The fulness of the Gentiles

[choir loft]

15 minutes ago, Alive said:

This still doesn't succinctly explain what you believe. It sounds like more refutation.

 

 

READ.

For God's sake READ.

Do some digging in history and you'll discover that I gave you what is written there.

If you don't like what actually happened and what people actually think, it's not my problem.

I'm only reporting the way it is.

If you prefer a form of lie, then that's your affair.

READ.

Get up off your keyboard and READ history.   What I wrote is only a thumb nail sketch.   READ.  History is far more gruesome and telling than I've touched on. 

READ AND STUDY and you'll come up with a thumb nail paragraph nearly identical with what I've written.

But for God's sake don't just sit there and accuse me of rewriting history.

The church is much more adept at such a thing than I am......and the basis of the arguments here is that a lot of brain dead people believe the hokum they've been told.

READ.   For God's sake READ.

It totally escapes me why people prefer ignorant foolishness to what has happened in history and why.   Man, I don't like it either but that's the way it is.  When a boy grows into a man he learns he has to throw away childish things.   Most Christians are still playing with blocks and sucking their thumbs.  Christians don't like to think because it hurts too much.

READ MAN READ.

Try a little education.   

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

[dhchristian]

19 minutes ago, choir loft said:

Sure you do.

Just keep spouting your own high intellectualism and we'll bow down to your superiority and kiss your feet.  There will be no need for discussion because you alone hold the key to all truth.

All one has to do is ask you and you'll tell them.

On the other hand, you could act like a decent human being and begin by admitting the definition of common words such as the institutional church.   Begin there, or continue to crown yourself the lord of all knowledge and assumptions.

Humility is certainly not one of your faults.  

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Mat. 7:6)

You have no love in your heart, if you cannot abide by a simple request.... GW is twice the Christian you are because at least has common courtesy, You have none. 

[dhchristian]

45 minutes ago, Alive said:

Can you fellas explain in a short paragraph just where you differ?

 

Perhaps--consider this an exercise in brevity and clarity.

Unlike choir Loft's false accusation that I preach replacement theology, I am a dispensationalists. Dispensationalism condemns replacement theology. The church is the Body of Christ and consists of both Jew and Gentile, But because of unbelief corporate Israel (the nation) Will be restored once again as per the prophecies of the Old testament and Christ's last Words to the apostles in Acts 1;6-8 at a certain time in the future (when they mourn for Him whom they have pierced Zech 12:10). I Believe as per this post that the fulness of the gentiles is different from the times of the gentiles spoken of in Luke 21 and rev. 11. The fulness of the gentiles is when the gentiles come to the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:13) which is a quality not a quantity, The times of the gentiles is a specific time period in the final week for Israel where the gentile nations trample the Holy City for 42 months as per Rev. 11:2. Choir Loft believes that the time of the gentiles ended in 1967, which clearly it did not, as the Muslim gentile nations still control Mount Moriah in Israel. Thus choir loft has A. Mistaken and made synonymous the time of the gentiles and the fulness of the gentiles, and B. Has wrongly stated that the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled already in 1967 when Israel conquered Jerusalem. 

Not very brief, but one paragraph.

[dhchristian]

48 minutes ago, choir loft said:

In the Bible, Luke wrote in 21:27b, "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the gentiles until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled."

In history, in June of 1967 the Israel Defense Forces liberated the city of Jerusalem.  For the first time since Luke wrote the above line the city came under Jewish administration.  Prior to that time it had been under the administration of various gentile kingdoms and empires.

The times of the gentiles deals not with Jerusalem, but with the "outer court" of the temple mount. 1967 in no way fulfills this in that there is no Jewish temple on the temple mount right now, nor an outer court as Mount Moriah has the Dome of the Rock and is run by the Jordanian government, as well as the U.N. presence as peace keepers in Jerusalem and Israel.

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

I got the giggles. Was imagining someone in the choir loft raining rotten veggies down on someone in the pews...

Not very Christian of you to condone the behavior of reprobates....Just sayin' Next thing you know you will be saying its OK to cut the heads off of people you disagree with. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13;2)

Shame on You!

[dhchristian]

51 minutes ago, Alive said:

This still doesn't succinctly explain what you believe. It sounds like more refutation.

I will encourage you instead of trusting in your own mind and understanding (Proverbs 3;5-7) that instead you Pray to be taught by the Holy Ghost what is the Truth through the reading and understanding of the Word of God. 

[dhchristian]

Just now, dhchristian said:

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

I got the giggles. Was imagining someone in the choir loft raining rotten veggies down on someone in the pews...

Not very Christian of you to condone the behavior of reprobates....Just sayin' Next thing you know you will be saying its OK to cut the heads off of people you disagree with. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (1 Cor 13;2)

Shame on You!

are you going to respond or are you just going to instigate? 

[Heleadethme]

3 hours ago, choir loft said:

If the church isn't an institution, then why have you declared yourself to be a member of it?  

You stood before the congregation and were congratulated on joining the fellowship and might even have been given a small wallet sized card to prove it.  You are on their email list.   You may even participate in physical assemblies on a regular basis (called worship services & club meetings/choir practice/Bible study groups).  But you deny these things?  NONE of those meetings are invisible!  They are part of the institutional church.  Who do you think you're fooling?  Yourself perhaps, but not me.

There are two definitions of "church" commonly accepted.  

- One is the physical institutional franchise version one once saw on every street corner in smallTown, USA.  (but like commercial shopping malls they are dwindling)

- The other is generally thought to be an "invisible" church of believers.   Some people, who have no real theological training or understanding or who just like to argue, deem the two to be the same thing.

Denial of the physical institutional church as a legal entity is a function of a brain dead fanatic, who for purposes of proving themselves to be some sort of religious guru, refuses to acknowledge FACT.

Discussions and debates among people who have normally functioning cerebral tissue begins with recognition of facts as a basis for discussion.   After facts are established, logic is employed to move from one assertion and conclusion to another.   The combination of facts and logic have been accepted forms of debate since the ancient Hebrews first invented it.

Christians tend to lose their minds and all forms of cognitive ability when they push push push their slogans and buzz words.   When they enter this thread they are like people who walk into Walmart and immediately drop 15 points from their IQ.  They are not the children of Christ, but rather Adolph Hitler who said, "All effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand.".   They do not understand the religious slogans and buzz words they repeat to justify their errant dogma.  Neither do they understand what is commonly taught in Bible colleges - that congregations can be easily manipulated by the use of slogans and familiar phrases.

Such persons persist in refusing to accept the most common definitions of words on these pages, such as the definition of the institutional church.    Without this basis in fact, nothing proceeds from the discussion except acrimony and character assassination.

Can we start with a clear definition of 'institutional church' and proceed to other matters or will you persist in asserting your fantasies and perhaps accuse me of insanity or faithlessness?

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

I'm not sure where all that is coming from or what you are addressing exactly.....but no I have never joined any church as an official member, as it happens.  The church of Jesus Christ is a house not made by human hands.  And I believe from scripture that it is meant to function in simplicity...in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the letter. 

One problem with signing membership forms is that they are always conditional on you agreeing with every jot and tittle that they write thereon....and i don't know how it can be that everyone is on exactly the same page in their walk and understanding at the same time, when following the Lord and understanding is a matter of growth.  Another problem is that Jesus said to simply let your yes be yes and your no, no....ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT COMES FROM THE EVIL ONE.  The ones I see who love to sign documents, covenants and pacts and things are those like the Pope and other false ecumenicals.

[Heleadethme]

2 hours ago, choir loft said:

Short and sweet, the difference is based upon an anti-semitic theology called REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY in which Jews are condemned to hell unless they become members of a church and in which Israel as a people and nation are considered to be non-existent as a product of divine providence in the world.  Ezekiel 37 is ignored or referred to as obsolete language because protestants secretly (or not so secretly) are very uncomfortable with Jews and admittedly hate anything that smells of Jewish LAW.

That's the paragraph you asked for.  It explains in a nutshell the basis of the arguments, but not the Biblical reasons for what's really going on.  To get a larger picture, please read on.......

References:

In the Bible, Luke wrote in 21:27b, "Jerusalem will be trodden down by the gentiles until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled."

In history, in June of 1967 the Israel Defense Forces liberated the city of Jerusalem.  For the first time since Luke wrote the above line the city came under Jewish administration.  Prior to that time it had been under the administration of various gentile kingdoms and empires.

The discussion of "fullness of the gentiles" goes to Romans chapter 11, which is a discussion by the apostle Paul attempting to explain spiritual reasons for Jewish rejection of Jesus as God.

The Pauline apologetic has been deliberately misquoted and misrepresented by anti-semitic theologians and their various disciples since the third century.

When the epistles of the New Covenant were written they were written by Jews TO Jewish believers who had accepted Jesus as God.   The majority of the epistles attempted to explain to Jews how Jesus fulfilled the LAW and what portions of the LAW were no longer applicable and why.   It has been estimated that 1/3 of all Jews of the first century heard the gospel and believed (the rest adamantly refuse to read Isaiah 53 to this day).  

Gentiles also heard and some of them believed also.  Unfortunately gentiles both then and now are not familiar with Jewish LAW and tradition and felt they could substitute their own pagan beliefs for the axioms and laws of God as stated in the Tanakh (Old Covenant).  Consequently gentile interpretations of Paul's writing ignored the LAW and substituted their own toxic form of religious philosophy.  

We call this form of Biblical editing 'doctrine' and it is more important to gentiles than scripture itself.  This is the major reason for argument and misunderstanding on these pages.  A minor reason is simple pig-headedness and ignorance.

To learn more I suggest you stay away from Facebook, YouTube, TV preachers and popular novels.   Study the Bible and refer to well known volumes of interpretation by men of academic worth.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft.....    

I have missed a lot of this thread and am not sure exactly what is being disputed here or what everyone's stance is on things.....but I do know that EVERYTHING Yeshua/Jesus said....whether instruction or promises or warnings and indictments......HE SAID IT FIRST TO THE JEWS.  The gospel is to the Jew first....yes sir, they were preached the EXACT SAME gospel that the Gentiles got.  Repent or perish....build your house on the rock....follow or fall away....no man comes to the Father but by Me.....etc.  I hope you believe this.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Heleadethme

[iamlamad]

2 hours ago, choir loft said:

Consider that in areas where God did not teach you, He may have expected you to learn from others who were more experienced and better educated.  

He may be expecting you to use your ability to reason instead of accepting bovine excrement without examining it for the filth it really is.  

That is the problem with most protestant evangelicals.   They swallow poison believing it to be food.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

A banker does not teach new clerks about the various counterfeit bills that have been produced. No, they teach them all they can about the REAL US bills. When they know the truth, they cannot be fooled.

People come onto these threads and try to fool us, and indeed, they may fool some with highfalutin words or ideas, but those of us who know the truth are not going to be fooled. 

Do you think God cannot work with people who attend organized religion: your "institutionalized church?"
We seem to agree that God has NOT replaced Israel with the church. I have never said other wise. I wonder which "institution" teaches such nonsense?

Luke 21:24
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Rev. 11: 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Here is your "times of the Gentiles." The man of sin will enter the city just days before He will enter the temple and declare he is God. he will come with Gentile armies...probably Muslim armies. He (the man of sin turned Beast) will make Jerusalem his headquarters city until just before Jesus returns.

But then, what do I know? I don't inhabit choir lofts - have not for many years.

We call this form of Biblical editing 'doctrine'  That  is not what I call "doctrine."

Romans 6:17  But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.  Paul delivered the doctrine of the church - the very doctrine by which we shall be judged. If you want good doctrine for the Gentile church age, read the Pauline Epistles. We seen to agree on Paul.