physical.

      Finally, you have contradicted yourself. You can’t simultaneously claim that “The ‘elect’ are GODS chosen people Israel, BELIEF IN THEIR MESSIAH NOT WITHSTANDING [caps mine]” and “Israel is the elect or chosen because GOD said so, NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH [caps mine].” If you are going to insist replacement theology is real, then you are going to have to interpret Justin’s statements correctly as well as to give evidence that Christians believe that they have replaced Israel, something that I have asked you, repeatedly, to supply for at least a year. In other words, if you have the truth, you should be able to give evidence and reasonable explanations.

      Barbara

    • Jerry~

      As I wrote in a much earlier post last year, because you accuse Christianity at large of replacement theology, you should be able to provide ample evidence of denominations and individual churches who adhere to this doctrine. However, I had an idea. While you are still accountable to supply some kind of list to support your premise, I’m going to help you. This site is followed by thousands of Christians who attend large and small denominational and interdenominational and nondenominational churches across this country and the world, so to all of you, if you attend a Christian church that believes in replacement theology or even if you know of a church/denomination that does, here or somewhere in the world, will you please post this information? This way we can determine whether this claim against the body of Christ is true. Thank you very much.

      Barbara

    • Well thanks Barb, someone to discuss with.
      When you write, (not me),

      “he and everyone else, (I love the way you presume to speak for “everyone else”)… understand that from the time of Christ, “Israel” is defined as spiritual, not physical.”

      THAT itself couldn’t describe “Replacement Theology” any better than if I wrote it myself. It’s an incorrect theology and directly contradicts the very scripture I reference (you say I do not) in my comment to Justin. A quick search of the internet might help you understand what revolves around the theology. I have no contradiction in what I write. The concept put forth by Justin, and you, that belief in Messiah constitutes “election” do not work with the scriptures I reference (you say I do not). Look up Strong’s H972 before you leap.

      I must say, your “bait and switch” and “building of your own straw man to argue against” debating technics do get tiresome and usually make your comments and reply’s not worth responding to. Except in this instance. Glad to see you’ve shortens the length of them though. That’s a positive!

      J.

      • Jerry~

        Asking you to back up something you’ve written that contradicts the Bible is not “bullying;” it’s contending for the faith so that the leaven of false teachers does not pollute the body.

        The biblical fact is that since the time of Christ, “Israel” IS spiritual; that’s why it includes Gentiles in addition to Jewish people who accept their Messiah. You took issue with my speaking for everyone else, so let me rephrase what I said. Everyone who rightly divides the Word of God understands that Israel is now spiritual, not physical. It is one of the applications of I Corinthians 15:46, which says, “Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.”

        I looked up H972. What’s your point? You do realize that there is an entire section of Scripture after Malachi, don’t you? Just one excerpt of interest is Matthew 23:37-39, one of several examples that I posted last year that you refused to address.

        It’s not my job or anyone else’s to look things up on the Internet for you. It’s your job to supply proof for your claims. As far as your “bait and switch” and “straw man” comments, you are and always have been very adept at throwing things into the mix in order to take the focus off the fact that you have never given any proof for any of your claims. I have every response that I have ever posted on this site, so if you would like me to furnish our dialogues as proof, I most certainly will, and we’ll see who has supplied verse and logic and who has not. In addition, your telling me that “debating technics do get tiresome…” means nothing. The simple truth is that people who can defend their positions logically, do. As I told you on September 12, 2012, when you wrote that “Christianity is a religion gentile believers in the Hebrew Messiah created for themselves to co-opt the Covenants, Promises and Kingdom that the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gave to Israel (Jacobs’s new name),” I came out of a religion who is doing the same thing you’re doing, and I’ll tell you again what I told you then: “Sorry, Jerry, not on my watch.” You can say anything you want about me, but when you make false claims about Christianity and pervert the Word of God, I will be right there, calling you into accountability.

        Finally, you wrote, “I have no contradiction in what I write.” Please reread what you wrote. You simultaneously said that Israel is God’s elect by having faith (“belief in their Messiah not withstanding”) and not having faith (“not because of their faith”).

        While we wait for other participants to post examples of denominations/churches that adhere to replacement theology, please furnish the list from which you’ve drawn your conclusions if you are able. I’ll settle for one although, because you have condemned Christianity as a whole, you should have quite a list at your disposal.

        Barbara

        • You’re just too all together for me, I’m bowing out, you get the last word… and quite the Crusader I might add.

          In one of those past comments you implied it must be the Devil in me or the cult I belong to that makes me write the things I do.
          I’ll have to check into that…not. (This is where you say I’m not the least bit funny)
          Keep believing Barb, and blessings to you.
          J.

          • Jerry~

            ALL I have EVER asked is that you be honest and supply proof for your claims, so it’s not the “last word” that I want, just a word from you that’s biblically based. Also, while I do believe that you are dead wrong, I have never implied that “it must be the Devil in [you]” or that you belong to “a cult,” so I would appreciate it if you would not attribute things to me that are not true.

            I mean no ill will against you, and I pray that one day you will either provide support for your claims to prove me wrong or acknowledge that you are wrong.

            Barbara

  4. There you go again dear, taking the high ground for yourself and implying that I’m lying and inept in my arguments, bait and switch, and straw men over and over. Let me sign off with this; again as I did back then, check your notes. You have absolutely no earthly idea who you are dialoging with when it comes to me, yet you presume to know me on enough of a personal level to imply such a thing. I am honest and do provide scripture to back my claims, but either you refuse to think and concede a point, maybe out of stubbornness, maybe out of fear of loosing your religion, I don’t know or you simply don’t catch on. I am brief in what I write (not in this instance) and it can be misread, but I don’t think that is what is happening with you. You take notes on people, what fun, and then bring them up in an attempt to embarrass. I’m not embarrassed and will stand by my words, I’m not afraid of you. Do I need to reference that chapter and verse for you to catch on? Well don’t wait for it. If you did actually know me you would find I can be quite forgiving and playful when it comes to relationships, boy do I feel dumb referring of myself like that, but as another commenter recently wrote, I’m giving up on you. But don’t fret, HE is faithful, not me. I just won’t bother dialoging with you in future postings.
    J.
    Ps, I’ll leave you with the Bronx Cheer, Pbbbbt! 

  5. Jerry,
    Strong H972 are God’s chosen people Israel but that was prior to Christ. Israel will always be God’s chosen people and Replacement Theology is wrong but elect took on a broader meaning once Christ came. It does not exclude the Jews as His chosen people it just adds believers into the mix. The 144,000 are Jews who come to a believe and then share the true Messiah with the world but the 144,000 are from the Jewish tribes. Not all Jews are elect at that point and not all Gentiles are elect. But His elect people were Jews and those who God foreknew would accept Christ then preach salvation through the true Messiah. The first time the rejection of Jesus opened the door for Gentiles. The second time they again open the door this time by their repentance and acknowledgement of the true Messiah. Kinda cool when you think about it.

    Matthew 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
    ~~~
    If it were possible, plainly implying that it is not possible, for they are kept by the power of God, that the purpose of God, according to the election, may stand. It is possible for those that have been enlightened to fall away (Heb. 6:4, 5, 6), but not for those that were elected. If God’s chosen ones should be deceived, God’s choice would be defeated, which is not to be imagined, for whom he did predestinate, he called, justified, and glorified, Rom. 8:30. They were given to Christ; and of all that were given to him, he will lose none, John 10:28.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Vines Expository Dictionary

    Elect, Elected, Election:
    lit. signifies “picked out, chosen” (ek, “from,” lego, “to gather, pick out”), and is used of
    (a) Christ, the “chosen” of God, as the Messiah, Luk 23:35 (for the verb in Luk 9:35 see Note below), and metaphorically as a “living Stone,” “a chief corner Stone,” 1Pe 2:4, 6; some mss. have it in Jhn 1:34, instead of huios, “Son;”
    (b) angels, 1Ti 5:21, as “chosen” to be of especially high rank in administrative association with God, or as His messengers to human beings, doubtless in contrast to fallen angels (see 2Pe 2:4; Jud 1:6);
    (c) believers (Jews or Gentiles), Mat 24:22, 24, 31; Mar 13:20, 22, 27; Luk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2Ti 2:10; Tts 1:1; 1Pe 1:1; 2:9 (as a spiritual race); Mat 20:16; 22:14; Rev 17:14, “chosen;” individual believers are so mentioned in Rom 16:13; 2Jo 1:1, 13.
    Believers were “chosen” “before the foundation of the world” (cp. “before times eternal,” 2Ti 1:9), in Christ, Eph 1:4, to adoption, Eph 1:5; good works, Eph 2:10; conformity to Christ, Rom 8:29; salvation from the delusions of the Antichrist and the doom of the deluded, 2Th 2:13; eternal glory, Rom 9:23.
    The source of their “election” is God’s grace, not human will, Eph 1:4, 5; Rom 9:11; 11:5. They are given by God the Father to Christ as the fruit of His death, all being foreknown and foreseen by God, Jhn 17:6; Rom 8:29. While Christ’s death was sufficient for all men, and is effective in the case of the “elect,” yet men are treated as responsible, being capable of the will and power to choose. For the rendering “being chosen as firstfruits,” an alternative reading in 2Th 2:13, see FIRSTFRUITS.
    See CHOICE, B.
    2 Adjective Strong’s Number: g4899 Greek: suneklektos
    Elect, Elected, Election:
    means “elect together with,” 1Pe 5:13.
    101 Noun Strong’s Number: g1589 Greek: ekloge
    Elect, Elected, Election:
    denotes “a picking out, selection” (Eng., “eclogue”), then, “that which is chosen;” in Act 9:15, said of the “choice” of God of Saul of Tarsus, the phrase is, lit., “a vessel of choice.” It is used four times in Romans; in Act 9:11, of Esau and Jacob, where the phrase “the purpose… according to election” is virtually equivalent to “the electing purpose;” in Act 11:5, the “remnant according to the election of grace” refers to believing Jews, saved from among the unbelieving nation; so in Act 11:7; in Act 11:28, “the election” may mean either the “act of choosing” or the “chosen” ones; the context, speaking of the fathers, points to the former, the choice of the nation according to the covenant of promise. In 1Th 1:4, “your election” refers not to the church collectively, but to the individuals constituting it; the Apostle’s assurance of their “election” gives the reason for his thankgiving. Believers are to give “the more diligence to make their calling and election sure,” by the exercise of the qualities and graces which make them fruitful in the knowledge of God, 2Pe 1:10.

    • Whew, finally discussion. I’ll use bullet points in an attempt to keep it short because I so dislike dissertations disguised as comments and I’ll try to respond in order to your reasoning;

      • Starting from Creation, we can’t get earlier than that; “elect” has always had a broader meaning than just one nation. As I’m sure you know nations as we think of the term, did not exist until Gen 11:8-9 HNV. Creation was for all mankind, no Jew or gentile at that point, only goyim (nations, gentiles, people) until Cain, Gen 4:5-6 HNV, when a concerted division formed. Call them what we like, elect, chosen, children of GOD, believers. Simply put, there were those of Cain and there were those of Shem. Jump to Gen 12:1-3 HNV, GOD has a plan to create a peculiar particular people to call HIS own and use them to show HIMSELF to the goyim. Even at this point in time these people were not, not only, only of one race and blood line (note the first half of v.3). As someone said…so what? This, you wrote “elect took on a broader meaning once Christ came.” I write, it has had a broader meaning well before Yeshua’s birth. HIS birth was for the shedding of HIS BLOOD on the tree (in keeping with the season). Anyone could and can enter into the “elect” both before and after HIS birth. My conclusion of it while I still have the freedom to write it; there is nothing of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob new in the New Testament, there shouldn’t even be a division in the scripture. The division only serves to reinforce the false teaching of Replacement Theology.
      • The 144,000 as written in Rev 7:1-8 HNV. This is a parenthetical passage that describes a pause in GODS wrath upon the Earth to specifically “seal” a group of “Jews” for HIS service. These people and GOD bless them have been so mistakenly described by believers, as Justin and you do, due to tradition taught throughout the centuries to (guess what?) reinforce the false teaching of Replacement Theology. Yes they are believers, but that only partially describes them. They have a particular purpose and they are captive to HIS service as we all should be except in the fact that they are protected from physical harm for a time, that’s all.
      • Try and get past feelings on this and being agreeable for agreeability’s sake because truth can be suppressed of it unless there is discussion or even argument and yes I know and agree with all the scripture that encourages us towards the unity of the body. I’ve written this several times in the past, the Greek word Ioudaios (Ἰουδαῖος) can refer many things, to the entire nation, a particular region (Judah), a particular group of Jewish people similar to the American word “Yankee” can. I won’t go into detail as I have before. Translation from one language to another requires interpretation and that fact is subject to error, due to it being to one degree or another, a matter of opinion of which words to pick to best describe. Again, so what? The Jews as a whole did not reject their Messiah, the Jewish leaders did. There are too many verses to list here that describe the discussions and even arguments that Yeshua and the disciples had in opposition with them and too many verses that tell of the multitudes that followed after HIM. All of them Jewish. Yeshua is Jewish, the disciples are Jewish. Did they reject themselves? This world holds many, a remnant if you want, of Jews that know their Messiah and well apart from Christianity. This is only logical to me from scripture, but quite a difficult concept to grasp for to, to many due to tradition taught throughout the centuries to (guess what?) reinforce the false teaching of Replacement Theology. I’m like a broken record with a skip in it, oh wait that analogy doesn’t apply anymore, we’re digital.
      • I’ll steer clear of your Heb. 6:4, 5, 6 HNV issue for times sake. I’ve expressed my take on those verses before.
      • Concerning Vine’s, I’m not sure what are your writings and what is Vines, so I’ll just say this. Lexicons, concordances and dictionaries are all well and good; I use them to great extent, but they too are subject to the traditional translations of scripture that tend to promote a theology, so I’m careful. Here’s a for instance; the English word church ekklēsia in Greek. The BLB’s Outline gives a definition of it through the subtext letter “c”, but when we get to “d” it writes the disclaimer “in a Christian sense”. What does that mean? Does the word have a meaning in Greek, but then some how changes to another meaning when it is related to a particular religion? It makes me wonder anyway. Look at Act 19:39 HNV, the same Greek word, but in this instance it’s correctly translated “assembly” and not transliterated as “church”. Is I because it is describing a riotous mob? But wait, I’ve been part of many churches that fit that description, wink and a smile.

      Well that’s more than enough written for this comment. Thank you for your braaave reply.

      J.

      Ps, for those of you out there and you know who you are – boo!

      • Thanks Jerry and I think you and I are in agreement about the issue. You’re right I wrongly used the after Christ reasoning. I was noticing in the OT as Hebrew and the NT Greek.

        In my opinion anyone who believes in Replacement Theology has not read Romans 11.

        EXCELLENT POINTS you make: There are too many verses to list here that describe the discussions and even arguments that Yeshua and the disciples had in opposition with them and too many verses that tell of the multitudes that followed after HIM. All of them Jewish. Yeshua is Jewish, the disciples are Jewish. Did they reject themselves?

        BUT I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR SAYING WITH THE NEXT SENTENCE: This world holds many, a remnant if you want, of Jews that know their Messiah and well apart from Christianity. I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY AS LONG AS YOU’RE NOT STATING THAT JESUS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY. ACCEPTING JESUS AS MESSIAH WAS AND IS THE ONLY WAY. John 14:6

        There are promises God made to His people Israel. Ezekiel 37

        🙂

        • Good morning, Quick answer to your question, busy Saturday morning and all that.
          Yes, except I would put it as, Yeshua’s shed Blood is the only way to the Father, the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

          J.

          Ps, do you hear a funny kind of squeaky sound out where you are? Maybe it’s just the floor boards…

      • Jerry~

        Although I disagree with much of what you have written, why couldn’t you have provided comments like these when I asked? You can’t write “Whew, finally discussion” when that’s all I ever asked you for this past year. Even though you wrote that you “won’t bother dialoging with [me] in future postings,” I will continue to comment on what I believe to be inconsistencies with your view of Christianity and inaccuracies that I see with your view of Scripture although I welcome any legitimate correction as I’ve always said.

        As to your comments about the 144,000, I fail to see your point or why you equate anything you wrote with replacement theology. The Bible teaches that a remnant, referred to as “servants,” who are from the physical house of Israel (Rev. 7:4-8) will be sealed to God so that they will not experience God’s wrath that is being poured out upon the Earth (Rev. 7:3). During this time, they will be God’s true witnesses, resulting in all Israel being saved (Rom. 11:25-27). This is part of what Jesus is referring to in Matthew 23:39, which says, “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.” What about this scenario has Christianity “been so mistakenly described”? What “tradition” has Christianity employed to breach these truths?

        As to your comment that “The Jews as a whole did not reject their Messiah, the Jewish leaders did,” Matthew 23:37-38 says, “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! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.” This is Jesus Himself, not Christianity, addressing “Jerusalem,” meaning Israel as a whole, and it is Jesus who is leaving the (physical) house of Israel “desolate,” so your argument is with Him. In addition, if it were merely “the Jewish leaders” and not the “Jews as a whole,” then why would He have left the “house” desolate? Secondly, your other comment that “All of them Jewish. Yeshua is Jewish, the disciples are Jewish. Did they reject themselves? This world holds many, a remnant if you want, of Jews that know their Messiah and well apart from Christianity” illustrates that you are not basing your opinions on facts. Jerry, I don’t know where you get your information, but Christianity knows, believes, and teaches that God is a remnant God; consequently, they understand the difference between the physical house of Israel who is referred to as “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9) and the remnant, Messianic Jews who have accepted their Messiah. Nowhere does the Bible teach, and nowhere does Christianity teach that there wouldn’t be Jews who accept their Messiah, which is the exact point that you are trying to make to support your claim that Christianity adheres to replacement theology. I am afraid it is you who doesn’t understand the difference.

        If you ever want to address the problems in your reasoning and conclusions and can do so without benefit of the fallacies that have dominated your posts these past days, I welcome them.

        Barbara

        • Why don’t I provide comments to you like I did with Tess??? Are you seriously asking that question??? Sweetheart, I don’t even read what you write, let alone respond to it. It’s like banging your head against a wall communicating with you and then if you do, you just get badgered to no end like listening to a child refusing to admit they wanted a cookie all the while their hand is in the cookie jar.

          Let me once again, simply because the LORD gives me the same courtesy, suggest some verses that may help. Go to BLB search engine and type the words; stiff, neck, or heart, stone, the KJ versions will work, look at what comes up and as I love to tell you “take it to the LORD”.

          J. (signing out)

          • Jerry~

            As I wrote, I have all of the dialogues I’ve had with you. You have never, even from the beginning, provided answers to my questions, beginning, I believe with providing any proof that Christianity holds to replacement theology. Then and now, you’ve never given one shred of evidence, and as you can see, not one person so far has posted the name of a Christian denomination/church that holds to it.

            Why do you write here that you don’t even read my posts, but just a few days ago (April 4), you wrote, “Well thanks Barb, someone to discuss with”? If you don’t read my posts, then how do you know that I am guilty of “bait and switch” and “straw man” fallacies? The truth is that I know from your comments that you read my posts, at least the shorter ones, so what you’re saying is just not true.

            I think that what else is true is that you cannot personally defend your belief in replacement theology. That is why you post comments like this in lieu of addressing what I actually wrote in the above post. It seems like the order of the day on this blog is not to find the truth but to attack anyone personally who disagrees with what is posted. Since you’re so determined to make the accusation about replacement theology stand against Christianity, it stands to reason that when someone posts the Scripture and explanations that I did in the above post that you would leap at the chance to disprove what has been written, but you don’t, and you never did. To constantly insist that you have given all this proof and that I am just all these things that you’ve posted here and elsewhere is like living in my own version of “Gaslight.” The only difference is that I actually have your responses, so while you may have convinced yourself and a few others on this site that you have toiled long and hard to prove your point and to disprove mine, you haven’t, and I know you haven’t.

            I’ll tell you what. Let’s start over. Let’s pretend that this is our first exchange and I don’t know anything about replacement theology and that I would like to understand what you are talking about so that I can come to a reasonable and biblically based conclusion. There are a couple ideas that I have commented on above out of the many about which you wrote on April 5. Please read what I have written and tell me how your belief that Christianity adheres to replacement theology fits into what I have written. I promise that I will give all due consideration to everything that you write. Thank you and I will await your answer.

            Barbara

      • The parable of 2 sons applies here
        Luk 15:11-24
        The younger son, who is of the father is free to leave. In this parable he returns. Did the father seek him out?
        Num 14
        Those who intently focus must then consider the whole just as intently. What does stiffnecked tell us about choice?
        Isa 57
        God will not be mocked. All are encouraged, called and strengthened by His lovingkindness. God is forgiveness. We must know that finally at the judgment, the disaffected, disbelieving or irreverent will surely find punishment for disdaining the abundant gifts of God. There is no happy ever after for those who do not accept the sacrifice of the Lamb. A rejoicing father awaits those that return. Call out to whosover will while it is yet possible for them to be wrest from sin and death.

        • Elect, chosen to be the vehicle whereby God reveals Himself to this world. It is perspective that accounts for the individual relating the world to themselves. Error is too rampant in this relational interpretation. God is and is constant without variableness. The blessing of election is God. His opportunity, His patience, His presence not the beauty of or for the vessels.

    • Tess~

      Thank you for giving that explanation to Jerry in your first paragraph. I pray that his eyes will be open to its truth. I also have a few comments about one of the paragraphs that you posted out of Matthew Henry’s commentary (in caps).

      “IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, PLAINLY IMPLYING THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, FOR THEY ARE KEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD, ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION, MAY STAND. IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTENED TO FALL AWAY (HEB. 6:4, 5, 6), BUT NOT FOR THOSE THAT WERE ELECTED. IF GOD’S CHOSEN ONES SHOULD BE DECEIVED, GOD’S CHOICE WOULD BE DEFEATED, WHICH IS NOT TO BE IMAGINED, FOR WHOM HE DID PREDESTINATE, HE CALLED, JUSTIFIED, AND GLORIFIED, ROM. 8:30. THEY WERE GIVEN TO CHRIST; AND OF ALL THAT WERE GIVEN TO HIM, HE WILL LOSE NONE, JOHN 10:28.”

      With all due respect, you have agreed with the above excerpt from Henry’s interpretation of Scripture, but if you look closely, you will see that he has wrongly combined unrelated verses to arrive at conclusions about God’s elect and whether they can lose their salvation. From the passage of Matthew Henry’s commentary you included his comment, “If it were possible, plainly implying that it is not possible, for they are kept by the power of God, that the purpose of God, according to the election, may stand.” It is important, as I’m sure you’ll agree, that we need to read things in context. To arrive at his conclusion, he included of one portion of Matthew 24:24 (“if [it were] possible”) and implied the rest (“they shall deceive the very elect”), but he failed to interpret it within the larger meaning. Jesus is neither talking about every age nor about every elect person. If you read the context, it is referring to one specific time in history, the Great Tribulation, and to one specific people, those who have accepted the Messiah during this time. It is these people, only, who will not be deceived by “false Christs, and false prophets” and their “great signs and wonders.” It isn’t meant to be a general statement applicable to all God’s elect that they can’t be deceived. If it were, why would Jesus Himself say, in the very same chapter, “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matt. 24:4b)? In addition, if the elect cannot lose their salvation, why, then, does Jesus imply that they can in Matthew 24:13, which says, “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”?

      The second phrase of Henry’s that you cited was “It is possible for those that have been enlightened to fall away (Heb. 6:4, 5, 6), but not for those that were elected.” You posted a great deal of information about the word “elect,” but if you look up the word “enlightened,” you will see that it means exactly the same thing. It is the word “photizo” (Strong’s, G5461), and it means “with a saving knowledge of the gospel: hence…of those who have been made Christians” (Thayer’s). In other words, the “enlightened” spoken of in verse 4 are the elect; they are saved. If you go back and begin your study at Hebrews 5:11 and read to Heb. 6:6, you will see that the writer is giving a warning to believers that they need to grow beyond the fundamental teachings and onto maturity because, if they don’t and they fall away (NOT just backslide for a time), they will not be able to call upon Christ’s sacrifice AGAIN for their salvation because they ignored that by their lifelong apathy. There is a great deal packed into this passage and on through to the end of this chapter, and if thoroughly examined, paying close attention to whom is being addressed, the purpose of the warning, and the results of not heeding the warning, it is clear that believers can lose their salvation.

      The next phrase Henry uses comes from Romans 9:11b, which says, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand” (Rom. 9:11b). Unfortunately, this account of Jacob and Esau has nothing to do with salvation, as Henry is suggesting, only with God’s sovereignty of choosing Jacob over Esau to fulfill His purposes, that His choosing had nothing to do with the works of either of them, which is evident if the entire phrase is included: “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH) (caps mine). I’m sure you can see how this last phrase drastically alters the meaning of entire verse, resulting in Henry’s conclusion not being a correct one.

      With regard to Romans 8:30, any conclusions drawn must take into consideration one, short, yet crucial, phrase that is found back in verse 27, that the sequence being put forth is for those “that love God,” implying the endurance spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:13 earlier and not for those who made a commitment, albeit a real one, in the past, a truth that is testified throughout Scripture.

      Henry is right; Jesus will lose none (Jn. 10:28); however, this has nothing to do with God’s chosen people using their free will to leave Him, either through apathy or rebellion as even a cursory look at the OT proves repeatedly. One of the greatest examples of this is the 2.5 million or so Israelites perishing in the wilderness, never entering God’s rest, the Promised Land, an account about which believers from the time of Christ are given an express warning in Hebrews 3-4. If you are interested in studying some of the scores of examples that illustrate that true, born-again believers can lose their salvation, I will be happy to provide them.

      Tess, I don’t doubt for a minute your love for God, your desire to learn and grow in the Word, or your heart to share God’s truth with others, all which are evident in your uplifting posts. However, and please take this in the spirit in which it is given, if you are going to know and share the truth of God’s Word, it is important that you study for yourself (II Tim. 2:15), that you don’t just cut and paste someone’s commentary without checking out everything that person says with the Word of God (Acts 17:11). Henry’s commentaries, and the commentaries of every person on this site, are not Holy Writ; therefore, they are not to be received as such. I know you know this, but you put forth his commentary to me before as though it was the final word on the topic we were discussing, and it is not.

      I truly hope that you will examine what Henry has written and what I have written in light of God’s Word so that your conclusions are from your own study of Scripture, and, as I have always, written, if I am wrong, I want to know but only through God’s entire counsel and through logical explanations.

      I pray that as we seek the truth of God’s Word that He will open our eyes~
      Barbara

        • Tess~

          I’m sorry that you are unable to address the problems in your interpretation.

          Barbara

          • Proverbs 9:7-8; Timothy 6:3-5; 2 Timothy 2:23-26;

            Barbara,
            You posts are not intended to discuss scripture they are attempts to engage in “disputes,” and are rather a carnal, egotistical “gain” in attempting to badger people into compliance with your views.

            Thus, for me, I will not waste my time in communicating with you any more, as it is, without any equivocation, an utter waste of time, and there are so many, far more important issues in our world today that need to be pursued.

            You bait and switch, you claim people say things they do not say and then you expound volumes of run-on bible babble in a vain attempt to maintain some lofty theological perch over Gods children who are humbled and grateful to God for HIS grace and HIS mercy. Luke 18:9-14

            How dare you attempt to portray people you do not even know as unstudied in scripture.

            How dare you state: If you are interested in studying some of the scores of examples that illustrate that true, born-again believers can lose their salvation, I will be happy to provide them. WHY ARE YOU SO VERY KEEN AND FOCUSED ON IDENTIFYING WHO —->YOU<— BELIEVE WONT BE SAVED?

            How dare you claim the following:
            "you will see that the writer is giving a warning to believers that they need to grow beyond the fundamental teachings and onto maturity because, if they don’t and they fall away (NOT just backslide for a time), they will not be able to call upon Christ’s sacrifice AGAIN for their salvation because they ignored that by their lifelong apathy." YOU DARE TO JUDGE??

            YOU'RE RIGHT I AM UPLIFTING IN MY POSTS BUT I DO, RIGHTLY!, GET VERY ANGRY WITH YOUR POSTS THAT ARE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS AN ATTEMPT TO DO NOTHING OTHER THAN TEAR DOWN BELIEVERS. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED BUT YOU KNOW NO SHAME, NO LIMIT TO YOUR VANITY AND MAY THE LORD REBUKE YOU!!!!!

          • Tess~

            When you are able to provide a personally written response with relevant Scripture and sound reasoning to refute any of the interpretations that I have given, then I will concede that I am wrong and apologize for wrongly dividing the Word. As to everything you said about me personally, let the Lord judge between you and me.

            Barbara

          • She does Barb. Either you’re too blind to see it (watch out for the hole) or too stubborn. I think a combination.
            J.

      • This type of forum is a huge boon to discourse. The heat that would sever a discussion abates in time where reason arrives for true consideration of the matter. Whether a party concedes a point or not the expressions are still conveyed for all review.
        Hbr 4:12
        The word of God is multitudinous and alive. It is important that reason supersedes emotion. We can reason together as we work out our own salvation.
        Phl 2:12-13
        It is important to remember that our lives are not accidental. We will encounter what we need.
        Peace brethren.

      • Barbara,
        This “your” paragraph is an exact example of a lot of your illogical rhetoric and using scripture OUT OF CONTEXT.

        You wrote:
        With regard to Romans 8:30, any conclusions drawn must take into consideration one, short, yet crucial, phrase that is found back in verse 27, that the sequence being put forth is for those “that love God,” implying the endurance spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24:13 earlier and not for those who made a commitment, albeit a real one, in the past, a truth that is testified throughout Scripture.

        1. Verse 27 is not the correct verse you are ineptly attempting to reference. The verse your referring to is Romans 8:28. Interestingly and amusingly Romans 8:27 defeats your implied assertion.

        2. You attempt to connect Matthew 24:13 with Romans 8:28. Matthew 24 is speaking of the Great Tribulation. (Hint: you can tell because in the NKJV which you’ve stated you use, The Great Tribulation is the Heading of that section.)

        3. I’m not sure what in the world you are trying to say Romans 8 and how you ever came to link them together but doing so is taking scripture totally out of context.

        4. Anytime you state that scripture imply’s something you are stating it does not mean what it says it imply’s something else. The bible says what it means and it means what it says and anyone who states it implies anything is confused.

        5. A more careful reading of Romans 8 should enlighten you to what it says and that very chapter defeats the twists you wrongly attempt to put on it.

        6. These types of mistakes you make are precisely the reason you need to create straw men and bait and switch techniques. And most annoyingly you run on and on building upon each “implied” assumption you make.

        I think you should seriously let the bible speak for itself instead of implying it means this and and that, cutting and pasting scriptures completely out of context in order to support your false beliefs. It’s crucial to rightly dividing the word of God.

        • 7. Show me where in scripture it states that a real commitment leads anyone to damnation.

          If you can’t do this with scripture alone and not implication or cut and paste jobs don’t bother.

          If you can’t do it maintaining the true commitment you reference don’t bother.

          • I also want to know why you feel happy about the statement you make below?

            If you are interested in studying some of the scores of examples that illustrate that true, born-again believers can lose their salvation, I will be happy to provide them.

            What is it Barbara that makes you happy about attempting to show that true born-again believers could loose their salvation? Not that it is a correct assumption on your part but, and I say this in great distress for your very soul, any effort by a true believer to attempt to prove anyone unworthy or unable to receive the forgiveness assured to “anyone who will” is in grave danger of loosing their own salvation.

            And to attempt to cast doubt on the sufficiency of His death, His grace, His mercy and interject that sort of self righteousness is blasphemy.

            We all need to do all we can out of love for Him to become more like Him every day but as I recall He never said, Repent and I won’t forgive you. Point your finger and pronounce damnation to others and I will. Funny how you think others are unworthy and you reign supreme. Actually, no it’s not funny at all and it scares me for your very soul. Others may ignore what you are doing. I will not and when the Spirit moves me in such a way He moves me on your behalf. To make every effort to break through to you.

        • Tess~

          Let me ask you something. I would be happy to answer each and every point you have brought up in your three posts, but not if my answers are not going to be taken seriously. In addition, I will only do this if you will also address the problems that you are left with if I give a logical answer supported by Scripture. If you are so sure that I am wrong and that you are right, are you willing to do this by speaking only against what I have written and not against me? If this is agreeable to you, then let me know, and I should have it done sometime Monday.

          Barbara

          • Tess~

            I left something out. While you can certainly use reference materials such as Strong’s and Vines’, they must have an exact application (no cutting and pasting huge portions, only that which you can reasonably and exactly apply to your premise), and your responses must be your thoughts only and nothing from any commentaries. Thank you.

            Barbara

          • I’m sorry Barbara. I take God’s word VERY seriously but your word not seriously at all because the very foundation on which you build is incorrect. The word of God NEVER causes me problems. I’m noticing that when you won’t answer simple questions you divert with these types of tactics.

            I don’t look at God’s word and cut and paste in order to cast doubt on salvation. Casting doubt on salvation seems to be the final conclusion in almost all your posts.

            I read Gods word and lean on the Holy Spirit and use the word to lead me to all truth, His truth not my own version of it. I obey to be loved and show love. I don’t obey not to burn. You use Gods word to win arguments or bully people by claiming superiority. Be careful Barbara that type of use of His word proves you’re using it to lift yourself up not lift Him up.

            I lean on His sufficiency through His death on the cross and my obedience is built upon and perfected by Him through my willingness to yield with love and gratitude to His every word.

            My faith is in His promise to lead me in paths of righteousness. HIS righteousness not my own. It’s a promise I can depend on. God doesn’t have fine print and addendum’s. His word is truth and we are built up by obedience to it and trust in it.

            I don’t take Gods word and use it EVER to attempt to prove my conclusions about the loss of someone elses salvation. To do so is to infuriate God and I’m never going to do that willingly.

            I know that my comments to you are harsh and personal but I intended them to be. Because it is NOT you I’m addressing with them. It’s satan and his attempts to try to cast doubt, disrupt the body of Christ and say, oh yeah? doth God really say?? It’s not our logic or our emotions that save us. We can’t say, Ok only if I can wrap my brain around every nuance am I saved. It’s not multiple choice but it’s not hard either and the Holy Spirit will lead you into ALL truth. To state otherwise is to call God a liar. To claim logic is your remedy and IT in addition to Christ work on the cross is to say Christ lied when He said TELELESTAI (paid in full).

            We always need to be diligent but we never need to fear our salvation is not assured. We can’t bend it to attempt to align it with only feel logical conclusions anymore than we can bend it in an attempt to prove salvation only by emotional feel good conclusions. Both are wrong applications of His word.

            We can and should always build on FAITH not on doubt and fear. The sword we’ve been handed is one that when welded properly kills satan not the saint. It casts satan into hell not people. It’s power is to heal not to kill and to reprove not disprove.

            Lastly, my use of reference material is not subject to your approval or disapproval. You’re free to disagree with it. You are not free to tell me what I can and cannot use. I lean on Gods word and my study of additional bible aids is proof that I’m diligent not just in His word but also in the application and consideration of His word.

            I will agree with you that length and focus are important but Sis that’s the pot calling the kettle black. You’re queen of the long posts and they all revolve around how right you believe your conclusions to be. Matthew Henry and others earned their status. You have not.

            I do pray for the gift of brevity for both of us and mostly I pray that you will take to heart what I’ve said although you’ve proven NEVER to do this. Anyone who rejects truth because they feel they have a superior truth is stuck right where they are, stiff necked and unable to progress. The surest way to learn nothing is to insist you have all the answers. I view others comments as valuable. I use the light God gives them to brighten my understanding. I realize that the only thing accomplished by blowing out someone else’s candle is that the world becomes a darker place. We’re candles Sis and when we value the light from another candle we chase darkness into perdition where it belongs. I trust the Holy Spirit to help me discern His light not satan’s light and He can and will snuff their candle.

            I worry about your need to rely on yourself and your insistence on your own logic to work out your salvation. Relying on man’s conclusions always leads us in the wrong direction. Thousands and thousands of what God really said and meant fill libraries but they never save souls. Rely on God and the Holy Spirit and not only are you never lost, you are never alone.

            Sorry so long winded. I’m vowing not to do that in the future.

          • Tess~

            Okay, I’ll take that as a ‘no.” However, because you felt free to say what was on your mind, I, too, have a few things to say:

            ~if I’m the one who’s so stiff-necked, then why are you the one refusing to examine the points that you, yourself, brought up?
            ~If you are the one who takes God’s Word so seriously, then why won’t you address the examples that I found In God’s Word and tell me why I am wrong?
            ~ If I’m the one whose logic is wrong, then why aren’t you able to refute it rather than attack me as you have throughout this and other posts?
            ~If I’m the one who insists that I have all the answers, then why am I who always asks to be shown where I’m wrong?
            ~If I’m the one who is guilty of fallacy, then why are you the one who won’t give the specific examples for me to address rather than just make blanket accusations against me?
            ~If my fallacies are so prevalent and so repugnant to you, why do insist on writing post after post attacking my motives and character, the most used and lowest fallacy of them all?
            ~If I’m the one who’s inept, then why am I the one who can provide a response of my own while you use Matthew Henry’s commentaries? Note: This isn’t to say that because I write my own responses that it automatically makes me right; however, it does illustrate that I have at least taken the time to personally study and reconcile Scripture and to develop scripturally based answers for consideration rather than to just cut and paste someone else’s work, regardless of your opinion of him and especially because he disagrees with you on one of the very points that you insist is biblically true. My intention was and is that you be able to prove your points by using Scripture and your own intellect to write your responses because, as I wrote, there are people who hold the same earned status, that you insist upon, as Matthew Henry who don’t agree with him, so how do you know that his is the right interpretation?

            I only answered your April 6 posts because it appeared you were engaging me in a dialogue and asking me to address what you see as problems, but I see now that your intent was only to personally attack me because you did not give one word in those posts or this one that proves either my logic or my conclusions wrong.

            As I wrote before, when you are able to provide a personally written response with relevant Scripture and sound reasoning to refute any of the interpretations that I have given, then I will concede that I am wrong and apologize for wrongly dividing the Word. As to everything you said about me personally, I’ll let the Lord judge between you and me.

            Barbara

          • Tess~

            I just had an idea. We can go back and forth all day, but that, as I’m sure you’ll agree, will never result in finding the truth of God’s Word. Because I am, in your eyes, so obviously ignorant of what the Bible says about eternal security, why don’t you show me and everyone else by addressing one of my examples? I’ll post a few of them, and you can pick the one you want and spend as much time as you want preparing an answer. The only thing I ask is that you leave any personal comments about me out of it. Surely, if I am the one who is wrong, you should have no problem reconciling Scripture to prove it, and if you can, I will apologize to you and everyone else on this site. Because you have said that you “use the word to lead [you] to all truth, His truth and not [your] own version of it,” and that I “use Gods word to win arguments or bully people by claiming superiority,” here’s your chance to prove it. If you want, we can ask someone to mediate so that you can be assured that I don’t commit all the fallacies that you accuse me of. I’ll await your answer.

            Barbara

  6. I just got to thinking, Haman had his place and purpose. I would suppose every generation would need a foil like him to throw a ball against to gain a clear comparison of what is before us each day. Fret not for tomorrow, Mat 6:34 HNV.
    J.

    • LOLOLOL!!! Yeah that Haman was his own worst enemy. Too funny! Foolish Idoitite errr I mean Ediomite!

      • Funny yes, but what makes for cleaver humor (a good medicine) is the grain of truth it can contain and the ability to look at ourselves, see, let go of what ever we have in our hand and yield to the shape of the opening, Luk 13:24 HNV and admit the truth of a fault. So many comics thru the years that have and had lifelong careers making people laugh in this manner, Cosby, Foxworthy, Romano, Mason, Rickles, Diller, Stooges, etc. Yes, often irreverent, crude and even vulgar in exposing hypocrisy of us, but that is what makes me laugh, the truth of it in myself. The opposite of pride is humility. Luk 13:23-35 HNV.

        The inability, the lack of humility to mouth or pen the words “I am wrong, forgive me” goes to the absolute core of Yeshua’s Good News and all that it contains, all that is Creation, all that is yet for us to experience in Eternity is contingent on it, Hbr 12:2 HNV. Yet, HE is true, able and faithful, not me.

        J.

        • So true Jerry and taken to heart brother. 🙂

          OK I gotta do it!
          Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego are standing at the pearly gates smoking cigarettes. Sadrach looks at Abed-Nego and say, Dude! We don’t even smell like smoke!

          Moses runs to God frustrated. God, he says, help me! Every time I try to bath the water parts!

          Marriage is a three ring circus. There’s the engagement ring, the wedding ring and the suffer-ring!

          A teacher is discussing whales at school. A little girl pipes up and says, Jonah was swallowed by a whale! The teacher says in disgust, that’s not true, we know from biology that a whales mouth is too small to swallow a man. The little girl responds. My Sunday school teacher told me it was so and I don’t think she’d lie. But when I get to heaven I’ll ask him about it. The teacher in an ugly retort says, what if Jonah doesn’t make it to heaven? The little girl says, OK then you can ask him about it.

          🙂

  8. Bob D.

    What do you think of this?

    First read Rev 1:9-18 HNV and then imagine looking in those eyes and having them find an anti-Semitic thought in my heart. Woo, it makes me want to fall at HIS feet as though dead like Yochanan did, and he was Jewish and the Disciple whom Jesus loved!

    J.

    • Jerry,
      We WILL look into those eyes. That moment will be for all of us a moment of ultimate truth, everlasting righteousness, and unveiled realization.

      Every thought will be laid bare before Him. We will know not only our Creator but the purpose for creation and our part in it. We will see this awesome God and know our insignificance and our significance.

      We will be undone by our faults and at that moment. We will behold the most glorious aspect of our God. We will know with all truth just how unworthy we are. At the moment of total awareness of our depravity there will be no place for us to hide. No excuse for us to give and like dead men the reality of it all will drain all hope from our being.

      He’ll say your sins are many. Your most righteous moments are totally unacceptable. Your righteousness is but filthy rags. My judgement’s are true and your works will not save you.

      I breathed life into you and with your breath you cursed me in word and deed. I was there in your darkest despair, in your ugliest state, in your proudest moments. I was there when you first laughed out loud. I put that laughter in the heart I created in you. I create joy. I put in you the tears you shed and placed them all in a bottle.

      I suffered the very essence of sin. My Father turned His back on me as I became sin for you. The flames of hell I conquered. I did not do that for Myself. I suffered for you.

      I descended from on High, a babe, fragile, lowly, and called illegitimate by my own. I endured a life of loneliness, rejection, cruel and inhuman treatment. My greatest sorrows you created. I wept for you and because of you. I was tortured and bled out my lifes blood for you and at your hands.

      I was humiliated because of you as you smirked at me with smug satisfaction at my suffering on a cross. I was spat on with the vile saliva of your contempt.

      As demons encompassed me round my Father turned from me and I became sin for you. I conquered death. I crushed the serpents head. Victory has been mine from before the beginning.

      Why did I allow all of this?

      Because of my mercy, because of my grace, because of my love for the unlovable. You didn’t earn it. You don’t deserve it but because of my great love I offered Myself for you. The moment you repented and asked Me to be your Savior I answered you. I don’t just feel love. I am love.

      All who repent and seek My face I will receive. I’ll cover your sins with My blood and give you eternal life. I’ll show you the mansions on high that I’ve been preparing for you. I’ll give you a new name and a new song and for eternity we will sing together, laugh together and love together. We’ll eat angels food and dance within the clouds. We’ll talk of things to wonderful for you to have conceived of and we’ll forever be together.

      Your sins are many but I purchased you with my love. You cried out to Me and I have answered. Try to share My love with others. Without Me they are lost indeed and in as much need of a Savior as you. Let them see the hope of salvation, the promise of redemption, the glory of repentance. I’m coming sooner than you know. There’s no time to waist. They need to see Me in you.

  9. Tess,

    Back to my original comment and what I wanted to point out of Justin’s last paragraph and in conjunction with your most recent cross examination of other peoples comments.

    It has been my observation also of these types of contorted reasoning’s that brings me to the conclusion I’ve come to about Replacement Theology being what is behind them. When Israel as a nation or people are REMOVED in part or in whole, for a time or completely from NT scripture and the plans of the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (wrote Israel instead of Jacob for emphasis), then something must take their place to fill in the gap because scripture itself and logic demand it. Just as Justin pointed out at the beginning of his last paragraph that prompted my comment; a question arises! Because if the church is removed at the rapture then who are these “elect” that are spoken of? The answer to this particular question is Israel. Anything else just doesn’t align. The 144,000, the gentiles who admit wrong and ask for forgiveness do not fit if we, like you point out, take scripture in whole and for what it actually says. But let’s go to a larger point to be made. GOD the Creator of all mankind has made the blood line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob HIS focus (that doesn’t mean to the exclusion of anyone else) and they are primarily HIS focus from Genesis 12 to Revelation 21. When anything else is put in their place for what ever reason there might be, then the logic of what is actually written goes out of synchronization and the tools of allegory, analogy and the implications that can be put forth from using them whined up being taken as truth. Add centuries of tradition and teaching, hype hoopla and entertainment, apathy and laziness, pride, presumption and prejudice and we have the recipe for religion that puts the focus on creation and not on HE the CREATOR. Just what the Accuser of HIS people and the one whose lies we will be “justified” from would like to happen. There is much more that can be said.

    Blessings to you and yours and thank you for your diligence.

    J.

    • I view Jew and Gentile as simply labels. God created man in His own image He created them male and female. He created them sovereign meaning they have supreme and ultimate power over themselves. He did not create them slaves or mindless beings forever happy without the knowledge of good and evil. I think He created them sovereign for the purpose of His glory and for the future glory and purpose to be Kings and Priests in heaven and ultimately to judge angels. Because men in our heavenly state will judge angels we have to know the difference between good and evil.

      God sees us as His finest creation. I might add at this point that He saw that man was good and that woman was VERY good. Just kidding, sorta but not. Who did satan focus His attack on? Eve. Why? Because Eve was the completion of the perfect unit that became God’s finest creation. Satan hated the fact that man would rule over angels. He was the most beautiful highest arch angel and rejected God’s decision and fell.

      What we see throughout history is that because satan deceived Eve Adam had to make a decision. Do I join her in her fate or obey God. He could have left her to her fate but she’d been deceived and he loved her. Jesus did that for us. He gave himself for us out of love and overcame satan and his plan to render mankind dead to God’s purpose and plan. But God is God and no plan of God’s can satan thwart. God knew all of this before hand and His glorious purpose began.

      You pointed out rightly that man was just man in the beginning. There was no Jew or Gentile those are simply descriptors. Who are we anyway? Can we decide who we are born to? No we are born to whom and where and when God chooses. Our quest has never been religion. Religion is man’s vain attempt to make himself acceptable to God in his own way. Every religion that ever existed got it wrong. It’s not about who man is. It’s about who God is and the choices we make about our relationship with Him. We will either attempt to make ourselves God or we will wise up and realize that all God’s purposes are perfect and all our attempts to cover ourselves in the fig leaves of our religion are missing the point. We have to realize that God loved us so much He died that we might live.

      We have to care more about our relationship than our religion and when we yield, use the intellect He gave us to worship and obey Him to truly accept Him as Lord and Savior then the works we do are a sweet aroma because they are done in love and with the knowledge that He is Holy and His death is sufficient. We stop trying to not break the rules because the rules are our freedom. We are free to worship and obey the only Holy thing in the universe is the One who created the universe. And we as his precious children are free from the allure of sin. It’s power is conquered by love.

      Replacement theology is just like every wrong theology. It’s people who wrongly judge others when they should be judging sin. They hate the sinner but they love the sin. They strain a gnat while swallowing a camel. It’s a tiny tiny mind that thinks in order to be good I must be better than my neighbor. We shouldn’t be anything like our neighbor, we should try to be like our God. It’s a sinful mind that attempts to secure salvation by judging his brother. Our judgement should be against satan and sin. It’s an ignorant thinker who thinks heaven isn’t big enough for the both of us. That not holy it’s covetousness. Satan will do all he can to pit us against them, to whisper God loves you but not him. To take our minds off the real enemy of God in any way He can. He’s done a mighty fine job so far with the “religious” angle. But when we totally give ourselves over to the glorious reality that Christ died and rose again and we can live by faith and in hope it just keeps getting better and better every day.

      Sorry so long I got caught up in the glory of our God. It doesn’t answer all the questions but soon enough we’ll know all those answers and we can start having fun and kicking satan’s aspirations to hurt what God loves.

      • Women, our precious mothers are the gateway to enter this world. Life that is influenced at its source is more malleable for contrived purposes. For this reason Satan and other unbelievers are known to treat women harshly. Satan has directed his venom, his purpose to destroy us toward women from the beginning. Woman have been shamefully bullied and abused throughout history. Mothers withstand assaults directed at their lovingkindness, their sensitivity that is distinct to their being and essential for their reproduction of humans. Childbirth and rearing require much of mothers’ lives. Care for their children can be an agonizing ordeal. Who suffers more as struggles or ills test her children? The loving half of our being, our mothers must be cherished.
        Rev 21:2, Rev 22:17

        • Wow Bob! So VERY true, to the point without belaboring it and insightful. Please pray that God will share that gift with me.

          I have to be honest I don’t know any women that have that gift. Maybe because we are nester, gatherers. We tend to prune it, pluck it, prepare it for eating and throw berries on the side for desert.

          Men seem to zero in, shot it and drag it home so they can go shoot the next thing. Women pause and consider whether this will leave Bambi without his mother! We’ll talk a thing to death but that’s time consuming. The only time a man will shop is when he’s picking out camo gear!

          See! I might be hopeless! Pray anyway or prepare to await a slow death by voluminous verbage. Reminds me of the Parable of the Persistent Widow in Luke 18.

          • So true Jerry. She’s Israel.

            Barbara,
            There’s no reply button on your last comment and again you refuse to answer simple questions so time spent on you is wasted time and everything anyone tries to point out to you YOU use to attack them. So I’m not going to bother with you anymore. You can loose YOUR salvation if you want to but mine is secure and I know the One who died that it would be. Romans 5 should explain my stance well as the NT did in it’s entirety. I’ll post more about Romans 5 soon but right now I’m on vacation and the computer I’m on has a broken l key.

          • Tess~

            When you are able to provide a personally written response with relevant Scripture and sound reasoning to refute any of the interpretations that I have given, then I will concede that I am wrong and apologize for wrongly dividing the Word. As to everything you said about me personally, I’ll let the Lord judge between you and me.

            Barbara

          • Tess~

            I do have a couple other comments. If, by “simple questions,” you mean that three-post list from April 6, let me remind you that I was more than willing to address each point; however, the only two things that I insisted upon were that you refrained from personal attacks and from posting other people’s commentaries as your proof in lieu of presenting your own argument, hardly unreasonable requests by anyone’s standard.

            It is a simple argumentative fact that those who know that they have the truth are able to defend it. Are you able to defend your position? I’m not asking if you are able to write your opinion. I’m not even asking if you are able to give Scripture to support your opinion. Anyone can do that. What I am asking is if you are able to reconcile contradictory Scripture with the Scripture that you use to support your premise because, if you can’t do that, you do not have the truth (II Tim. 3:16), and it doesn’t matter how many times you or anyone else can quote Matthew 28:20, John 18:9, Hebrews 13:5 or any other similar verses. Here are three very short examples:

            ~ In Matthew 24:13 Jesus says, “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”
            ~In Romans 11:22, Paul says, “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
            ~ In Hebrews 3:14, the writer says, “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.”

            Because you have spared no verbiage in impugning both my character and my ability to rightly divide the Word, you should have no trouble backing up what you have said by taking all or even one of these verses and giving a thorough, well-thought out answer that reconciles God’s entire counsel. For example, what does Romans 11:22 mean and how do you explain that both Matthew 28:20 and Romans 11:22 are true? What is the purpose of Jesus’ comment in Matthew 24:13? What does the “if” mean in Hebrews 3:14? I realize that you are on vacation, but it will give you something to think about, and when you get back, you can tell me exactly what I have misread to arrive at what you consider an erroneous conclusion.

            Barbara

  10. I’ll be happy to do that Barbara.
    I’ll put it on one of the older posts that didn’t receive many comments so that we don’t blur or disrespect the issue of the article BLB posted and derail the points they were making. I’ll probably post it on the Charles Spurgeon post from a while back. I’ll do this if BLB doesn’t let us know they object. I want to make sure they are ok with it. If I don’t see a comment from them requesting we not by the time I post it then I’ll go ahead and post and we can take it from there. When I’ve done posted I’ll let you know where I posted it.