part 2 reply to Walter Copes

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> CF> either this coming (and you must understand the word coming) did
> CF> not take place within the first century or it was not meant to
> CF> happen for thousands of years.  One or the other is true but not
> CF> both.
>
>     Simple observation tells us that this coming did not occur during
>the first century nor has it occurred to this day. It is still future.
>
Let me give you an example of the correct rendering of the word *coming*. In
Matthew 24:1-3 Jesus tells the disciples that the temple will be 'thrown
down'. They query Him by asking first, when, and secondly, by what sign will
they determine the arrival of this prediction, and thirdly of the end of the
aeon, *not* kosmos nor oikoumene.  The capstone of the answer given to
*when* will this destruction of the temple wherein one stone will not be
upon another is found in verse 34...This generation shall not pass until all
these things be fulfilled.  

To borrow your words, 'Simple observation tells us that this coming'
occurred in 70 AD to the letter of the prediction, i.e. not one stone (the
historians record and the  archeological record agree) was left upon
another.  I believe the precision of the event is to obvious to discard.
Yet this is what you are determined to undermine.  

If I understand your theory correctly, you will answer the above by having
the scriptures predict a double fulfillment.  I would simply ask you, The
Birth of Jesus Christ as predicted in the scriptures, Where is the double
fulfillment of those predictions?  I believe that the scriptures mean one
thing or they mean another, but not multiple things.  If you make the
scriptures mean more than one thing, than you have nonsense.    

> > The multitude of signs given to Israel to stir them to expectancy
> > present a problem for the church which should be looking for Christ
> > and not at the signs to be fulfilled. The fact that no signs are
> > given to the church, but she, rather, is commanded to watch for
> > Christ, precludes her participation in the seventieth week.
>
In Matthew, the signs are given to the disciples and they in turn address
the churches.  Where, pray tell, are the predictions written to racial
Israel?  Did they not reject Jesus Christ as Messiah?  Why would the
Disciples send warning and give signs to racial Israel and not address the
church with those signs?  Please help me to understand this concept you have
about Israel being given signs to stir them to expectancy?  Jesus said no
sign will be given but that of Jonah!

>     There are a number of such scriptural gaps. If we refuse to
>notice these so-called "gaps," we cannot possibly understand the
>Scriptures which we read. Below are a few examples. The gap is indi-
>cated by a (--).
>
>     Psalms 118:22 The stone [which] the builders refused (--) is
>become the head [stone] of the corner.

You do not believe that Jesus *is* (at this moment) the chief cornerstone
and that in the plan of God it was always thus?

Ephesians 2:20  And *are* (present tense) built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 
>
>     Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
>(--) and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall
>be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting
>Father, The Prince of Peace. (Compare Luke 1, 31, 32.)
>
I am beginning to see that you are so set on making a difference between the
Jew and the Gentile that you add gaps at random.  You certainly have a
reason but it makes for lousy exegesis.  IMHO racial Israel's acceptance or
rejection does not make one bit of difference to the rightful position of
the son. 'His name shall be called' has nothing to do with when the
Israelites decide to call him Wonder Worker, Mediator, Omnipotent, Eternal,
Ruler of the kingdom of peace.  This is a statement of His ministry and
position. A statement of fact.   If you put a gap here it is only to
propagate a notion.  This scripture is giving us the position that Jesus
rightfully holds **not** some gap theory concerning time. 

>     Isaiah 53:10, 11  Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath
>put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
>(--) he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the
>pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the
>travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied.
>
No comment needed here I would just be repetitious.
>
>       Zechariah 9:9, 10  Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O
>daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is]
>just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a
>colt the foal of an ass. (--) And I will cut off the chariot from
>Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut
>off: and he shall speak peace unto the heathen: and his dominion
>[shall be] from sea [even] to sea, and from the river [even] to the
>ends of the earth.
>
You made me dig a little here :-).  The focus indeed changes from the Savior
to Israel.  Both promises of the King cometh riding upon a colt of an ass
and the cutting of of the battle against Ephraim and Jerusalem are to
Israel.  There is but one Israel and all the promises belong to her.  How do
you explain all the many promises made by God to Israel yet the apostles
recording them as belonging to the Church.  There are a plethora of them but
here are a few examples.

Lev 26:3-12 along with Ezekiel 37:21-28 compared with 2Corinthians 6:14-16.

The prophecy of Lev. and Eze. both promise a time when Israel will obey God.
God will in return bless Israel by making them his people.  He would place a
literal temple inside the territory of Israel and live there.

Yet when Paul writing to the Gentile Corinthian Christians in Greece, quotes
these scriptures, He applies them to the Church.  How can this be if there
is a double Israel? God fulfilled these promises, but not in a racial,
geographical, material-building way as you seem to want.

Duet. 30:1-14 compared with Romans 10:6-10

Either Paul is guilty of distorting the scriptures or He regards the
Christians to be the True Israel of God.

Deut. 31:1-6 compared with Hebrews 13:5-6

This is to show there is no Eternal Security only Eternal Salvation.  If you
interpret 'he will not fail thee nor forsake thee'  to mean that Israel has
Eternal Security, then you might revisit John the Baptist's warning...Think
not to say within yourselves we have Abraham to our Father....' and Deut
31:16-17. 

As long as we obey God he will not forsake us and we can be assured that God
is always with us.

Duet. 32:36-38 and Psalms 135:8-14 compared with Hebrews 10:28-31

How do you reconcile these comparisons?  the promises are to Israel while
the applications are to the church!

>     Luke 1:31, 32 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
>bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. (--) He shall be
>great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God
>shall give unto him the throne of his father David.
>
Come now let us reason together.  Just when is either statement of this
prediction not true?  When in your timeline does one not apply.  This is a
prediction of His position not a timeline! 

>     I must apologize if I come across as a little testy. For the past
>couple of months I have been in a rather heated discussion with an
>amillenialist. 

I don't think you testy!  The Bottom line is the Bottom line...let's win
them to Christ both Jew and Greek, Male and Female, Bond or Free!
>
> > I think the bottom line is that the church should keep her eyes on
> > Jesus, be aware to the signs of the times, but NEVER take here eyes
> > of Jesus!!
>
> CF> The Bottom line is right on!  My conclusion exactly!  We arrive
> CF> by different methods and retain different paradigms.  I just be-
> CF> lieve mine is the scriptural one that sets me free to do the will
> CF> of God!  God bless you!
>
>     AMEN!!!



He who sows is nothing but a sowing sower.