Fulness of the gentiles.

[Rick-Parker]

Ya know, Fraught, Mr. Kelley quotes Scripture to support his (and many others) positions, just as others post Scriptures which they say supports a different position. It is your choice to interpret Scripture as you do, and to follow those teachers that you do. So far, I haven't seen anyone on this forum attack you or make snide comments as you have for your beliefs. I'm getting real sick-and-tired of you and some others on this forum attacking those who do not agree with you. I'm sure that this will be turned around to attack me. So be it. But what I am saying is true. Perhaps you should take a long look at how you treat your brothers and sisters in Christ.

that is ridiculous. ii have not attacked you. and i never would.

I didn't say you attacked me. I stated that what I said above was probably going to be turned around on me (as has been the case lately when it comes to the postings of the opinions of Mr. Kelley.) I admonished you over this comment: "So. you have rejected the scriptural definition that mizzdy has provided to instead choose one by some guy named jack kelly??" That was a snide comment and totally inappropriate as that is not what LittleLamb said nor insinuated/intimated.

sometimes i'm not as clear as i'd like to be. i have said that a scriptural definition was provided. this is much different than someone's private interpretation. scripture is not subject to anyone's private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

OK. How do you explain the different views on baptism, the rapture and how one is saved? Scriptures are presented justifying each position. How do we decide which position is right? Myself, I form my positions based on my reading and understanding of different versions of the Word; by what I am taught by the teacher that I sit under, and other teachers that I follow in the media. My positions are based on 40 years of learning (with some time being backslid). I trust that what I know is the Truth comes from the Holy Spirit, who lives within me.

OneLight, I understand completely what you are saying. I just don't feel it necessary to repost Scriptures that the author has quoted when I agree with their positions. I generally don't say whether I agree or disagree with the author of the article, I post the article for the edification of those who appreciate what the author has to say, as information for those who are in the process of forming their position on the subject, and to stimulate those who disagree with the article to state their disagreement with the article (which has now begun to focus on Mr. Kelley.) The disagreement should be with the article and the author's use of Scripture and not with the poster. If those who disagree with the article are not satisfied with refuting the article, then that is their problem and they should talk directly with the author. I always post the link.

As an added note, the information contained in the articles that I post are in the mainstream of the Christian faith. They may be on controversial topics as some may disagree with the premise, but they are still legitimate articles worthy to be posted on this site.

[Fraught]

Ya know, Fraught, Mr. Kelley quotes Scripture to support his (and many others) positions, just as others post Scriptures which they say supports a different position. It is your choice to interpret Scripture as you do, and to follow those teachers that you do. So far, I haven't seen anyone on this forum attack you or make snide comments as you have for your beliefs. I'm getting real sick-and-tired of you and some others on this forum attacking those who do not agree with you. I'm sure that this will be turned around to attack me. So be it. But what I am saying is true. Perhaps you should take a long look at how you treat your brothers and sisters in Christ.

that is ridiculous. ii have not attacked you. and i never would.

I didn't say you attacked me. I stated that what I said above was probably going to be turned around on me (as has been the case lately when it comes to the postings of the opinions of Mr. Kelley.) I admonished you over this comment: "So. you have rejected the scriptural definition that mizzdy has provided to instead choose one by some guy named jack kelly??" That was a snide comment and totally inappropriate as that is not what LittleLamb said nor insinuated/intimated.

sometimes i'm not as clear as i'd like to be. i have said that a scriptural definition was provided. this is much different than someone's private interpretation. scripture is not subject to anyone's private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

OK. How do you explain the different views on baptism, the rapture and how one is saved? Scriptures are presented justifying each position. How do we decide which position is right? Myself, I form my positions based on my reading and understanding of different versions of the Word; by what I am taught by the teacher that I sit under, and other teachers that I follow in the media. My positions are based on 40 years of learning (with some time being backslid). I trust that what I know is the Truth comes from the Holy Spirit, who lives within me.

OneLight, I understand completely what you are saying. I just don't feel it necessary to repost Scriptures that the author has quoted when I agree with their positions. I generally don't say whether I agree or disagree with the author of the article, I post the article for the edification of those who appreciate what the author has to say, as information for those who are in the process of forming their position on the subject, and to stimulate those who disagree with the article to state their disagreement with the article (which has now begun to focus on Mr. Kelley.) The disagreement should be with the article and the author's use of Scripture and not with the poster. If those who disagree with the article are not satisfied with refuting the article, then that is their problem and they should talk directly with the author. I always post the link.

As an added note, the information contained in the articles that I post are in the mainstream of the Christian faith. They may be on controversial topics as some may disagree with the premise, but they are still legitimate articles worthy to be posted on this site.

how do i explain the different views? the folly of private interpretation. we must study deeper into the scriptures and they will tell us everything we need to know. when we still have questions, it just means that the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed everything to us. He is the Spirit of Truth, not of error or confusion. There are many reasons why the Holy Spirit may not yet deem us ready to know, but when we know, it will be without a shadow of a doubt. Thus, different views are the result of many running ahead (to and fro) without guidance. seeking knowledge (but never coming to a revelation).

ohh, getting too wordy ! just deleted a whole paragraph so i'll just say that here is where you might be missing it. We do not decide. That's the whole point in the apostles warning us against private interpretation.

[Rick-Parker]

Ya know, Fraught, Mr. Kelley quotes Scripture to support his (and many others) positions, just as others post Scriptures which they say supports a different position. It is your choice to interpret Scripture as you do, and to follow those teachers that you do. So far, I haven't seen anyone on this forum attack you or make snide comments as you have for your beliefs. I'm getting real sick-and-tired of you and some others on this forum attacking those who do not agree with you. I'm sure that this will be turned around to attack me. So be it. But what I am saying is true. Perhaps you should take a long look at how you treat your brothers and sisters in Christ.

that is ridiculous. ii have not attacked you. and i never would.

I didn't say you attacked me. I stated that what I said above was probably going to be turned around on me (as has been the case lately when it comes to the postings of the opinions of Mr. Kelley.) I admonished you over this comment: "So. you have rejected the scriptural definition that mizzdy has provided to instead choose one by some guy named jack kelly??" That was a snide comment and totally inappropriate as that is not what LittleLamb said nor insinuated/intimated.

sometimes i'm not as clear as i'd like to be. i have said that a scriptural definition was provided. this is much different than someone's private interpretation. scripture is not subject to anyone's private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

OK. How do you explain the different views on baptism, the rapture and how one is saved? Scriptures are presented justifying each position. How do we decide which position is right? Myself, I form my positions based on my reading and understanding of different versions of the Word; by what I am taught by the teacher that I sit under, and other teachers that I follow in the media. My positions are based on 40 years of learning (with some time being backslid). I trust that what I know is the Truth comes from the Holy Spirit, who lives within me.

OneLight, I understand completely what you are saying. I just don't feel it necessary to repost Scriptures that the author has quoted when I agree with their positions. I generally don't say whether I agree or disagree with the author of the article, I post the article for the edification of those who appreciate what the author has to say, as information for those who are in the process of forming their position on the subject, and to stimulate those who disagree with the article to state their disagreement with the article (which has now begun to focus on Mr. Kelley.) The disagreement should be with the article and the author's use of Scripture and not with the poster. If those who disagree with the article are not satisfied with refuting the article, then that is their problem and they should talk directly with the author. I always post the link.

As an added note, the information contained in the articles that I post are in the mainstream of the Christian faith. They may be on controversial topics as some may disagree with the premise, but they are still legitimate articles worthy to be posted on this site.

how do i explain the different views? the folly of private interpretation. we must study deeper into the scriptures and they will tell us everything we need to know. when we still have questions, it just means that the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed everything to us. He is the Spirit of Truth, not of error or confusion. There are many reasons why the Holy Spirit may not yet deem us ready to know, but when we know, it will be without a shadow of a doubt. Thus, different views are the result of many running ahead (to and fro) without guidance. seeking knowledge (but never coming to a revelation).

ohh, getting too wordy ! just deleted a whole paragraph so i'll just say that here is where you might be missing it. We do not decide. That's the whole point in the apostles warning us against private interpretation.

And yet I can say that it is you who suffers from private interpretation, from running to and fro without guidance, so I'll could just say that here is where YOU might be missing it. Don't judge, as you will be judged!

edit: By your logic, fully half of Christiandom who don't believe that baptism saves, the third who believe in the pre-trib rapture and the half who hold to eternal security do so because they are folly, running to and fro in confusion. What a joke. Perhaps you need to rethink your response.

Edited September 5, 2010 by Parker1

[PreacherWesley]

Fullness in Scripture is a loaded theological word. It is not so much an arbitrary number, but instead "fullness" refers to all the Gentiles that will be saved. Not a single Gentile who will be saved, will be left out of God's salvation. God has room for them all!

www.studyyourbibleonline.com

[UncleAbee]

Everybody interprets the scriptures. What we debate over is not "the scriptures" but rather "the interpretation" of the scriptures. The bible doesn't start speaking to you when you open it up. I think we need to get past that nugget first.

Below is a good commentary on what 2 Peter 1:20 really means.

Link - http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=2pe&chapter=001

Verse 20

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.

Unfortunately, this verse has been made the basis of the Medieval Church's denial of every man's right to interpret the Scriptures, and their claim to the right of interpretation for the church alone (that is, their church alone). Nothing like this could possibly be in this passage. As Kelcy said, "There are many New Testament passages which indicate that the writers expected their readers to understand what they wrote (Ephesians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 1 John 2:12,13)." F58

Christ himself bore witness of the fact that every man is responsible for studying and reading the word of God for himself, when he demanded of the lawyer, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Luke 10:26). In the light of these Scriptures, therefore, we must reject the notion that would find in this place an excuse for any man's leaving the interpretation of the Scriptures to the religious experts in some church, of whatever name. After all, it was the "religious experts" who crucified Christ in the beginning, demonstrating once and finally that of all the people on earth most likely to miss it, it is the "religious experts."

There is a better translation of this verse, as noted by some of the older scholars generations ago. Macknight rendered it, "No prophecy of Scripture is of the prophet's own invention." F59 This rendition Macknight justified on the basis of the meaning of the subsequent verse, showing that a number of other New Testament passages have been similarly translated with reference to the context and not to the strict technical meaning of a word. Barnes also rendered the passage, "No prophecy was of their own disclosure." F60 The "private interpretation" is therefore a limitation, not upon readers of the prophecies, but upon the prophets who delivered God's message. Barnes further explained:

The truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention, but were of higher origin and were imparted by God F61

The ancient prophets of God were not permitted to give their interpretation of prophecies (instead of the prophecies); but they were to deliver the words of the prophecy as the Lord had given them. It is to this limitation that the words of this verse most likely apply. Vine's dictionary of New Testament words confirms this thus: "The writers of Scripture did not put their own construction upon the `God-breathed' words they wrote." F62

Plummer pointed out that there is almost certainly a reference here to 1 Pet. 1:10-12; and this also sheds light on the meaning; for in that passage also, it was the inability of the prophets to go beyond the "words" God had given them that is in view.

Edited September 16, 2010 by UncleAbee

[Fraught]

Ya know, Fraught, Mr. Kelley quotes Scripture to support his (and many others) positions, just as others post Scriptures which they say supports a different position. It is your choice to interpret Scripture as you do, and to follow those teachers that you do. So far, I haven't seen anyone on this forum attack you or make snide comments as you have for your beliefs. I'm getting real sick-and-tired of you and some others on this forum attacking those who do not agree with you. I'm sure that this will be turned around to attack me. So be it. But what I am saying is true. Perhaps you should take a long look at how you treat your brothers and sisters in Christ.

that is ridiculous. ii have not attacked you. and i never would.

I didn't say you attacked me. I stated that what I said above was probably going to be turned around on me (as has been the case lately when it comes to the postings of the opinions of Mr. Kelley.) I admonished you over this comment: "So. you have rejected the scriptural definition that mizzdy has provided to instead choose one by some guy named jack kelly??" That was a snide comment and totally inappropriate as that is not what LittleLamb said nor insinuated/intimated.

sometimes i'm not as clear as i'd like to be. i have said that a scriptural definition was provided. this is much different than someone's private interpretation. scripture is not subject to anyone's private interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation

OK. How do you explain the different views on baptism, the rapture and how one is saved? Scriptures are presented justifying each position. How do we decide which position is right? Myself, I form my positions based on my reading and understanding of different versions of the Word; by what I am taught by the teacher that I sit under, and other teachers that I follow in the media. My positions are based on 40 years of learning (with some time being backslid). I trust that what I know is the Truth comes from the Holy Spirit, who lives within me.

OneLight, I understand completely what you are saying. I just don't feel it necessary to repost Scriptures that the author has quoted when I agree with their positions. I generally don't say whether I agree or disagree with the author of the article, I post the article for the edification of those who appreciate what the author has to say, as information for those who are in the process of forming their position on the subject, and to stimulate those who disagree with the article to state their disagreement with the article (which has now begun to focus on Mr. Kelley.) The disagreement should be with the article and the author's use of Scripture and not with the poster. If those who disagree with the article are not satisfied with refuting the article, then that is their problem and they should talk directly with the author. I always post the link.

As an added note, the information contained in the articles that I post are in the mainstream of the Christian faith. They may be on controversial topics as some may disagree with the premise, but they are still legitimate articles worthy to be posted on this site.

how do i explain the different views? the folly of private interpretation. we must study deeper into the scriptures and they will tell us everything we need to know. when we still have questions, it just means that the Holy Spirit has not yet revealed everything to us. He is the Spirit of Truth, not of error or confusion. There are many reasons why the Holy Spirit may not yet deem us ready to know, but when we know, it will be without a shadow of a doubt. Thus, different views are the result of many running ahead (to and fro) without guidance. seeking knowledge (but never coming to a revelation).

ohh, getting too wordy ! just deleted a whole paragraph so i'll just say that here is where you might be missing it. We do not decide. That's the whole point in the apostles warning us against private interpretation.

And yet I can say that it is you who suffers from private interpretation, from running to and fro without guidance, so I'll could just say that here is where YOU might be missing it. Don't judge, as you will be judged!

edit: By your logic, fully half of Christiandom who don't believe that baptism saves, the third who believe in the pre-trib rapture and the half who hold to eternal security do so because they are folly, running to and fro in confusion. What a joke. Perhaps you need to rethink your response.

sorry so late, i didn't know 'til now that you had responded. please tell me what i have privately interpreted?

[Fraught]

Everybody interprets the scriptures. What we debate over is not "the scriptures" but rather "the interpretation" of the scriptures. The bible doesn't start speaking to you when you open it up. I think we need to get past that nugget first.

Below is a good commentary on what 2 Peter 1:20 really means.

Link - http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=2pe&chapter=001

Verse 20

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation.

Unfortunately, this verse has been made the basis of the Medieval Church's denial of every man's right to interpret the Scriptures, and their claim to the right of interpretation for the church alone (that is, their church alone). Nothing like this could possibly be in this passage. As Kelcy said, "There are many New Testament passages which indicate that the writers expected their readers to understand what they wrote (Ephesians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 1 John 2:12,13)." F58

Christ himself bore witness of the fact that every man is responsible for studying and reading the word of God for himself, when he demanded of the lawyer, "What is written in the law? How readest thou?" (Luke 10:26). In the light of these Scriptures, therefore, we must reject the notion that would find in this place an excuse for any man's leaving the interpretation of the Scriptures to the religious experts in some church, of whatever name. After all, it was the "religious experts" who crucified Christ in the beginning, demonstrating once and finally that of all the people on earth most likely to miss it, it is the "religious experts."

There is a better translation of this verse, as noted by some of the older scholars generations ago. Macknight rendered it, "No prophecy of Scripture is of the prophet's own invention." F59 This rendition Macknight justified on the basis of the meaning of the subsequent verse, showing that a number of other New Testament passages have been similarly translated with reference to the context and not to the strict technical meaning of a word. Barnes also rendered the passage, "No prophecy was of their own disclosure." F60 The "private interpretation" is therefore a limitation, not upon readers of the prophecies, but upon the prophets who delivered God's message. Barnes further explained:

The truths which the prophets communicated were not originated by themselves; were not of their own suggestion or invention, but were of higher origin and were imparted by God F61

The ancient prophets of God were not permitted to give their interpretation of prophecies (instead of the prophecies); but they were to deliver the words of the prophecy as the Lord had given them. It is to this limitation that the words of this verse most likely apply. Vine's dictionary of New Testament words confirms this thus: "The writers of Scripture did not put their own construction upon the `God-breathed' words they wrote." F62

Plummer pointed out that there is almost certainly a reference here to 1 Pet. 1:10-12; and this also sheds light on the meaning; for in that passage also, it was the inability of the prophets to go beyond the "words" God had given them that is in view.

would you agree that we do not 'interpret' the scripture; we study it to find out what it means and how it is significant. no individual person decides for him or herself what it means. we do what the new testament converts did, 'search the scriptures daily'. the scriptures being the old testament.

i like that you mentioned how many statements are made in the new testament that assume the reader understands what it's talking about. in that day they did; unfortunately, we have lost a lot of that understanding but i do see that situation changing.

[RevelationWriter]

All Israel will come to know Yeshua the Messiah.

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

[Fez]

Oh Lord forgive me, but I find this stuff so futile.

Is it going to change, one iota, what is to come?

No, it is not.

Want scripture? I don't have any.

But I have Jesus in my heart.

[RevelationWriter]

~ The FULLNESS 0f The Gentiles coming In? Coming IN Where?

Jesus said, "The Kingdom 0f Heaven" is like

a dragnet that was cast into the sea gathering Some 0f Every Kind.

At the End 0f The Age when it was FULL, is drug to shore

and the Angels come forth and seperate the wicked from the just... - Matt.13:47

And John saw standing before The Throne and The Lamb in White Robes with Palms in hand

The Great Multitude no one could number Of ALL Nations, Tribes, Peoples, and Tongues. - Rev.7:9

Then "All The Tribes 0f The Children 0f Israel" - Rev.7:4 Will be saved - Rev.14 (?)