Curt
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by Curt on Jul 26, 2006 10:36:01 GMT -8
Curt: Sorry, there are probably two different subjects tied into my two sentences.. First to address the synagogue word. Jesus used the word synagogue in Mark 13:9 because that is what the disciples understood back then to mean the place of worship. But in the future they wouldn’t have known that the majority of Christians are not Jews but Gentiles and that their worship does not take place specifically in synagogues. Also today you won’t find Christians worshipping in synagogues because those who worship there primarily don’t believe in Jesus. The people who are being delivered up to the councils and beaten in the “synagogues” (places of worship) are Christians and it is happening because they are preaching the gospel. Jews don’t preach the gospel, they don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God. In the beginning with the 12 disciples the Jews were both Jew and Christian and worshipped in what was available “the synagogue”. After the Jewish people rejected the gospel the gospel was primarily taken to the Gentiles. Ironically now to be in God’s house you can’t go to a synagogue because the Jewish nation as a whole has rejected Jesus. The Jews who do become Christian have to go to a place of worship where the gospel is taught. 9 “But watch out for yourselves, for they will deliver you up to councils, and you will be beaten in the synagogues. You will be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate[c] what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit
Sorry,
I used the word “symbolism” in this text.of Mark 13:9; I got this subject mixed up with the symbolism of Revelation
Curt: God doesn’t care whether you are a Jew or a Gentile. You are either a son of God or not. One good reason would be in order to be a Christian today there is only a small chance you are Jew.
Curt: Sorry, I’m a Gentile. I don’t know what you mean by sheva kehilot.
Curt: Bible verses from other parts of scripture interpret the meaning.
Curt: If it happens, what would be significant about a 7 year peace deal for Israel?
Curt: Who is the false Messiah? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Sept 15, 2006 8:19:06 GMT -8
"Ironically now to be in God’s house you can’t go to a synagogue because the Jewish nation as a whole has rejected Jesus. The Jews who do become Christian have to go to a place of worship where the gospel is taught." The good news as you see it went from the Jewish people to goyim who preceeded to forcibly baptize, murder, and slander for the next 2,ooo years? Wow, those goyim definately preserved the Gospel better than those Jews with the rape and pillaging of the crusades and all! You definately have to be in Church to be in the House of G-d for sure......... Oh wait, no you don't. By there fruits you will know them, and C*h*r*i*s*t*i*anity has consistently shown over and over again that they hate the  , and if you hate the , and hate those who keep it (the Jews) and by extension hate the G-d that gave it. Some say, "Oh no that was Catholics!" Guess what pal, ever heard of "The Jews and Their Lies" by Martin Luther? Hitler claimed the great protestant reformer as one of his rolemodels and instigated the Progrom Kristalnacht on the night of his birthday. Baptist now masquerade as Jews in order to deceive the elderly and uneducated into a Pseudo-Judaism that is actually throughly Baptist and antinomian. I don't see how you can stand there and say something like that. I'm not trying to offend anybody, I just want to make it clear that goyim who profess a belief in the false idol j*e*s*u*s which is a perversian and slander against Rabbi Y'hoshua HaMashiakh are in a state of spiritual impurity far worse than Jews who continue to keep the mitzwah of HaSheim while (rightly!) rejecting the idol the Church has set up. If the Yehudim are to come to except Mashiakh WE must distance ourselves from this idol and reveal to them the true Mashiakh, Ribi Y'hoshua. Not with such ignorant talk of "them as a nation rejecting the gospel". It is the nations who have rejected it and except this false antinomian idol. Sorry to get off topic. |
|
Curt
Full Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by Curt on Sept 20, 2006 17:41:26 GMT -8
Curt: The people who forcibly baptized, murdered and slandered were not God’s church. They were the counterfeit church spawned by Satan who took the name of Christianity. God’s remnant church was persecuted by that counterfeit church and went into hiding. God’s remnant church is composed of both Jew and Gentile. Yes God’s church did preserve the New Testament which Jews don’t even believe. That’s why the quoted verse using the word “synagogue” is speaking of a place of worship that today we call a church. The reason that verse doesn’t pertain to a Jewish synagogue is because the Jews don’t preach the gospel in synagogues today. Curt: You definitely have to be in a church to hear the gospel preached because the Jews don’t preach the gospel in the synagogue. They don’t believe Christ was the Messiah. Curt: God’s remnant church doesn’t hate the , the Jews or God. The counterfeit church hates the , the entire scriptures, the Jews, all Christians, and God. Curt: Martin Luther was a Catholic priest who broke away from the Catholic church. Most Protestant churchs are called daughters of the sleeper in the Book of Revelation. The sleeper is the papcy. At least we can give Martin Luther credit for some truth in breaking away from the mother church. No, I haven’t heard of “The Jews and Their Lies” by Martin Luther. I would like to read it to find out what he thought were their lies. Martin Luther isn’t responsible for what Adolph Hitler did. If George W. Bush wished to claim me as a role model because I agree with him on “stem cell research”, I would indeed be upset because we agree on very little else. Curt: Don’t know who is in a worse state of impurity, the Jews or the counterfeit church. They both need to move towards truth and God’s church. Curt: Revelation says God is calling His people out of Babylon. That means both the Jewish nation and the rest of the world need to stop rejecting the gospel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Golfnerd on Aug 9, 2009 5:58:24 GMT -8
just a little bump...3 years later...LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by betchevy on Aug 19, 2009 22:21:05 GMT -8
Zechariah 14:1Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
it seems to me in the twinkling of an eye, the enemies will be change into "spiritual " bodies... and I believe so will we all...
I remember the first time I heard the concept of there not being a rapture.... It just didn't compute in my pea brain...but now, I understand... and I don't want to miss the "fun".... I feel privileged to be born now at a time when we truly are the final generation...
and my study of Exodus' plagues seem to line up with those of Revelation... I got me a home in Goshen and while I have been preparing for some food and water shortages.... I have a feeling we may be the light shining in the darkness for many during those days...
and lets bring this verse up:
Matthew 24:22
22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
so, will it be a whole 7 years, or will we be looking at just the :time of the locust?
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 18, 2010 15:22:00 GMT -8
Hi to all, this will be "off-the-cuff", so forgive me,
I hold to the Rapture "theory" which is supposedly a new doctrine, but I view it as taught since the first century (penned by Paul).
Let me just say I am not dogmatic about this, as it doesn't directly affect leading the lost to Christ. All the same, I do, keeping in mind I may be wrong, hold to it.
Why?
I see Jacob's time of trouble as pertaining to Israel specifically, and when this last week begins, the "time of the gentiles" will be ended.
This will end that period when gentiles are included in God's blessings in the sense of the "mystery" of gentile inclusion. This was a mystery God unveiled to (and in) the early church.
Also, 1 Corinthians 15 is probably the most expressive chapter on resurrection, and yet when Paul ends the chapter with "we shall not all die...etc., he proclaims this as a mystery. Now, I ask you, what is the mystery? Most, except the Sadducees, accepted and understood resurrection, so we must look at what Paul proclaimed mysterious and decide what he meant. I think it safe to say he spoke of the glorification of our bodies.
Now, despite the fact that we (the Church) are said to be delivered from the wrath to come (and I don't think this means eternal wrath, but speaks of God's wrath upon earth in the tribulation), when we come to 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, we see the dead in Christ and those alive in Christ meeting Him in the air (and, I admit, though it does not say here that we return to the earth, this is possible).
And we know when Jesus returns, He will put His feet on the ground (Zech. 14:4), and I believe this to be during/at the end of the tribulation (Daniels seventieth week) or at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom (Sorry, I believe in a literal 1000 year, earthly Kingdom).
In chapter 5, after discussing the Lord's return, which obviously has to do with judgement (i.e.-sudden destruction), Paul tells "us", we are not appointed to wrath and to comfort each other.
In 2 Thessalonians 1, the topic again is God's judgement: specifically to those who do not know God through obediance to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In chapter 2, we see that Antichrist cannot be revealed until the "restrainer" is taken out of the way. There are many thoughts on who/what the restrainer is: I look at this as the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, the Church. The Holy Spirit cannot be taken out of the world: He is omni-present and always will be.
I know, I know: what a simpleton, but sometimes we can overthink a situation. And sometimes, just because something sounds too simple to be true, doesn't mean it isn't.
And lastly, it is interesting in Revelation, that the Church is not mentioned in the Tribulation description of events. Also, and I admit this is a stretch, in the letter to the Church in Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13), a door is opened (which could have present fulfillment concerning the Gospel, and future fulfillment as in 4:1[some see this as such, I am not dogmatic about 4:1]), and in v.10, He promises to "keep us from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world". What is this hour if not the tribulation?
Anyway, my intention is not to debate this "theory", merely give a view from the other side...you all seem pretty sure it is an impossibility.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 18, 2010 15:26:20 GMT -8
Sorry All,
I didn't see that there were 5 pages on this thread.
I'll go back and see if anybody else subscribes to this theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogface Of Judah on Jan 18, 2010 15:54:24 GMT -8
50/50  |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 18, 2010 16:10:47 GMT -8
I would say 75/25 against.
It's disappointing really, a lot of opinions, hardly any investigation of the scripture that pertain to the what the rapture"theory" is based on.
Lots of bashing.
Show scriptural evidence of the body of Christ from the Old Testament (meaning the Church). you can't, it was a mystery. It doesn't negate the reality.
So, explain the mystery of 1 Cor. 15. And I agree Matt. 24 pertains to the tribulation.
But, as I said, not really interested in "debating" this. Just my two cents worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 18, 2010 18:09:08 GMT -8
Show scriptural evidence of the body of Christ from the Old Testament (meaning the Church). you can't, it was a mystery. A mystery to whom? Surely not to the Jews. The Hebrew [kahal] is the Greek [ekklesia]. It's definition is the congregation/assembly of Israel. Period. Stephen identifies the kahal in the wilderness as the "Church." (Which is a mistranslation of the word ekklesia) (Acts 7:38 CJB) This is the man who was in the assembly (mistranslated as Church in the KJV) in the wilderness, accompanied by the angel that had spoken to him at Mount Sinai and by our fathers, the man who was given living words to pass on to us. Most English versions of the Apostolic Scriptures are extremely inconsistent when translating the Greek word ekklesia. This wasn't an accident either, it was done purposely. The reason I say that is because there is no other logical explanation for it. Perhaps you should take a look at a brief study by clicking Here. I don't agree with everything on that web page, but it's a good place to start a study on the subject of the Church. No doubt, it's not what you've been taught by Christianity I'm afraid. So, explain the mystery of 1 Cor. 15. Again, to whom was Sha'ul speaking to, and what was this mystery? The entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians is about the resurrection of the dead, and nothing else. Sha'ul identifies who he is speaking to in this chapter: (1 Corinthians 15:12 CJB) But if it has been proclaimed that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, how is it that some of you are saying there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead? Sha'ul is confronting a very serious problem here, and is addressing the "some of you" who (for one reason or another) did not believe in the resurrection. He goes on to explain that belief in the resurrection of the dead is absolutely essential to the faith. Then he goes further in explaining the nature of the resurrected, and glorified body those who are found worthy will receive. This was an obvious "mystery" to those who either had not heard of the resurrection, or had rejected such a notion, not being taught properly. This was no mystery to the 1st century scholar. It is erroneous to assume Sha'ul teaches doctrines that were not the prevailing thoughts of the 1st century scholar. Many times I see people apply a sort of "Gnostic" twist to the writings of Sha'ul, as if he possessed some sort of hidden knowledge. He didn't. At least, not any more than the typical Hillel Pharisee. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 19, 2010 13:39:37 GMT -8
Hi David Ben Yosef,
This is amazing news to me, that the Jews knew that Christ would bring Jew and gentile into one body of faith, which is the Church.
I rather doubt that (no offense), but had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (and I use this verse in the broad sense of first century ignorance, both Jew and Gentile).
Concerning resurrection, 1 Cor. 15 is dealing with this, but, sadly, I do believe that it is teaching the differences found in resurrection ("all flesh is not the same...; celestial, terrestrial, etc.).
What is interesting though, vv. 50, 51, surely Paul didn't have to teach that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God (by the way, I've noticed some type G-d, its not offensive to type it all to some, is it?).
This is where the mystery falls: that glorification would occur in a way not previously before known. This is just my take on it, David Ben Yosef, I won't belabor the point.
Lastly, I would disagree that "belief in the resurrection of the dead is essential to faith". For two reasons:
1)- Our faith is in Christ and His sacrifice for our sin, and,
2)- Hebrews 6 is clear we are to move on to perfection in Christ and not to lay again a foundation of...resurrection of the dead (v. 2).
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 19, 2010 18:25:56 GMT -8
This is amazing news to me, that the Jews knew that Christ would bring Jew and gentile into one body of faith, which is the Church. I can only assume that you have rejected the teachings of what the Church actually is within the link I've provided. In that article, the author clearly proves that the word "Church" is an erroneous translation of the Greek word [ekklesia]. It simply means "the congregation/assembly of Israel." It pre-existed Yeshua, and therefore is not something entirely new. I do not share the view that Yeshua started a whole new religion. The NT writings clearly do not convey that message. As far as Jew and Gentile sharing the same faith, this too, was not something new, nor was it a mystery. Israel was commanded by HaShem to be a light unto all Nations, and Judaism has made Gentile proselytes since it's inception. Albeit, when the 18 measures of Bet Shammai were enacted, it prohibited the Jews from having any contact whatsoever (except for necessary commerce) with those of the Nations (as well as their own Greek speaking brethren of the diaspora). It nullified the commandment of G-d that Israel was to be a light to the Nations. This is one area where Yeshua, as well as Sha'ul, had contentions with the Shammaite Pharisee's, as both were Bet Hillel Pharisees (Yes, Yeshua was indeed a Pharisee). When Yeshua commissioned his talmidim to go to all Nations and make proselytes, he was only reiterating what G-d had already commanded Israel, but was currently being disobeyed according to Shammaite halacha (which was the halachic ruling of 1st century Jewry). If Jew and Gentile were not to share the same faith, then how could passages in the Tanakh such as this be understood: (Isaiah 11:10 CJB) On that day the root of Yishai, which stands as a banner for the peoples - the Goyim will seek him out, and the place where he rests will be glorious. (Isaiah 60:1-3 CJB) "Arise, shine [Yerushalayim], for your light has come, the glory of ADONAI has risen over you. For although darkness covers the earth and thick darkness the peoples; on you ADONAI will rise; over you will be seen his glory. Nations will go toward your light and kings toward your shining splendor. Those are just a few, among countless passages, that clearly teach the Gentiles would not only be capable of faith in HaShem, but would ultimately choose that faith as well. Your current position that the Jews were ignorant of Tanakh cannot be justified. They most certainly were not, and still aren't this very day. I rather doubt that (no offense), but had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (and I use this verse in the broad sense of first century ignorance, both Jew and Gentile). This is a confusing statement. Rather than guess at the point your trying to make, could you rephrase that please? Or perhaps expound on it? Concerning resurrection, 1 Cor. 15 is dealing with this, but, sadly, I do believe that it is teaching the differences found in resurrection ("all flesh is not the same...; celestial, terrestrial, etc.). That is exactly what Sha'ul is teaching. The difference between those who have made their calling and election sure, and are resurrected in a glorified body, with those who have failed of their election and have been resurrected in a mere fleshly body. Both will be in the Kingdom, but the righteous shall inherit it. There's a big difference between those who are subjects of the Kingdom, and those who share in the rule and reign of Mashiakh, being co-heirs with him. Some are resurrected to everlasting life, and some to everlasting  (hence the weeping and gnashing of teeth). This is why Adam Rishon having lost his glorified state through sin was "ashamed" to be seen by the L-rd. He was ashamed to be in a mere flesh body [naked], rather than being clothed with righteousness in a glorified body. What is interesting though, vv. 50, 51, surely Paul didn't have to teach that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom of God (by the way, I've noticed some type G-d, its not offensive to type it all to some, is it?). This is where the mystery falls: that glorification would occur in a way not previously before known. This is just my take on it, David Ben Yosef, I won't belabor the point. Your entitled to your own opinion. However, I strongly disagree according to the surrounding text. Lastly, I would disagree that "belief in the resurrection of the dead is essential to faith". To the Messianic faith it most certainly is. Don't take my word for it, listen to what Sha'ul has to say about it in the very chapter we are discussing: (1 Corinthians 15:12-17 CJB) But if it has been proclaimed that the Messiah has been raised from the dead, how is it that some of you are saying there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then the Messiah has not been raised; and if the Messiah has not been raised, then what we have proclaimed is in vain; also your trust [faith] is in vain; furthermore, we are shown up as false witnesses for God in having testified that God raised up the Messiah, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then the Messiah has not been raised either; and if the Messiah has not been raised, your trust [faith] is useless, and you are still in your sins. Could it be any more clearer? Without the resurrection of the dead included within our faith, our faith is useless, and no real faith at all. I'm sorry if my thoughts sort of went all over the place, but I found it difficult to respond to your post without clarifying my position on a few related things first. |
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 20, 2010 15:12:49 GMT -8
Hi David Ben Yosef, Thank you for your reply. As I said in "Hello to All", I did not realize you were Messianic Judaizers (hope that is correct terminology, if not, please correct me), and that I understand our views will probably differ on certain doctrines. However, we do have common ground in that we believe in Messiah, and that He is the Savior (at least I hope so). So it will be interesting to see your viewpoint, which was my intention in seeking out Messianic Jews. To the discussion then. (You will have to bear with my computer illiteracy, though. But, if you are patient, I believe this will be edifying to us both) As to the first paragraph of your reply, it was not my intention to imply: 1)- That gentiles could not come to the Lord in faith (before the incarnation [and I'm making the big assumption that you believe in the deity of Christ, but I am not familiar with Messianic Judaism]). I hold to the belief that all who have come to God have done so in faith, Jew and gentile alike; since creation. 2)-My view is that the Church is the collective Body of Christ, or, those who belong to Him. This is just the familiar term we use for believers (because gentile Christians are easily confused ). Throughout history, I see only two peoples: those who by faith belong to God; and those who do not. Crucial to this relationship is "those who draw near" coming to Him on His terms. So, in large part, we are in agreement on this issue.
Note- I did not look at the link, and I usually don't: I would prefer to talk directly to you as we go. It is easier to keep things on track. If you have a belief, I would rather you tell my you believe and why. And you will probably need to lighten up on the Hebrew terms, of these my ignorance knows no bounds. I will say that I reject the idea of Jesus being a pharisee.
The confusing statement I made is explained in this manner:
You hold that the Jews were aware of Christ's coming (this I acknowledge, that is fact) and that there was no mystery involved in what followed the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (this was the implication, because we were discussing the "mystery of resurrection"). I thought I was being clear in that statement in that the point I tried (in vain, apparently) to make was that Jew and Gentile were made one collective body of believers in Christ: this was the mystery, and I still hold that scripture as a whole teaches this.
So the reference (and I admit it is easy to see why that would be vague) was a correlation: In 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, Paul speaks of God's wisdom, contrasted with the world's wisdom. He states this wisdom as hidden, a mystery. Had the princes (rulers) of this world known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. I see v. 1 defining this wisdom as the testimony Of God, and in particular, His testimony of Christ crucified (v. 2).
Hope that clarifies.
Your third reply is very interesting, and I can see the correlation (concerning Adam and his ). But as far as the rest, the everlasting and weeping and gnashing of teeth: I have always seen this to refer to eternal separation from God. Like I said, there are two groups of people in the Word: those who are His, and those who are not. I would see a contradiction that these would behave so after God has "wiped away every tear". I have a hard time seeing these people in Heaven. Remember, this is an everlasting , and that is contrary to scripture in this: when we see Him, we shall be like Him. Just my take.
I agree with the next reply, and I don't hold my opinion to be worth a whole lot. I am a student, not a master.
And lastly, oops!
I can see where my reply sounded stupid (as I'm sure it did).
Let me try to redeem myself on that. Our conversation was about the resurrection of the dead (general resurrection) as in the context of the primary discussion, the resurrection of men and why rapture believers see 1 Cor. 15:50-54 as a distinctly new teaching concerning resurrection. This discussion I do not see as crucial to faith.
The resurrection of Christ, is crucial. And Paul affirms this.
But I have always been taught that in this passage, Paul is addressing those who feared that their loved ones would not be resurrected because of their death. This teaching is traditional, and somewhat non-essential to the passage itself.
But: (and this is where I fear we may be in disagreement, but I'll throw it out there anyway)
Concerning the general resurrection, which we both know was believed by the larger part of Jews, I hold to the belief that this was a foundational belief of Judaism, as was repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms (washings), the laying on of hands (in association with sacrifice) and eternal judgement.
Again, foundational principles of Judaism, which the writer of Hebrews exhorts us to leave: not forsaking nor despising, but going from them as a starting point, and on to perfection in Christ, for He fulfilled the Law.
We still have faith in God, but exercised in the person of the Son, specifically. We have a baptism, but it is the cleansing of the washing of the water of the Word (specifically the Gospel) and association with God by being placed by the Spirit (and His work of the new birth) in His Son.
I see Hebrews as clear that the Law could not make perfect (bring faith to completion) and was a picture prophecy of the work of Christ (shadow, c.f. 10:1-4) and His sacrifice for sin.
I hope that clarifies my position, David Ben Yosef.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 21, 2010 23:37:52 GMT -8
Wow, I can see you have been Christianized by your use of terms like "incarnation" and "deity." These are foreign terms to Messianic Judaism. At least, as far as I'm concerned. It would take me a month of Sunday's to touch upon everything you posted. I'm afraid you and I are just too far separated doctrinally to converse with mutual understanding.
To be perfectly honest with you, discussing such things as the so-called 'rapture' is not at all why I joined this forum.
However, if your patient with me, I'll respond to your last post as best I can, and as soon as I can (I'm currently immersed in Rabbinic writings).
|
|
|
|
Post by darrell on Jan 22, 2010 14:22:15 GMT -8
Hi David Ben Yosef,
I appreciate the reply, and you'll have to forgive me for these terms...they are just the terms used in my circle.
I would say that differing terms would not have to be a reason we could not discuss our doctrinal differences, but I will leave it at that. I also did not join this forum to play scripture pong, but to gain access to the viewpoint of the modern Hebrew mind...one such as yours.
I differ from a lot of mainstream Christian "ideas", and do not consider myself a partaker of "churchianity". You might be surprised at the number of folks who have been "christianized" who actually have a sincere desire to follow God according to His will.
As to a response to the previous post, I am not looking to justify my position on this topic, so it isn't important to debate it. My concerns lie more with salvation, but, as I said, I didn't come here to try to proselytize (Which I do on other Christian forums), but to talk to Jews, and see why they believe what they believe.
So, when we do talk about doctrine (and I hope to), it will not be antagonistic, but rather, a sharing of notes, if you will.
I respect your beliefs and traditions, and would count it counter-productive to my reason for visiting here for it to break down into squabbling.
So, David Ben Judah, if you are of a mind, lets converse.
Bod bless.
|
|
, and if you hate the 
(hence the weeping and gnashing of teeth). This is why Adam Rishon having lost his glorified state through sin was "ashamed" to be seen by the L-rd. He was ashamed to be in a mere flesh body [naked], rather than being clothed with righteousness in a glorified body.
