EnochBethany

I see your point, but there is no record of them having heard the Gospel of salvation and being included in "the number" with the disciples and others. ITA. The first Church was populated by Jews. James speaks of synagogues, not church buildings.

Thanks OakWood. I didn't realize they had such a ban on all prophets, not just M. Do you suppose this is a general ban by all branches of Islam -- or is it just one sect? I'm not sure if they do have a ban on portrayal of all prophets. I think they're just making demands again and trying to cause trouble like they always do. I am reminded of the prophecy regarding Ishmael: " And Malech YHWH said to her, I will greatly multiply thy seed, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11 And the angel of Jehovah said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son; and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because Jehovah hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him;" Fortunately for Israel & the West, they have this tendency to attack & kill each other! Imagine what power they would have if unified all the time.

While I won't argue that it was Satan warring against the believers, the claim that the Believers in Jesus were predominantly Jewish at first is rather odd. The original believers were all Jewish! The ~120 in the Upper Room on Pentecost were all Jewish. The 3000 who were added to their numbers that day were all Jewish. It was not until some unknown time later when Peter went to Cornelius that we began seeing Gentiles added into the faith. Unless you read things differently in Acts? Well, Neb, let us not strain at gnats here. They were predominately Jewish. Now let us have you quote a verse that says they were ALL Jewish, with no exceptions. What about the gentile about whom the Lord Jesus said He had not seen so great faith in Israel? What about the SyroPhoenician woman who said that the doggies could pick up scraps? What about the Greeks who said, "Sirs, we would see Jesus." I don't know any way to prove that no single Gentile believed. they were not predominately Jewish. All of the first converts were Jewish. The people who you mention are said to have believed on Jesus for salvation. They recognized Him as a prophet, not as a Messiah. There is no record of them of trusting Jesus as Savior. You can try to pencil that in if you wish, but it simply isn't there. God had to prod the Jewish believers to include the Gentiles. They had to be pushed out into the nonJewish world. Peter was sent to Cornelius' house and it was after they got saved that Peter understood that the Gospel was for the Gentiles as well. That was a revelation. One thing we miss is that the first century, Gentile salvation was a mystery. It was a mysterty how uncircumcised Gentiles could qualify to enter the Kingdom of God. This, to the apostles was not the start of a new religion. They clearly saw Jesus as the fulfillmetn of their prophets and all of the hopes and dreams of the Jewish people for the coming of the Messiah to Israel. So your focus is on the word "Messiah." Now how are you going to prove that the few Gentiles who believed did not accept that the Lord Jesus was the "anointed one" promised to come to save Israel? Unless you have scripture, how are you going to prove your ALL claim? Leave it at predominantly. How can one believe in Jesus and not be a convert? Don't pencil in ALL where it does not occur in the text. Thou sayest, "One thing we miss is that the first century, Gentile salvation was a mystery." Well speak for yourself if you wish. I don't miss that the Church was a mystery. New religion? I don't like to call the worship of YHWH a religion. No, the apostles did not think of the message of the Lord Jesus, nor the prophecy after Pentecost as a one of the religions, like worship of Jupiter. And yes, we see erroneous mentality in some of the Jewish believers in the early Church. The transition from Israel to Church took some progress in their minds. Of course the mentality of the early Jewish believers is a different matter from what the Word reveals about Israel & the Church. The apostles are famous for being obtuse, but they should have realized from Mat 16 that something new was coming when the Lord said in future tense, I will build my Church. And the Lord Jesus taught them that change was coming in the Discourse in John that precedes the Last Supper. But I think they probably did not altogether get it, even after 40 days post-resurrection teaching. Even in Acts 1 they were asking about Israel's kingdom. Of course believers are still debating the continuity vs discontinuity between Israel & the Church. The Church falls in a gap in Israel's 70 weeks history. The 69th week ended & the 70th has not yet begun. The Church was a mystery.

Butero posted at length & included this: Have you ever tried to walk around in the dark, with no light at all? You tend to stumble. You might fall down and get hurt. That is what life is like when you don't have God's Word on the inside. (Without any reference to persons who post here, whose writings I am not yet very familiar with), I heartily agree with what you posted on God's Word, etc. Amen

With regard to the Scribe & Pharisees (up in this thread, not sure who posted it): One big problem they had was setting aside the Word of God & making tradition primary. The Lord Jesus rebuked them for it. As to going to Bible school, college, or seminary: it is annoying to hear Bible college study bad-mouthed. Young men & women go to Bible college to learn God's word, taught by men who have the spiritual gift of teaching. Bible college facilitates studying to show yourself approved to God a workman who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing God's word. The Bible college provides a structure of discipline to encourage diligent study. One has deadlines, assignments, tests to take. Also there is practical Christian service so far as I know as a general part of Bible college experience, somewhat like the Matthew 10 assignment by the Lord Jesus to his apostles. In the days of Elisha, there were the sons of the prophets, a community under Elisha. 2 Kings 4 has one of my favorite Bible verses in that context: "O man of God, there's death in the pot!" Actually by just going about your daily tasks, reading the Bible a little, meeting with Christians where everyone gives their opinion off the top of their heads, once in a while reading a commentary -- that is no comparison to Bible college. But the point is not "go to Bible college," it is that if one would be a man of God one must diligently study God's Word seeking illumination from the Spirit -- also, one needs to listen to men of God who have the spiritual gift of teaching. There may be different ways to accomplish that goal.

Sevenseas says: "I would be just a dry pile of bones with a leather bound book in my hand that I would hit people over the head with because I would be a self righteous zealot...much like the teachers in Jesus day." It is a false dichotomy to pit the Bible vs the Holy Spirit. The entrance of God's word brings light. Is it my imagination or is it bad-mouthing the Bible to calling quoting scripture "hit people over the head with"? The Bible is our sword, part of the armor of the Lord, which we are to use. The Lord Jesus did not refrain from quoting the scripture because it was "hitting people over the head." Now the idea that a man should make up his own scripture (on the claim that he has the Spirit) and bad-mouth Bible-quoting, is putting oneself over the Bible. I still wait for someone to quote a Bible verse to the Church commanding fasting, verse from the oldest manuscripts. This issue does intersect with determining which is the best original text of the Bible, as proof-texts for fasting are likely to come out of the Textus Receptus, reflected by the King Jimmy. Take for example 1 Cor 7:5: The following manuscripts do not have fasting there: Papyri p46 & p11 (apparently). ℵ✱ A B C D F G P Y 6 33 81 104 263 424c 459 1175 1739 1881 1912 1962 2200 2464. The following "Church Fathers" (in general) do not have fasting in referring to this verse: Clement Origen, Dionysius Methodius Timothy-Alexandria Didymus Epiphanius; Tertullian Cyprian Ambrosiaster Ambrose Jerome Pelagius Augustine. τῇ νηστείᾳ (the fasting) is added by the second corrector hand of ℵ 0150 256 365 424✱ 436 1241 1319 1573 1852 2127 and the Byzantine text (textus receptus). Chrysostom also has it in one of his writings or sermons. (note: papyri are the super old texts of the NT. These are partial texts of the NT [probably made before anyone sewed the whole NT together]. the symbol ℵ refers to Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus and B (Vaticanus) are regarded as the 2 oldest relatively complete codices of the Bible.) IMHO: Ascetism is not taught in the Bible. However, after the NT many religionists turned to ascetism, as if severity to the body made one holy. Men started living in caves, taking vows of poverty, abstaining from sex, beating themselves, doing things like wearing wool shirts, itchy side in. The NT assures us that ascetism is of no value vs the sinful flesh. Jerome records how he withdrew from society & lived in a cave, starved himself. Then what went thru his mind but dancing women! I prefer the oldest manuscripts to late medieval manuscripts that have "fasting" added. The Spirit breathes upon the Word & brings the truth to light. One should not pit Spirit vs God's Word as competing sources of truth.

Izzel repeats: "The Lord comeing with His saints are at His second coming and these saints are angels" "Saints here are angels why I say so Deuteronomy 33King James Version (KJV)33 And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death." "2 And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. 3 Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. Jesus comes with the Holy angels or saints and for the saints or saved man" Well, Izzel, thanks for pointing out these verses; I had never pondered then before. Now note 1) first that "angels" does not occur in the passage. 2) Actually the word "saints" does not occur either. The word you are translating "saints" is a singular word in Hebrew, qodesh, which means "holy." So lets give a literal translation "came with 10,000 of (the) holy." To be sure, to make smooth English one may render this 10,000s of holy ones. The angels are holy indeed. ואתה מרבבת קדש Jude says: ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ ἦλθεν κύριος = came (the Lord) ἐν = in / with ἁγίαις = saints / holy ones μυριάσιν = 10,000 αὐτοῦ = his So since saints & holy ones are both good translations, IMHO this could be angels or holy humans as based on the word used. Thanks for raising the issue of how to interpret these similar passages (& others). I don't see how you could limit it to angels exclusively. Of course since the Lord is holy, one expects associates who come with Him to also be holy..To interpret this requires figuring out what time is meant and correlating all relevant scripture together. And for me that would take some effort. It is not immediately apparent to me that the coming in Jude must refer to Rev 19. But whatever it refers to, all I can see is that the Lord comes with Holy Beings (unspecified as to angels, the Church, OT saints, or whomever) here. It should be noted that Jude uses the past tense, came. However, it might be a prophetic past which actually refers to the future. Perhaps Enoch saw something in a vision & then reports it as "the Lord came." At any rate, thanks for calling attention to the passage. You have not proven that these are angels or exclusively angels.

Good Morning Izzel, Rev 2 "25 Nevertheless that which ye have, hold fast till I come. 26 And he who overcomes, and he that keeps my works unto the end, to him will I [Christ] give authority over the nations: 27 and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also have received of my Father: 28 and I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. Izzel replied: "Who is the he that shall rule with a rod of iron in the verse you quoted ?" You tell me.

Now if we are going to have the topic of fasting in the Bible, shouldn't we also have the topic of feasting in the Bible? The Law of Moses has only 1 fast. But it has many feasts. Are Christians sinning by neglecting to feast?

How about FEASTING IN THE BIBLE as a topic? Is the Christian doing his dutiful feasting? ( or moping about with a prune face?)

:And were there not fasts in which the entire nation of Israel took place?" The only fast I know of in the Law of Moses is the Great Day of Atonement, where it says (not "fast,") but affict your souls. J Vernon McGee pointed out that the Lord gave them feast days instead of fast days.

No duty to protect? Well, if the squad car has painted on it, "To protect & to serve," couldn't someone at least be sued for false advertising?

Unfortunately there is a lot of injustice in the world. In USA people can be put in jail for quite a while before trial. So even if they get off, they spent jail time & may well be out of pocket big bucks for their defense. On the other hand, criminals may get off. Now you would think that cops would behave what with everything being recorded nowadays. Smile; you're on candid camera.

I recall seeing a news item where there was like this police gun by-back program. But someone parked across the street & would pay more for the guns than the cops would!

Obedience for the sake of obedience is never something Jesus seemed to advocate, did He? Well, he did say that if you love Me, keep my commandments. So obedience is for the sake of love. And He did enforce the jot & tittle of the Law of Moses. But indeed, obedience for the sake of obedience is a deficient theology & morality. I don't think we understand any commandment right until we see how it fits into the 2 big commandments. But it is a big canard to claim that loving someone's word is foreign to loving the person.

Thanks OakWood. I didn't realize they had such a ban on all prophets, not just M. Do you suppose this is a general ban by all branches of Islam -- or is it just one sect?

Quantril, I take it that Christ founded a new race of the children of God, and He is the first transformed man of the new creation. That IMHO is why (por que, warum).

Kingdomwitness: Clues of what, may I ask? (I had to make my 666th post here.)

On "The Day of the Lord" (Day of YHWH) the starting place is a concordance search for the phrase. See if your careful & honest (no axe to grind) examination does not convince you that it is a time of judgment & punishment -- and never either the Rapture nor the 2nd Coming per se. Some have gone astray in interpreting 1 Thes 5:1 by not realizing that. Amos 5: 18 Woe to you that desire the Day of YHWH! Wherefore would ye have the Day of YHWH? It is darkness, and not light. 19 As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him. 20 Shall not the Day of YHWH be darkness and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

"It is written . . . " > end of the debate.

most of us lived through the experience you should make it memorable though LOL

Uh Oh! I am getting near my 666th posting here!

Good comments, Oakwood. IMHO: I knew a guy who was nuts on the number 666. Like the following: He used to fill up a YouTube forum with his garbage, posting all kinds of references to 666, lists of phone numbers that had it, addresses that had 666 in it -- as if there were something sinister about those who had such phone numbers or addresses. He would pull out documents where some section was labeled #666 (say after 665 & before 667) as if he had exposed sinister plot, like for example, the minutes of some Lutheran agency or RCC agency. And this went on day after day! He was also nuts on the RCC! This can be a form of Newspaper Exegesis, whereby someone (like a TV sensationalist) raises a lot of dust over something in the news that is supposedly a fulfillment of the signs in Mat 24. Do you recall how some were sensationalizing the year 2000, like all the computers would fail & civilization might collapse! This kind of thing serves the enemy well, by bringing the Bible & prophecy into disrepute, as for example setting dates for the Rapture & the End of the World (May 21, 2011). Thanks for some good comments.

I had a friend who did his PhD thesis at the U of Manchester (England) with a title like; "The Interpretations of the Number of the Beast in Revelation in the British Isles in the 15th & 16th centuries. I heard some of it read; it was a hoot! Now let me twist your tail for a moment & comment that 666 is not the number of the Beast! The number is "six hundred sixty-six," not 666. I discovered this in watching a movie with some students of mine, movie series called, Thief in the Night by Mustard Seed International -- 4 movies in a series. In those movies the mark was in binary numbers: 0110 0110 0110. I was going to explain binary math to the students afterwards; so I looked at that. Now 0110 is 6; but 0110 0110 0110 is not six hundred sixty-six in binary; neither is it = to 666 in Arabic numbers. One cannot write six hundred sixty-six in Greek by repeating the Greek numeral for 6 three times in a row. Greek numbers do not have place value. The Greek number for 6 is digamma or stigma, a letter used only for numbers by NT times. But the number of the beast in Greek, when it is written with numerals is χξς. The last letter of these three here is stigma. But you cannot write six hundred sixty-six as ςςς, nor as FFF (digamma three times). Actually in the oldest papyri I have seen, Stigma looks just like (final) sigma [c] with no hook on the bottom. But fonts can vary over the centuries with Greek just as they do in English. So one may say that the number of the beast is not "666"!

There is no Israel versus Church. "The Church" is Spirit Israel (All Israel or Complete Israel). Always has been... before Acts 2, before Moses, before Israel (Jacob)... Understand... salvation, faith, etc. has always been about the spiritual versus the physical. This distinction goes all the way back to the beginning. Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve. The Church (ekklesia = assembly the great assembly). John claims: "The Church" is Spirit Israel (All Israel or Complete Israel). Always has been... before Acts 2, before Moses, before Israel (Jacob)... John, lets see your proof of that one. Show me one verse where 1) the Church is called Israel, 2) Israel is ever expanded beyond the offspring of Jacob. You seem to have ignored my observation of how Israel is sometimes reduced to a smaller set of Jacob's descendants, but never expanded beyond Jacob's descendants or that nation of Israel. Saying something proves nothing. John says, "Understand... salvation, faith, etc. has always been about the spiritual versus the physical." The human requirement for salvation is always faith in YHWH, restricted eventually to faith in the Lord Jesus after the Trinity became plainly revealed. This has nothing to do with Israel vs the Church. As to salvation, for Israel salvation includes the physical, but is not limited to it. Always the spiritual relationship is much more important. See the blessings & curses of the Law of Moses. Do I need quote? The Church (ekklesia) is not clearly found in the OT -- it is called a mystery. The Lord Jesus referred to it as FUTURE in Mat 16 : I WILL build my Church. It did not yet exist. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit puts one into the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Baptism of the Holy Spirit began on Pentecost, not before.