A different Gospel? or not?

Still continuing to babble and give your own opinions without corroboration from the Book heh?

Yes, he spoke, but COMMITTED the teachings concerning the MYSTERY to Paul. He SAID THAT too. ONLY AFTER HE LEFT THIS WORLD! (See Gal.1, Rom.16, 2 Tim.1, Titus 1, Eph.3,6, Col.1, etc)

The poof is the AWAITING for prooftexts to document your ridiculous ramblings about the truth of YOUR teaching.

 

Eternal life concerned the PROMISE OF LIFE made to the Son BY THE FATHER in eternity past. It concerned the BODY OF CHRIST. Satan and his buddies did not KNOW anything about it BEFORE it came about under the ministry of Paul. It was accomplished by his death on the cross. (2 Tim.1, Titus 1, 1 Tim.1, Rom.8, Col.2)

THEY DID HEAR IT after Paul REVEALED it. (Col.1)

 

Carl,

"Prooftexts"? Any position that needs "prooftexts" to justify it is forced.

I'm not really sure where you and RJ are coming from. In John 3:16 and John 14:6 Jesus gave the purpose of His coming, and He was not exclusive. Salvation is available to Jews and Gentiles alike. I won't argue that Jesus said some different things to the Jews - but the background of the Jews is a different one that the background of a Greek Gentile who had not heard of Judaism.

What does Jn 3:16 say? It says that Jesus came to save those who would believe. What did Jesus say at the Last Supper? My body? My blood?

You are trying to make a distinction where there is not one.

 

And I agree brother Carl, but please note that I didn't say "specifically' or "prophetically". I said that there were some strong hints concerning the Body of Christ in the OT.

Isaiah 53
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Acts 8
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Here is Philip preaching Jesus (based upon Isaiah 53) to a gentile, without Christ, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world who subsequently believed and was baptized.

To be sure, no one reading Isaiah before Paul would be able to define the Body of Christ in it's NT fulfillment.

HankD

 

Dan 9:26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

That is not what it says is it? It says after the 69th week. Now you figured out what comes after 69: The number after 69 is 70.
So Messiah is cut off in the 70th week. See how simple that is?

You seem not to want to answer who is the prince spoken of in context of the passage? I'll let others answer for you since you can't.


John Gill:

and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;

that is, the people of the Romans, under Vespasian their prince, emperor, and general, should, in a little time after the cutting off of the Messiah, enter into the land of Judea, and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the temple that stood in it; though some understand this of Messiah the Prince that should come in his power, and in a way of judgment upon the Jewish nation, and destroy them for their rejection of him; whose people the Romans would be, and under whose direction, and by whose orders, all these judgments should be brought upon the Jews;

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=009&verse=026

Matthew Henry:

It is here foretold that the people of the prince that shall come shall be the instruments of this destruction, that is, the Roman armies, belonging to a monarchy yet to come (Christ is the prince that shall come, and they are employed by him in this service; they are his armies , Mt. 22:7), or the Gentiles (who, though now strangers, shall become the people of the Messiah) shall destroy the Jews.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=da&chapter=009&verse=026#Da9_26

Here is what the Reformers taught:
1599 Geneva Study Bible

9:26 And after threescore and two x weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but y not for himself: and the people of the z prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

(x) In this week of the seventy, will Christ come and preach and suffer death.
(y) He will seem to have no beauty, nor to be of any estimation;
( z) Meaning Titus, Vespasians’s son, who would come and destroy both the temple, and the people, without any hope of recovery.

Too be fair Scofield agrees with you, congratulations.You and Scofield agree alot. Perhaps you shouldn't swallow hook, line and sinker everything your "professors" teach you. A little independant study and thinking might do you good.

 

It arrives during the Roman Empire. Dan 2 and 7 are quite clear on that. What is the fourth kingdom of Dan. 2?

Funny Daniel doesn't mention a gap between week 69 and 70, but you, DD, and Scofield find one.

Acts 2: 30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

So was Matt. 24:14. Matt 24 is referencing the end of the Jewish age.

2 Peter 3 you say? OK:

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophet s and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

I Peter 1: 10concerning which salvation seek out and search out did prophets who concerning the grace toward you did prophecy,11searching in regard to what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them was manifesting, testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory after these, 12to whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they were ministering these, which now were told to you (through those who did proclaim good news to you,) in the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, to which things messengers do desire to bend looking.


Acts 3:19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Why does Paul quote so many Old Testament Prophets if what Paul teaches was not found in the OT? Which Gospel does Jer. 31:33 refer to? Jesus's or Paul's?

 

That's a bizarre statement. The Bible is a book of prooftexts for our beliefs.

We're NOT TALKING about the prophesied salvation of Gentiles. (See Isaiah and Simeon in Luke 1.) That was a certainty, which the Lord ALSO taught. (See Luke 4) We're talking about the body of Christ being TAUGHT within the OT, and the revelation of it's message (the gospel of tht grace of God) by it's minister.

I'm REPEATING the distinction that is GIVEN by Paul.

[ January 06, 2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: carlaimpinge ]

 

And I agree brother Carl, but please note that I didn't say "specifically' or "prophetically". I said that there were some strong hints concerning the Body of Christ in the OT.

Isaiah 53
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Acts 8
32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Here is Philip preaching Jesus (based upon Isaiah 53) to a gentile, without Christ, an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, and a stranger from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world who subsequently believed and was baptized.

To be sure, no one reading Isaiah before Paul would be able to define the Body of Christ in it's NT fulfillment.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]There's NO HINTS of what Paul wrote about. There are TYPES. (See Eve in Gen.2 compared with Eph.5) Eve's MARRIAGE to Adam did not TEACH the doctrinal truth of the body of Christ though. PAUL DID IN HIS EPISTLES USING THE TYPE.

The Ethiopian WAS NOT an unbeliever. He was a JEWISH PROSELYTE, a Greek, one who worshipped the God of Israel. You confounded Eph.2, applying it wrongly. The barbarians were the ones WITHOUT CHRIST. (See Rom.1, 1 Cor.1) The enuch was WISE, NOT UNWISE. He followed the light, which he had. (See Isaiah 56 for doctrinal application)

You better believe that no one could define OR find any reference TO THE BODY OF CHRIST within Isaiah 53. It concerned THE TRANSGRESSIONS OF HIS PEOPLE, which were JEWS.

 

It arrives during the Roman Empire. Dan 2 and 7 are quite clear on that. What is the fourth kingdom of Dan. 2?

Funny Daniel doesn't mention a gap between week 69 and 70, but you, DD, and Scofield find one.

Acts 2: 30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

So was Matt. 24:14. Matt 24 is referencing the end of the Jewish age.

2 Peter 3 you say? OK:

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophet s and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

I Peter 1: 10concerning which salvation seek out and search out did prophets who concerning the grace toward you did prophecy,11searching in regard to what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them was manifesting, testifying beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory after these, 12to whom it was revealed, that not to themselves, but to us they were ministering these, which now were told to you (through those who did proclaim good news to you,) in the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, to which things messengers do desire to bend looking.


Acts 3:19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Why does Paul quote so many Old Testament Prophets if what Paul teaches was not found in the OT? Which Gospel does Jer. 31:33 refer to? Jesus's or Paul's? </font>[/QUOTE]You're having a hard time reading words brother.

There's no ROMAN KINGDOM found, seen, or stated in Dan.2 or 7. That is hypothetical, suppositional being interjected.

You totally disregarded the TEXT which stated the little horn made war against the saints also. It won't go away. That didn't OCCUR during the Roman empire either.

Why would he MENTION a gap? He didn't KNOW everything, according to Paul. (Eph.3) Moses NOR Isaiah didn't mention a gap, but there WAS ONE. See son, you messed up.

There were people LONG BEFORE Scofield who knew understood there was a gap.

Again you have a time with reading. There is no gospel or kingdom of heaven FOUND in Acts 28. We KNOW what gospel Paul preached. (Acts 20) It WAS NOT the gospel of the kingdom, and he didn't preach it being AT HAND. (Prooftext?)

No, you're wrong. The gospel of the kingdom WAS NOT preached after the resurrection. The gospel of God was along with the gospel of the grace of God. You keep USING VERSES which do not prove what you state. The preaching of the kingdom of God IS NOT the preaching of the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND.

The end is not the Jewish age, but the END of the tribulation in Matt.24. That is FUTURE according to the Lord Jesus.

Who doesn't KNOW that Christ's COMING is contained in the OT of which Peter spoke. The first and the REVELATION. (See Rev.1) That's AFTER the tribulation. Paul's GATHERING is not FOUND in the OT scriptures.

Paul's WRITINGS "agree" with the prophets JUST like James stated. Salvation of Gentiles BEFORE Christ's coming. (Acts 15) They ARE NOT the "doctrinal" fulfillment of them, NO MORE than Acts 2 fulfilled Joel 2.

 

Hypothetical? Suppositional? Yet your crowd claims this is some revived Roman Empire. Who lives in fantasy land?
The four Kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and Rome. Your view just ignores the Roman Empire and instead inserts a revived Roman Empire. Talk about hypothetical.

39And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

Here is what John Gill says:
Daniel 2:40

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron…
This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things;
so this kingdom has subdued and conquered all others; not the Jews only, but the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, Africans, French, Germans, yea, all the world: and as iron that breaketh,
or "even as iron breaketh all these", shall it break in pieces, and bruise;
all nations and kingdoms; hence Rome has been called the mistress of the world, and its empire in Scripture is called the whole world, (Luke 2:1) (Revelation 17:18) .

Your right, Nero was a nice guy to Christians. He just got bad press.

So no prophets mentioned a gap, Jesus didn't mention it, Paul nor any other NT writer mention it, yet you and Jack VanImpe are sure its there. I guess you MUST believe it or your entire system comes tumbling down. I guess your view would be hypothetical and suppositional .

He didn't preach a "gap" either but that hasn't stopped you.

31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

You must believe that the prophets also taught two Gospels. Jesus taught what the prophets taught, Paul taught what the prophets taught, yet Jesus and Paul didn't teach the same thing???

No, Jesus was quite clear about it. Again you twist the words of Jesus in order to force it into your view. Many pre-mill commentaries even understand this to be describing the events of AD70. Read verse 34.

Once again those who wrote without the influence of Darbyism had it right:

Adam Clarke
Then shall the end come .
When this general publication of the Gospel shall have taken place, then a period shall be put to the whole Jewish economy, by the utter destruction of their city and temple.

Or perhaps Spurgeon carries wieght with you:

(On Matthew 24:21)
"For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Read the record written by Josephus of the destruction of Jerusalem, and see how truly our Lord’s words were fulfilled. The Jews impiously said, concerning the death of Christ, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Never did any other people invoke such an awlful curse upon themselves, and upon no other nation did such a judgment ever fall. We read of Jews crucified till there was no more wood for making crosses; of thousands of the people slaying one another in their fierce faction fights within the city; of so many of them being sold for slaves that they became a drug in the market, and all but valueless; and of the fearful carnage when the Romans at length entered the doomed capital; and the blood-curdling story exactly bears out the Savior’s statement uttered nearly forty years before the terrible events occurred."

"The destruction of Jerusalem was more terrible than anything that the world has ever witnessed, either before or since. Even Titus seemed to see in his cruel work the hand of an avenging God. (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412)

"Truly, the blood of the martyrs slain in Jerusalem was amply avenged when the whole city became veritable Aceldama, or field of blood." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412,413)

Unbeleivable! Peter must be very confused in your eyes.

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Peter says THIS IS! Not maybe, not a type, and not a foreshadow. Once again you must twist words to fit your view. I guess Peter didn't have the benefit of your web-site to get his theology correct.

 

grasshopper, please note in Daniel 9 that the destruction of the temple is in between the Messiah being cut off and the 70th week.

That would mean several things:

1. There is a gap of at least 37 years between week 69 and 70.

2. The prince to come can't be the Messiah.

 

You are correct I did misapply it, thank you for that observation and correction.

I still hold to my use of the word "hint" concerning Isaiah 53 and the Body of Christ.
I don't find any place in the chapter which narrows the phrase "and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" limited strictly to Israel.

"HIS PEOPLE" (actually "my people") includes the gentiles according to Paul when quoting Hosea.

Romans 9
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

HankD

 

1. The Messiah is cut off in the middle of the 70th week. The war was determined during that week, not to happen during that week.

Luke 19: 42Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. 43For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, 44And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

2. The prince can either be Messiah or a Roman leader such as Titus. Commentators vary. I believe it is Messiah since the prince is mentioned in verse 25 as the Messiah.

 

Hypothetical? Suppositional? Yet your crowd claims this is some revived Roman Empire. Who lives in fantasy land?
The four Kingdoms are Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greece and Rome. Your view just ignores the Roman Empire and instead inserts a revived Roman Empire. Talk about hypothetical.

39And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

Here is what John Gill says:
Daniel 2:40

And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron…
This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things;
so this kingdom has subdued and conquered all others; not the Jews only, but the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, Africans, French, Germans, yea, all the world: and as iron that breaketh,
or "even as iron breaketh all these", shall it break in pieces, and bruise;
all nations and kingdoms; hence Rome has been called the mistress of the world, and its empire in Scripture is called the whole world, (Luke 2:1) (Revelation 17:18) .

Your right, Nero was a nice guy to Christians. He just got bad press.

So no prophets mentioned a gap, Jesus didn't mention it, Paul nor any other NT writer mention it, yet you and Jack VanImpe are sure its there. I guess you MUST believe it or your entire system comes tumbling down. I guess your view would be hypothetical and suppositional .

He didn't preach a "gap" either but that hasn't stopped you.

31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

You must believe that the prophets also taught two Gospels. Jesus taught what the prophets taught, Paul taught what the prophets taught, yet Jesus and Paul didn't teach the same thing???

No, Jesus was quite clear about it. Again you twist the words of Jesus in order to force it into your view. Many pre-mill commentaries even understand this to be describing the events of AD70. Read verse 34.

Once again those who wrote without the influence of Darbyism had it right:

Adam Clarke
Then shall the end come .
When this general publication of the Gospel shall have taken place, then a period shall be put to the whole Jewish economy, by the utter destruction of their city and temple.

Or perhaps Spurgeon carries wieght with you:

(On Matthew 24:21)
"For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."
Read the record written by Josephus of the destruction of Jerusalem, and see how truly our Lord’s words were fulfilled. The Jews impiously said, concerning the death of Christ, "His blood be on us, and on our children." Never did any other people invoke such an awlful curse upon themselves, and upon no other nation did such a judgment ever fall. We read of Jews crucified till there was no more wood for making crosses; of thousands of the people slaying one another in their fierce faction fights within the city; of so many of them being sold for slaves that they became a drug in the market, and all but valueless; and of the fearful carnage when the Romans at length entered the doomed capital; and the blood-curdling story exactly bears out the Savior’s statement uttered nearly forty years before the terrible events occurred."

"The destruction of Jerusalem was more terrible than anything that the world has ever witnessed, either before or since. Even Titus seemed to see in his cruel work the hand of an avenging God. (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412)

"Truly, the blood of the martyrs slain in Jerusalem was amply avenged when the whole city became veritable Aceldama, or field of blood." (Commentary on Matthew, p. 412,413)

Unbeleivable! Peter must be very confused in your eyes.

14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Peter says THIS IS! Not maybe, not a type, and not a foreshadow. Once again you must twist words to fit your view. I guess Peter didn't have the benefit of your web-site to get his theology correct. </font>[/QUOTE]My crowd? You don't know me NOR what I believe about that. You talk too much without listening, lumping anyone you don't agree with together.

You couldn't PROVE the four kingdoms of Dan.2 and 7 were those to save your life. Daniel DOESN"T call the iron kingdom Rome. You TEACH that due to historical continuation.

The beasts of Dan.7 and the parts of Dan.2 are not the same. The beasts come from Greece. (Dan.7,8,11) They are from the four winds.

John Gill's opinion was no better than yours.

Nero? Son, you need to take a break and go to MacDonald's. We're dealing with scritpural and biblical indentification by the words of the Holy Spirit. You must also believe the burning mountain of Revelation is Elvis Presley coming back from where he went, reprising his role of Flaming Star, while singing Hunka, Hunka Burning Love. Get real.

Why you poor deluded man. The Lord Jesus SEPARATED Isaiah 61 with a gap. The sufferings and the glory are divided.

Now, you're just going to rail without comment. Fine. Manifest that simpletonism.

Twist the words? Friend, you can't even READ the words of the texts. The text concerns the END of the tribulation, when the gospel of the kingdom is preached, which CONTEXT is the end of the world, NOT THE JEWISH AGE. (That's suppositional, interjected, hogwash.)

Again you REFUSE to deal with the texts quoted. Typical evasion.

The gospel of the grace of God was REVEALED to Paul. NNE preached it before him. It was communicated to others who UNDERSTOOD IT and PERCEIVED HIS MINISTRY by the Holy Spirit, who leads and guides into all truth. (Gal.2, Eph.3) Now IGNORE those verses also.

Clarke and Spurgeon were not correct in everything they believed, as many others before them AND after them are not.

The weight is FOUND in the words of the Holy Scriptures INTERPRETED by the Holy Spirit.

No, Peter KNEW exactly what he was talking about UNLIKE YOU. He was giving an explanation concerning the manifestation of tongues, and RELATED Joel's pouring out of the Spirit to the SPEECH of those on the day of Pentecost.

Any reasonable man knows the signs refer to the the great and terrible day of the Lord AFTER THE TRIBULATION. (See Matt.24)

[ January 06, 2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: carlaimpinge ]

 

You are correct I did misapply it, thank you for that observation and correction.

I still hold to my use of the word "hint" concerning Isaiah 53 and the Body of Christ.
I don't find any place in the chapter which narrows the phrase "and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" limited strictly to Israel.

"HIS PEOPLE" (actually "my people") includes the gentiles according to Paul when quoting Hosea.

Romans 9
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]We're quoting the DOCTRINAL STATEMENT from Isaiah which concerns Israel. HIS PEOPLE are the Jews. Matt.1 confirms it ALONG WITH PAUl as stated in Heb.2 concerning his coming TO THE HEBREWS.

His people is not found in Rom.9. It is MY PEOPLE, with Paul making "spiritual" application to the fact that the body of Christ is NOW his people. (Paul USES many verses LIKE THAT.) They no more FULFILL the prophecy of the actual verses than a toad frog is a bulldog. (Hosea acutually concerns the nation AFTER their conversion, see HOSEA)

He applied it to us FOR LEARNING and ADMONITION. (See 1 Cor.10, Rom.15)

He exercised "HIS OWN TEACHING" of 2 Tim.3:16.

 

Well, I can understand your point Carl, but from someone who has been as literally oriented to the scriptures as you seem to be and now to be talking about "Paul making 'spiritual' application" is a stretch in my opinion.

HankD

 

Are you speaking ex cathedra or is this just your opinion?

 

But that is exactly what you are saying when you make statements like yours, because it applies to the body of Christ prophetically, because it prophesies the atonement, and both Jews and Gentiles are united to Christ in the same atonement. Yes, I know,you're saying it doesn't apply to the us as the Body of Christ until it was revealed to Paul, but that is just a backward way of saying that it did not carry that meaning until it was assigned by Paul, or rather revealed to Paul by God. It is God's Word, it either meant what it meant when it was written or it did not. The understanding of its correct application does not negate its prophetic content, which necessarily exists independently of time, since God Himself exists independently from time. To allege otherwise, you may as well believe Open Theism.

The rules of sound English dictate that this: "Isaiah 53 does not speak SPECIFICALLY OR PROPHETICALLY" means that Isaiah 53 does not speak to Body of Christ in either a specific or a prophetic sense. (NOTE, YOU DID NOT QUALIFY THAT STATEMENT). If that is so, then how can you pilfer from it to apply to redemption at all? That simply makes no sense. Nobody denies that it applies to us SPECIFICALLY, because it was written to a specific people at a specific time, and there was no understanding of its application with regard to Christ's atonement until the Church Age, but MUST speak to us prophetically, or it can not be understood by ANY Christian, Jew or Gentile to apply to the atonement of Christ, or, alternatively, it would mean that Jesus' atonement is applicable only to Jews, since you specfiy that it speaks of Israel. Additionally, using the same logic, one can say that any prophecy of the OT that is Christological that has an alternative fulfillment, like Isa. 7:14, which was first fulfilled by the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is, in fact, NOT prophetic of Christ for that reason. You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent and, using it, one can conclude that the Messianic prophecies Matthew himself cites are NOT speaking prophetically of Christ Himself at all until Matthew wrote to that effect.

The prophetic nature of Isaiah applies to the church in this respect independently, apart from a revelation to Paul. God does not require a separate revelation to Paul to make the text apply to the church in any way. That's one step away from Open Theism and the way it says God perceives the future. That's like saying a stop sign does mean stop to a blind person because they can't see. Either that sign means what it means independently of the perception of the person or it does not. It is like saying the Trinity was not in existence or a valid doctrine until Christianity came along to understand it in the teachings of the New Testament and then the Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedoean Creeds clarified it.

The bottom line is that not one line of Scripture makes the distinctions you make. The gospel of Paul is the SAME gospel as that of Christ. To say otherwise is to impose a doctrinal system that does not exist.

What you're saying is that there was not blurring of distinctions between Jew and Greek in Christ, until Paul said so. That makes God's word subject to time in some way, in direct contravention of the attribute of God's eternity. There are no such distinctions in God's mind. Isaiah 53 certainly speaks specfically and prophetically of us, as well as Israel, or else Paul would not allude to it multiple times in Romans, nor would the writer of Hebrews, nor would Philip use it as his text for the eunuch. I wonder do you feel free to pilfer Israel's property to appropriate the comfort of Ezekiel 34:24-31 and Joel 2:23? If so, then you are being inconsistent.

You point to Matt. 1. Well, Matt. 1 quotes Isa. 7:14 as well. Are we also to believe that Christ was not spoken of prophetically in Isa. 7:14, at least until Matthew wrote his gospel? You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent with any conception of Hebrew parallelism.

It was a truth existing in the mind of God before Paul was even born. Ultimately, you will have to affirm some form of the doctrine of God's eternity with respect to revelation that makes God subject to time by making the gospel itself subject to time and the knowledge of the writers of the pertinent texts. This also violates the concept of God's independence. Methinks you need to take a course in systematic theology that doesn't rely on Schofield or Darby. Using that same logic, one can conclude that the Trinity in its form affirmed by Paul is not affirmed in the Old Testament because there was no such understanding of it in Judaism (and that remains so today). We can also say that the Messianic texts in Isaiah and Psalms did not prophetically apply to Christ at all, since there was no real understanding of Jesus identity until Advent (this is a tactic atheists use when criticising Christology), and, with respect to the theological writing of the NT, until the gospels began being written. Not only that, we should also affirm that Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 did not apply to the sinfulness of all persons specifically or prophetically, since Paul is the one that makes that application in Romans 3. That's plainly absurd, but is very much where you "logic," and I use that term loosely, goes.

SO WHAT, God did, and God is the author of Isaiah, not Paul. The Old Testament saints clearly did know of Christ, because many of them saw Jesus day according to Jesus own words, e.g. Abraham. You are not privy about ANYTHING the Apostles or the prophets or even the Patriarchs knew or did not know. Only they are privy to it.

The famous cry of the classic dispensationalists who forget there is not one line of Protestant theology affirming their views until the 19th century. I bet you affirm free willism too, and FYI, I spent 12 years studying dispensational theology. I know quite well what I'm discussing here.

And there was no footnote to your post anyway, so an appeal for "documentation" or your part comes across as spurious.

Paul was an Apostle...and, once again, the Bible is not a historical theology textbook, which is the underlying assumption of your system. It is a unity.

How do you know, you weren't there, and Acts is a selective record, not an exhaustive record. We do know they did what God directed them to do. This may or may not have included such an understanding against which you mitigate. They DID understand that Isaiah 53 was about the atonement. The Jews were saved the same way as Gentiles were. Paul NEVER says that Isaiah 53 applies differently to the Jews and Gentiles. SAME GOSPEL. Philip expounded to the eunuch from Isa. 53, because God directed him to do so in order for him to be converted. (Additionally, he was a Greek convert to Judaism and not a hereditary Jew anyway). The root cause of this was that God had elected the eunuch to salvation and was using Philip to bring that to pass. In your view, you are affirming that this text applied to the eunuch because he was Jewish. That is nothing less than conditional election, because the text applies to a person because of some intrinsic quality. This violates God's justice, mercy, and sovereignty in individual salvation and means God is playing favorites. Perhaps you need to take a trip to the Calvinism/Arminianism forum.

You are saying that we are to preach Paul's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. That makes a sum total of zero sense. You seem to be affirming FOUR DIFFERENT GOSPELS. If you were remotely logical, you'd understand this. FOUR GOSPELS = HERESY.

Okay, let's look at that statement in 1 Tim 2.

First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers. To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians. Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.

Second, considering that "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Tim. 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect.

Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:

1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.

2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians. But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.

Also, there is the problem of answering how the desire of God is thwarted. The Arminian position has the desires of God frequently thwarted in addition to having the decision of God depend on the decision of man. God can only save someone if that someone makes the right choice.

The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted" (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles). God desires, in harmony with His eternal decree, to save all men without distinction (i.e., without respect to rank, station, race, or nationality) and bring them to the knowledge of the truth.

Isa. 53 either speaks to us or not at all. Your viewpoint assumes general atonement and corporate, not individual election in order to be true. If it speaks specifically to Israel and the atonement, then only Israel is saved, because Isa. 53 does NOT teach general atonement. Your position ultimately rests on the validity of general atonement. If limited atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 falls apart completely. If actual, general atonement is true, you end up at universalism. In short, this portion of what you say depends on the validity of your view of the atonement, and, if particular atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 disappears with it, and, yes, I do affirm that Isa. 53 does not teach general atonement. .

1 Tim 2:4 has the key: hós pántas anthroópous thélei sootheénai kaí eis epígnoosin aleetheías eltheín

"Thelei is a third person singular present active INDICATIVE verb. God's desire is real and actual, not hypothetical or rhetorical; this is the function of the indicative mood. If "all men" is all men without regard to scope, then, linguistically, we must affirm universalism, because, theologically, what God actually desires is also effective. If God desires all men without exception to be saved, then all men will be saved. On the other hand, if "all men" means "all men without distinction," then only those that believe will be saved. "All" in 2:6 therefore only applies to saved persons, not all persons everywhere. If we apply Isa. 53 to this, it MUST apply to the church in a prophetic sense, regardless of whether or not there is a separate Pauline gospel, or else it does not apply at all. No, there is ONE GOSPEL, to say otherwise amounts to heresy.

By excluding the OT saint from the ekklesia (church) the dispensationalist is required to produce some means, other than partaking of the New Covenant in Christ, for one or the other of the groups to be granted eternal life. The teaching of the church for the last 2,000 yrs precludes this, as does our Lord. No dispensationalist that affirms Reformed soteriology will affirm your statement for that reason.

 

I have to assume what you believe because for some reason you just won't tell me who the fourth Kingdom is of Daniel 2. Care to tell me who this it is this time????? You do know don't you?

And the Prophets didn't call Jesus, Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain the curse of Dt.28:47-48. What is it and when is it to happen?

Are you sure you want to stay with that? Would you like to call a friend?

But much better than yours.

Yes He did, but for some reason He didn't separate with a gap the 69th and 70th week did He???

Actually, I must credit Jack Van Impe with that. I stole it from him and his lovely wife.

Perhaps we should interpret revelation through the context of verses 1 and 3 of Chapter 1. Up for that?

But of course anyone who knows 1st grade greek knows the word for world is "aion". So the CONTEXT is 'age' not world.

Actually I have no education in greek and managed to find that out. Hope your not KJVO or you're in trouble on that verse.

But you have it all figured out? I bet they knew their greek.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Pretty clear isn't it? Let me quote this great theologian who said this:

The weight is FOUND in the words of the Holy Scriptures INTERPRETED by the Holy Spirit.

Try that on Peter's words. What does "this is" mean?

And I always thought Spurgeon and Gill were reasonable men. Thanks for clearing that up.
Your problem is you can't see the possibility that those signs were all fulfilled in the 1st century. Many in the book of Acts.

Still unanswered:

You must believe that the prophets also taught two Gospels. Jesus taught what the prophets taught, Paul taught what the prophets taught, yet Jesus and Paul didn't teach the same thing??? Did the prophets teach 2 Kingdoms?


rjprince

That is my position. If Dan 2 speaks of the Roman empire then what Kingdom was set up according to verse 44?

Many do have a 40 year gap. I have a problem with any gap.

If there is no gap then He put an end of sacrifices and offering at His death. If there is a gap then this refers to the Destruction of the Temple in AD70. I won't argue against either one.